I'm going to have to re-read this again, but I like his closing reminds me that Some folks only see the glass as half empty, and not that is also half full (especially politicians):

"Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no."

Actually Lindzen is using an outdated data set which has been revised since then (ERBS Edition 3 is not necessarily new). Newer analysis takes away his conclusion

See
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

Brett,Thank you for giving A.Watts some props.I've posted aticles a few times on here from his site and got lambasted by a few alarmists about Anthonys credibility and knowledge of climate science.His site is very informative if one wishes to obtain the truth about GW.Are you ready to get reamed now?,lol

As I have said before, understanding the self-regulating components of climate, is the key to everything.

The AGW hypothesis has too much political momentum, to be overcome by science. People have staked their careers on AGW. Political agendas have been firmly nailed to AGW.

Model overturning, will be a slight setback, after proper damage control, and minion activation, the public will be ready for more disaster predictions. GK

Nope. Takes around the usually stated value of equilibrium climate sensitivity to turn the wimpy orbital forcing into the full LGM to Holocene transition in global temperatures of around 5--6 K.

Lintzen fails to understand that the shorter the time scale used, the smaller the climate sensitivity; not equilibrium sensitivity which takes millennia, not mere decades.

Why has Dr. Lindzen chosen to base his pamphlet on unrevised papers? Surely he would be aware of the updated work, and the reasons for those revisions.

Very interesting article from Dr. Lindzen...., just don't tell the folks who are trying to use the man-made climate change hoax about any of these scientific facts that show how humans would have a difficult time influencing climate change.

Dr. Lindzen has the ability to explain complicated subjects in an understandable manner. Maybe the President should sit down with him and hear a little more of the story. He also makes sense in showing how the mathematical models on which future warming are based are flawed. He actually understands these models unlike most of us.

Excellent Post!
Dr. Spencer has a similar paper being readied for publication.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

If this survives critique by Kipp who clearly outweighs Lindzen in Sci Creds it may spell the begining of the return to sanity.

Recall the recent study illistrating that Global CO2 levels have precious little to do with human activity and we have hat trick.

I still maintain that CO2 at 1000 to 1500 ppm would be decidedly advantageous.

Kipp? Steve? Tom? Show us the errors here.

Kipp Alpert:Brett:It does seem that your going for big numbers.Steve Bloom is right!
Climate skeptics love citing MIT prof Richard Lindzen, probably because, well, there aren't many other semi-legitimate skeptics left to cite.
But lately, it seems like Lindzen is more and more openly losing his cool. A quick survey of today's news, for instance, unearths two deeply wackadoo quotes.
First, Lindzen tells the BBC that Exxon-Mobil is "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."
OK, put aside for a moment the question of what "principle" mandates the rejection of mainstream science. Put aside the question of what it would even mean to be a "principled oil and gas company." Put aside the fact that the company now claims to accept that anthropogenic global warming is a danger that needs to be addressed, and thus has abandoned whatever "principle" was standing in its way.
Second, there's this gem from a Lindzen interview in our national rag, National Post:U.K.
Q ... On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
Lintzen said!
A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.
Yes, asking middle schoolers about global warming is exactly like training a nation's youth to exterminate Jews! Why, the parallel couldn't be more clear!My father is Jewish Brett, so I don't like your flat Earth Junk science. KIPP

Interesting. We have the same problem in economics. A positive feedback occurs when a rise in the price of a house (or a share of stock or a barrel of oil) causes a perverse increase in demand (everyone thinks prices are on a rising trend so they buy more) so the price rises geometrically. But such trends usually end in a crash since once something tips it over, say a rise in interest rates, the positive feedback works in the opposite direction--people think prices are falling so they sell. This creates a cyclical phenomena we see so often in nature. Somehow I expect, but can't prove, the same will happen with global warming.

