2011-05-08 02:16:10Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

As requested by neal and Rob P, I put together a quick post on Lindzen's 1989 water vapor comments.

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

2011-05-08 02:58:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.39.140

You quote Lindzen as saying:

"With CO2 one is talking about three watts per square meter at most, compared to a hundred or more watts per square meter for water."

and you correct him by saying:

"the ratio is closer to a factor of 4.  On this issue, Lindzen was off by an order of magnitude."

I suggest it would be more effective if you would quote back the correct numbers; and then possibly after that, the improved ratios. I think it makes the contradiction more blatant.

Likewise, when you say "accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing", I suggest adding emphasis on the "non-condensing" so that it is slightly clearer what the critical factor is. Of course, you explained it above; but the additional emphasis may help the reader focus on why Lindzen missed the boat on this.

 


 


2011-05-08 05:36:22thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Thanks neal.  I'm not sure I fully understand your first comment, but here's the edited Schmidt et al section.  Let me know if it's what you had in mind.

====================================================================

Schmidt et al. (2010)

This issue was addressed by two recent papers from NASA GISS, Lacis et al. (2010) and Schmidt et al. (2010).  Schmidt et al. examined the contributions of various GHGs to the Earth's greenhouse effect.  Schmidt et al. concluded as follows:

"we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%."

This is a stark contrast to Lindzen's 1989 claims:

"With CO2 one is talking about three watts per square meter at most, compared to a hundred or more watts per square meter for water."

Lindzen claimed that water vapor and clouds contribute at least 30 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, but as Schmidt et el. show, the ratio is closer to a factor of 4.  On this issue, Lindzen was off by an order of magnitude.

===============================================================

I also emphasized the water condensation aspect in the Lacis section, as you suggested.

2011-05-08 06:00:52
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.143

In the last paragraph of section Lacis et al. you write "which act to amplify the CO2-caused warming". Maybe it's better if you drop "CO2-caused", just to avoid some idiotic comment :)

2011-05-08 06:14:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.39.140

dana,

Quote the correct numbers in watts/m^2: Don't force the reader to process the numbers to appreciate the extent of error. They just won't do it.

2011-05-08 06:21:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Eh we're never going to avoid idiotic comments, Riccardo :-)  The warming is (mainly) CO2-caused, which is really the point, so I'd prefer to leave it.

2011-05-08 06:31:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

neal - gotcha, good point.  I'll add in the fluxes.

2011-05-08 08:51:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.105.73

Dana, it's this comment " Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.", made by Lindzen here, that I was referring to. The same meme, but more easily digested by a lay audience.

2011-05-08 16:13:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.30.92

Thumbs up!.

2011-05-09 06:04:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Dang that's a good (by which I mean really bad) Lindzen article you found there, Rob.  I'll add that quote, thanks.