On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about
the IPCC reports
and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. From
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model> used to predict future climate change.
Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling
of the climate system's water vapor feedback
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback>. The feedback due to water vapor is
a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide>. Lindzen said that the water vapor
feedback could act to nullify future warming.^
Except all the theory and data says that water vapor is a positive feedback - which is why
his theory is sharply criticized. It's just speculative, "They might be wrong" stuff.
"Dessler's paper (Science, Vol. 330.,
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf) focused on quantifying the cloud
feedback. Using the ENSO to study changing cloud patterns during climatic variability, he
found that the feedback is likely positive, consistent with the feedback that climate
Lindzen is not a climate scientist, although he's a professor of meteorology. He's
notorious for making misleading insinuations about global warming, e.g.
"This is sufficient to conclude that Lindzen did indeed make the mistake of confusing
his temperature indices, though a more accurate replication would need some playing around
since the exact data that Lindzen used is obscure.
Thus, instead of correctly attributing the difference to the different methods and
source data, he has jumped to the conclusion that GISS is manipulating the data
inappropriately. At the very minimum, this is extremely careless, and given the gravity of
the insinuation, seriously irresponsible. There are indeed issues with producing climate
data records going back in time, but nothing here is remotely relevant to the actual issues.
Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons
for how seriously one should take Lindzen's comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen's
corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.