Brett:This is your least professional post Ever.
AccuWeather has finally reached it�s bottom.Here is a quote from a Dr.Richard Lindzen:
�Isn�t this amazing, as the temperature goes up, negative feedback goes up. As the temperature goes down, the feedback starts going positive�.
Ask yourself when it gets colder,the more water vapour there is.Crazy talk.
Has anyone heard of this guy. A feedback mechanism is an effect of a positive Forcing. It creates a feedback loop.Like as there is warming, Ice melts in the arctic,less reflectivity. More absorption,water warms. This guy has to be some kind of nut.I can�t believe that AccuWeather would post this baloney.This positive feedback has started in the Arctic,and when it is gone,that won't be from a negative anything.KIPP

The comment posted by Kipp on March 31, 2009 at 9:59 is an unattributed copy/paste of a piece done by David Roberts (use the following url to see for yourself: http colon slash slash www dot huffingtonpost dot com slash david-roberts slash richard-lindzen-exxon-is_b_47082 dot html).

I wish that all of us -- regardless of our stance -- would stop plagiarizing material when we post here. If you're going to quote somebody, then attribute the quote.

Kipp? Steve? Tom? Show us the errors here.
chris colose does so, rather compellingly, in the blog he cites in his March 31, 2009 5:02 PM comment, above.

The recent comments of Dr. Lindzen are doing a great deal of harm to his reputation.

Alec, :
I'm going to have to re-read this again, but I like his closing reminds me that Some folks only see the glass as half empty, and not that is also half full (especially politicians):

"Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no."

It is my understanding that the current estimate of a 3 deg C climate sensitivity for a doubled CO2 comes from observation of how the climate reacted to known radiative forcings in the past rather than from the climate models. I would think if Lindzen wants to declare the climate as having a negative feedback then he (or others) will need to come up with a consistent explanation of why the climate appears to react with a positive feedback. Has that been done in any of these papers?

I perused Mr. chriscolose's website to see what he had to say, and lo and behold!! Where have we seen this before?

In a nutshell, Prof. Lindzen is using outdated data in his analysis. See, we figured out...uh, that uh... that the data that he used was not calibrated correctly. So, we...uh, recalibrated the calibration so that it...uh, the data...uh, was more in line...uh, with what we had...uh, originally...uh, calibrated it to look like. So, Prof. Lindzen is wrong, we are right. Gosh, he's stupid!! Don't you think?

Does anyone on this blog actually read Kipp's rants? Just curious. I tend to skim (I find it very difficult to actually read) about one out of every ten of his posts.

Hi Brett,
I am an avid, 16-year old, weather enthusiast and have recently decided to embark on a 4000 word in-depth essay analysis of PDO and its affect on North American climate. In addition, I would like to examine the extent of PDO's impact on primary industries such as salmon fisheries in California, crop yields in the Plains and Praries...etc
Anyways, I was wondering if you could offer any insight into the climatic implications of a positive and negative pattern in addition to the exaserbation effect enduced by a simulataneous ENSO in the same phase (when both are positive or both are negative). I also was wondering how the monthly PDO index graph values are measured and why the values rise and fall so abruptly from month-to-month. I religiously read your blog and would value your thoughts tremendously.

Sincerely,
David Choo Chong

Kipp,
You seem to have a two-faced pathological impulse to criticise (in print) this site with your alarmist buddies elsewhere, yet you post more here than any other blogger. Don't you see a disconnect there?

Your latest was another post critical of Accuweather yesterday on Colose's site. Good grief, Kipp, you actually forced Colose to momentarily defend Lindzen -- with Colose noting that Lindzen was a pretty bright fellow (implying in the process that you are not).

Please do us all a huge favor -- if you honestly believe that this blog just posts bull---- or you're just saying those things to Colose and other like-minded individuals in order to suck up to the educated alarmists, then take your nonsensical rants elsewhere. And keep them there. Please.

So Kipp:
"Accuweather has finally reached it’s bottom"

Can we assume this means we will be spared your nonsenseicle blather from now on?

This blog has serious negative feedback!

Chris C does have a point. But my guess is that Dr Lindzen does not trust the "corrected data". There are some in the climate field who have a reputation for making post hoc corrections to data, that coincidentally coincide thier theories. It is best to ask Lindzen on the matter.

Brookline Tom: You wrote, "I wish that all of us -- regardless of our stance -- would stop plagiarizing material when we post here. If you're going to quote somebody, then attribute the quote."

Bravo! Bravisimo!!! For once we agree!!!!

"Dr Lindzen does not trust the "corrected data""

It's not that he doesn't trust it. It just doesn't mesh well with his hypothesis. Thus, he ignores it. Lindzen might make a good magician, due to the sleight of hand. Remember, this is someone who used to get a nice $2,500 per day from fossil fuel interests.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

Although he's a rare contrarian with genuine climate science cred, he has highly-contarian tendencies and has a clear agenda.

Here's a good discussion on climate sensitivity and a rebuttal of various claims by Lindzen, appropriately referenced to the scientific literature.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

Bill | March 31, 2009 10:32 PM --- The physics shows that there are no significant negative feedbacks to the climate. More about that can be learned by reading "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

Damn I hate to resort to a typical AGW industry tactic and defer to authority, BUT…
Dr Richard Lindzen’s credentials trumps all of our pro AGW bloggers put together.
I think he probably knows what he is talking about and I am sure his reputation is in no danger.
The only people who do not respect his position are AGW advocates with something to loose from his revelations.

Besides, what he said makes sense.
The CO2 hypothesis does not.

Lindzen is an atmospheric dynamicist who dabbles ineffectively in climate matters. If his ideas on climate sensitivity and feedbacks were correct, the earth wouldn't have cycled in and out of the many ice ages. So, once again - reality takes it's toll.

Thank goodness! Benson finally provides a link to Weart's book, along with, of course, its NYT review. It's been literally days since he's blessed all of us ignoramuses with a link to the holy scripture.

Lindzen is using outdated information!

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdf

Either he was unaware that there was an update or he is purposefully using bad data.

If he is unaware, then he is incompetent.
If he is purposefully using bad data, then he is not honest.

Either way means his credibility is gone.

Will he post a correction or admit his error?

How about Accuweather?

Reply: I would prefer to hear from Lindzen first and see what he has to say about that.

Since Global Warming causes drought/flooding, warmer/colder seas, more/less snow, more/less rain, more/less salty seas, more/less hurricanes - what can we expect from Global Cooling?

MarkB wrote:
"... he has highly-contarian tendencies and has a clear agenda."

Please give us the benefit of your wisdom and enlighten the rest of us as to Dr. Lindzen's true agenda.

Mark B: I read your 14 year old article with interest. So is it your contention that anyone who profits from supporting a particular position related to AGW should not be trusted? Would that apply to Hansen, Gore, and climatologists in general? What about the paid bureaucrats of the IPCC and other international bodies? Greenpeace pays wages for their permanent staff - by your reasoning, I assume therefore that they are tainted.

Then I looked to the website where you pulled this gem from: www.dieoff.org -- Wow - that's one of the most frightening websites I've seen. If you buy into that gibberish, you must be one depressed individual. Virtually everyone is the enemy of mankind, particularly mankind. It's the worst kind of anti-capitalist, Malthusian nonsense imaginable. And it's remarkably outdated - a significant number of the articles predicting our imminent demise (from everything) are from the mid-90s.

Yet another Mark likes to accuse the conservatives of scare tactics. He should take a look at that site and then tell me why rational people shouldn't be scared of purveyors of that insanity.

Look at the corrected ERBE data. The LW corrected curve is adjusted lower in the years after 1991, presumably due to the reduced satellite orbit causing the field of view to not capture the entire globe.

However, the paper also says (and I agree) that the SW data should be equally affected. But, the corrected data for SW does not show the same correction. It is essentially the same as the uncorrected version. This brings the whole correction into question. If Lindzen has question about the corrections, I agree with him.

Damn I hate to resort to a typical AGW industry tactic and defer to authority, BUT ...
Dr Richard Lindzen's credentials trumps all of our pro AGW bloggers put together.
I think he probably knows what he is talking about and I am sure his reputation is in no danger.

Hmm. Gary offers an "argument from authority" -- precisely the tactic that Dr. Lindzen himself so inappropriately laid at the feet of the "alarmist" community. So Gary attempts to buttress a completely bogus argument-from-authority accusation made by Dr. Lindzen with an argument-from-authority argument supporting the same Dr. Lindzen. Ironically enough, Dr. Lindzen was making his absurdly invalid argument-from-authority as an authority -- "it's true because I said so."

Such is apparently the state of the denialist community.

Besides, what he said makes sense.
The CO2 hypothesis does not.

Apparently feeling that he hasn't yet dug himself a deep enough hole, Gary adds an excellent example of the "petitio principii" circular argument -- the CO2 hypothesis is false because the CO2 hypothesis is false.

While I'm sure that Dr. Lindzen's credentials surely top mine, I suggest that neither Dr. Lindzen nor Gary are going to get very far with such fatally flawed "reasoning."

Lindzen's approach is so wonderfully simply it just blows me away. I can't think why people didn't think of it years ago. I also don't see why people don't discuss the simplicity of what he is observing and suggesting.

Why are we spending all our time attempting to measure a hundred interacting features such as the AMO, PDO, CO2, SO2, Cosmic rays effecting clouds, volcanoes erupting, El Ninos replacing La Ninas, and on and on and on, when we can just stand back (watching from a satellite in outer space) and say, "The earth is losing X amount of energy. Is X less or more than the earth is receiving?"

The only way Global Warming can happen is if the earth keeps more energy than it loses. What Lindzen's data is showing is that the OPPOSITE is happening.

(Hello? Hello? Is anyone paying attention? If earth is losing more energy than it is receiving, are we not in for a colder time? This is not good news, unless you like to ski.)

It really should be a simple matter to send up a satellite specifically designed to measure the total energy the earth loses, and it also should be a simple matter to measure the energy the earth receives. Compare the two. Are we gaining heat or losing it?

Of course, this would be bad news for those of us who love to study what happens to the heat when it arrives on Earth, and how it moves about before it exits back out into outer space. I personally think we could do with more study of deep-sea currents and thermohaline circulations. But how could scientists find grants to fund such study, if the entire Global Warming problem is reduced to the simple and elegant formula Lindzen proposes?

Lindzen threatens to ruin all the neat studies going on, by actually solving the problem.

LLindzen fails to correctly communicat regarding feedback: negative feedback is a tendency to a central value; positive feedback is a tendency away from the previous value, not tending to restore it.

David, from your post:

"Bill | March 31, 2009 10:32 PM --- The physics shows that there are no significant negative feed backs to the climate. "

Well I guess that is the question being looked at here. Does the physics really show that? If there is only a positive loop, once a temperature trend were to be established, wouldn't the earth's temperature just endlessly rise or fall, without cyclicality? Yet clearly the earth's temperature shows cyclical behavior.

Even your suggested review (by an historian) says as much: "The puzzle of those cycles remained the prime quarry of Arrhenius and others and has still not been completely solved."

Of course who knows what would be the amplitude of the cycle and perhaps global warming would rise to too high levels even if a negative feedback exists. It just seems very important to look hard to see where negative feedback might exist. Would not the increased existence of clouds, for instance, be a possible negative feedback? Maybe the group here could think of others. i.e. cases where a rise in temperature could create conditions for a future fall in temperature.

Andrew: You wrote, "Lindzen is using outdated information!...Either he was unaware that there was an update or he is purposefully using bad data. If he is unaware, then he is incompetent. If he is purposefully using bad data, then he is not honest. Either way means his credibility is gone. Will he post a correction or admit his error?"

Actually, Andrew, Dr Lindzen acknowledged the Wong et al "Corrections" in his July 2008 presentation at Colgate University: (cut and paste to your browser)
portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGallery/LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf

On page 33, he writes, "Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19, 4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments.”

One should investigate before questioning the good professor's credibility.

BT:
You are right!
I knew it as I wrote it.
I should never have sunk to using an alarmist technique to argue a point.
It has never worked very well for the AGW movement and did not work for me either.

I won't lower myself like that again.
My apologies.

However, the AGW CO2 hypothesis really does not make any sense in light of everything that has come to light in the last two years.

Thank you for setting me streight.

How to go Bob!
and the best part is leaving it until the alarmist have sufficiently lodged their feet well into their mouths.

Well played.

Hey, Caleb:

Do you know why the stratosphere is cooling? Do you know why the tropopause height is increasing? I suggest you look these topics up.

If you want to know how hard it is to do what you suggested, find this paper and read it:

Harries et al, Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature, 2001 Mar 15;410(6826): 355-7.

Bill
Well I guess that is the question being looked at here. Does the physics really show that? If there is only a positive loop, once a temperature trend were to be established, wouldn't the earth's temperature just endlessly rise or fall, without cyclicality?

My apology if this is too simple or not what you are getting at with respect to feedback. Consider an input x and an output y with a feedback A.
y = x + A*y
or
y = x/(1-A)

The positive feedback is only unstable (keeps growing in the linear approximation) if A>=1. A small positive feedback just acts as a multiplier.

Plesae keep all the above AGW'ers on this site. They are really helping the skeptic cause.

Mr. Alt,

You said, "If his ideas on climate sensitivity and feedbacks were correct, the earth wouldn't have cycled in and out of the many ice ages."

I was not aware that greenhouse gases were the cause of the cycling of the ice ages. I thought it had something to do with Milankovitch Cycles. How about elaborating on how greenhouse gases control the ice ages?

Thanks.

The only way Global Warming can happen is if the earth keeps more energy than it loses. What Lindzen's data is showing is that the OPPOSITE is happening.

Uh, Caleb, your first sentence exemplifies your misunderstanding of the "settled science" that we discussed earlier.

The fact that the energy absorbed by the earth is in equilibrium with the solar energy received from the sun is why the earth's mean temperature is warmer than 248.573 degrees K -- about -24.577 degrees C. This is readily derived using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, published by Stefan in 1879 and derived from basic thermodynamics by Boltzman in 1884. The calculation of the black-body temperature of the earth's surface, using the Stefan-Boltzman law, has been done by virtually every high-school physics student for at least forty years.

The fact that the earth is warmer than that is why the "greenhouse effect" must exist -- there is no other explanation for the increased warmth. The atmosphere reflects or re-radiates, backwards towards the earth, a significant fraction of the black-body energy that the earth radiates. This is, again, a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The fact that atmospheric CO2 is an important amplifying feedback in the greenhouse effect was shown by Arrhenius in 1896. He relied on the Stefan-Boltzmann law to formulate his equation.

Where, in Dr. Lindzen's piece, did you get the idea that Dr. Lindzen's data in any way supports your misunderstanding of fundamental science that has been settled for well over a century?

Lindzen writes:

"...and there is reason to question the new adjustments."

Because? Based on how eager contrarians are to promote any material (no matter how poor the quality) that is perceived to question the human influence on global warming, it seems "because I said so" or "because the correction promotes the hoax" will be an acceptable answer to them.

So Lindzen appears to be aware of the corrections to the bad data he was using, but never mentioned them in the recent essay. Then again, the essay is more of a propaganda piece directed towards the general public where it's unlikely to achieve the same level of scrutiny as it would at a university. He neglects to mention it at a university and he gets skewered. He neglects to mention it as part of an essay at the Heartland Institute propaganda event and a blog of like-minded contrarians and it's no big deal.

Also note that the flaws in his argument extend well beyond the data (see the Chris Colose post). It relies on an old hypothesis of his he still clings to, despite the evidence that has contradicted it over the years.

Bill | April 2, 2009 9:32 PM --- Orbital forcing is responsible for the glacial/interglacial cycles of the climate. The climate system simply responds to these.

That the feedbacks are (almost) all positive simply means that the climate responds to a forcing by eventually reaching a new equilibrium state, not that it warms (or cools) forever.

The only (trivial) negative feedback keeps relative humidity globally, on average, constant. This implies precipitation ought to about constant, which it seems globally to be (so far), and also cloudiness ought to be about constant, although this is quite difficult to measure.

On balance, low clouds cool, high clouds warm and medium height clouds balance out.

ABC aerosols produce a haze which tends to cool more than warm. But black carbon, "soot", contributes to rapid ice and snow melt, changing the albedo, so tends to warm. However, all these are largely anthropogenic modifications to total climate forcings.

In summary, the climate is not a homeostat which tends to return to a preferred state when disturbed. People have looked at this question for decades and there is no significant negative feedback to be found.

I agree with Bob T. that "one should investigate before questioning the good professor's credibility."

OK, I investigated and found out that Lindzen has been pushing variations on this same idea for at least twenty years. At first some scientists were willing to entertain it, although then as now Lindzen had no answer for the problem of how the Earth's climate has gone through sharp swings (e.g. the glacial cycles) despite this supposed stabilizing feedback.

But after twenty years of having his work on this thoroughly discredited by dozens of other scientists, Lindzen's fan club seems to be reduced to the likes of Roy Spencer. It's a sad end for a once-respected scientist.

Brett, it's nearly as sad that you promote this sort of garbage on this blog. Try to be a little more respectable.

Reply: Steve, I am not here to "promote stuff", that's not my job.

I agree, VG. Without some of their Carrollian rants, this blog could become deadly dull. Matter of fact, I've suspected for several weeks that one particular stand out AGW shill is, in actuality, an agent provocateur and closet denier who gets his jollies rattling our skeptic cages.

Re: Oakden Wolf | April 3, 2009 12:32 AM

I agree that there is a signal, within the tropopause height measurements, however, much debate has emerged regarding that signal.

The Harris et al, study of 1970, 1997 study was basically 1970 thin, 1997 thick result.

So the tropopause layer reached it's maximum height, during the great El Nino event of 97/98. My understanding is, it has been plunging ever since. (unrelated) I believe the heliosphere, also has been shrinking dramatically due to the quiet Sol.

Please cite your source for a currently (1998-present) deepening tropopause, or are you just referring to what it was doing 10-20 yrs ago? If so, than thanks for wasting hrs of my time, while I looked for the answer. GK

Brett, recall that you said "I *encourage* you to read Lindzen (...)" That's promotion in the most direct possible sense.

Reply: Sorry you misunderstood, what I meant by that comment was that you should read the original post so that you can get a clearer picture of what Lindzen is talking about. Just reading what I posted is probably not enough in this case.

Of course, giving Lindzen's stuff such unwarranted attention would be promotion regardless of the words used.

(Reply: Based on that, then you should also say that I am also a promoter of Gore, Hansen, the NSIDC, NCDC, RSS, UAH, GISS.......and the list goes on.)

Try sticking with sources that are reliable and material that is not known to be discredited.

Steve Bloom;
You have to be one of the most ------ AGW shills out there.
If Brett was to take your advice we would never see posts from Gore, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, or Bloom.
Your adolescent attack on Lindzen is pathetic but your constant attacking of Brett and the Accuweather blog is just rude petulance.
Face it Steve, beside Lindzen your rants are just noise.

Steve Bloom: You wrote, "...Lindzen had no answer for the problem of how the Earth's climate has gone through sharp swings (e.g. the glacial cycles) despite this supposed stabilizing feedback."

Please list your source. Otherwise, it's simply a claim on your part.

Bloom,

Maybe you should take over as blog moderator and turn this into another rc blog. That way you could introduce your own topics and censor those that don't agree with your preconceptual science.

Or, better yet, how about starting your own blog? Then you can be king over your own domain (pun intended).

In the meantime, it would be nice if you would dispense with the whining.

Thanks!

Why didn't Lindzen send a courtesy copy of his analysis to the original study authors before he published his pamphlet? I don't understand why he didn't communicate with the authors who generated the data that he used.

Look at this from the original authors' point of view. They published a paper, received some feedback that allowed them to find a error that substantially changed the data presented. The original authors then felt obligated to publish a corrected paper, which is a very public exposure of a mistake. I applaud their integrity in publicly admitting an error, whereas several posters on this thread view this act with scorn! Lindzen also indirectly criticizes their action, by dismissing their corrected data.

I may not understand everything about the science here, but it seems to me, that Dr. Lindzen is acting very unprofessionally. If I was one of the original authors, and had to take the public trip to the woodshed for the mistaken analysis, I surely wouldn't want to repeat the confusion and controversy again, years later.

So why didn't Lindzen discuss his analysis with them?

@ BrooklineTom :

Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann repeats all too ubiquitous errors ( promulgated in WikiPedia ) . Your expression of 6 figures of precision ( 248.573 k ) for data which has no where near that accuracy is kind of a tip off to a lack of scientific maturity .

In fact the Earth is very near the 1/21 the measured surface temperature of the sun predicted by the SB equations for any uniform gray ball of regardless of albedo .

The correct physics is implemented at my http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm .

Bob T., you ask me to list a source for something I asserted doesn't exist? Please think that through.

I'll repeat myself, Brett:

Try sticking with sources that are reliable and material that is not known to be discredited.

I'll add that all of the denialist stuff wouldn't be so objectionable if you weren't also missing so many key developments in the science.

Dear G. Karst:

Thank you for reading my post and commenting.

The paper I was referring to was Santer et al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes" Science 25 July 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5632, pp. 479 - 483
DOI: 10.1126/science.1084123. The period analyzed was 1979-1999.

More recent papers of interest are Lorenz and DeWeaver, published in JGR; Woo et al. Journal of Climate 22 (2); Pielke and Chase, Science 19 March 2004: Vol. 303. no. 5665, p. 1771
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090986; and Seidel and Gwatt 2006, "Signals of Climate Variability and Change in Radiosonde Data".

If you'll remember, I was addressing Caleb's post. He suggested it would be "wonderfully simple" to "send up a satellite specifically designed to measure the total energy the earth loses, and it also should be a simple matter to measure the energy the earth receives".

Basically, he's wrong. It's NOT a simple matter. Examining tropopause height changes is one way to detect the effects of altered radiative balance due to greenhouse gases.

Bloom,

although then as now Lindzen had no answer for the problem of how the Earth's climate has gone through sharp swings (e.g. the glacial cycles) despite this supposed stabilizing feedback.

You seem to have forgotten the most often cited cause of glacial cycles. In fact, you attempted to ream my XXX a while back in one of your fits of pomposity and elitism (sorry, you don't have fits, you tend to have chronic pomposity and elitism). Now you would have us cretins believe that rising and falling CO2 concentrations are the cause of the glacial cycles. So, which is it? The unwashed masses would really like to know.

The correct physics is implemented at my http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm .

Thanks for the information, Bob.

Please let me know when your "correct" explanation is cited in a peer-reviewed piece.

Steve Bloom:
Bob T., you ask me to list a source for something I asserted doesn't exist?

So.... Clearly its just your biased opinion then.

We can all quite safely ignor your little tantrum.

Your calculations are sitting on my screen, like a big, warty toad. I can see it is a fine toad, but I am not at all sure what to do with it.

It seems the implication is that global, mean, surface temperatures are governed, by the output of the sun, orbital variations, and perturbations of earth's attitude.

That only remaining variables, would be tidal forces (flexing heating) on the earth and nuclear/chemical reactions, which occur within it's depth.

This would seem to allow no room, for secondary quantum, downward re-radiation of IR. Are you saying that GHGs do not behave like GHGs when present in the atmospheric system or that the effect is negligible, providing only a slight time delay in photon escape? I am beginning to confuse myself.

Perhaps, you can shed more light, on the implications of your proposed SB model, as to atmospheric GHGs. I realize, it is not a requirement, from your mathematical statements, to provide such, but I am asking anyway.

Thank-you for the Stefan-Boltzmann exercise, it provokes further consideration. GK

While I'm sure that Mr. Bloom is perfectly able to defend himself, it sometimes helps if a third party reviews the exchange -- if for no other reason than to perhaps divert some of the utterly unwarranted attacks on Mr. Bloom.

Gary wrote:
So.... Clearly its just your biased opinion then.

We can all quite safely ignor your little tantrum.

Gary, I fear you misunderstand Mr. Bloom's original comment.

Mr. Bloom originally wrote:
although then as now Lindzen had no answer for the problem of how the Earth's climate has gone through sharp swings (e.g. the glacial cycles) despite this supposed stabilizing feedback.

The assertion that Mr. Bloom is making is that "the Earth's climate has gone through sharp swings (e.g. the glacial cycles)."

Mr. Bloom is asking why, if Dr. Lindzen's hypothetical negative feedback mechanism exists, that feedback mechanism did not correct and eliminate these glacial cycles.

Mr. Tisdale then wrote:
Please list your source. Otherwise, it's simply a claim on your part.

Mr. Tisdale is surely not asking Mr. Bloom to verify that said glacial cycles did, in fact, occur. Mr. Bloom asserts an error of omission on the part of Dr. Lindzen. Thus, Mr. Tisdale is apparently asking Mr. Bloom to provide a source for that error of omission.

Mr. Bloom then responded:
Bob T., you ask me to list a source for something I asserted doesn't exist? Please think that through.

Mr. Bloom correctly observes that one cannot "list a source" for an error of omission. That is basic logic -- a facility that seems to be increasingly rare among the denialist community.

A more appropriate question, from Mr. Tisdale or anyone else, is to offer a citation showing where Dr. Lindzen does address the claimed omission.

I'm sure that Mr. Bloom is as eager as I am to follow up on and respond to such a citation -- if and when it is ever offered.

Paul, you don't understand how the "iris" is supposed to work. It would operate to damp warming or cooling from any cause.

Yes, Gary, ignorance probably makes the most sense for you. If you were Bob, on the other hand, you could go to Lindzen's publications page and do a search for iris+paleoclimate to see if anything of substance turns up.

Re: BrooklineTom | April 7, 2009 9:13 AM

Don't you think it would have been more useful, to the blog, if you had provided a little peer review, of Bob Armstrong's "thesis". After all he posted, the reference in good faith. It did not deserve, to be dismissed, off hand. I was looking forward to your rebuttal, but was disappointed, in your inability to self-generate critique.

A good scientist, is not afraid to grapple new hypothesis. Blanket dismissal, due to lack of peer review, is the weakest response. Do you not consider yourself as a peer, in any subject??

Re: Oakden Wolf | April 7, 2009 12:14 AM

Your right, I snatched your comment, somewhat out of context. I will need a lot more data and evidence, before I can agree, that the tropopause height changes, provide a net radiative energy balance signal. I do think the signal, should be present within it's variation. Thanks GK

A good scientist, is not afraid to grapple new hypothesis. Blanket dismissal, due to lack of peer review, is the weakest response.

I am not a climatologist. I don't even play one on television.

The purpose of peer review is to provide a service for those who, like me, lack the expertise to adequately analyze and comment on a manuscript in a reasonable timeframe.

Do you not consider yourself as a peer, in any subject??

I am a professional software developer. I have a BS in EE. I have, during my career, accumulated some expertise (much of it in the form of scar tissue) in a range of technical and scientific fields. I am not a credentialed scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be.

If someone wants to offer a treatise on, for example, software development methodology and cost, then I'm happy to review it.

I do have, by virtue of my engineering education, a reasonable understanding of physics, thermodynamics, physical and organic chemistry, and those sorts of things. Enough to understand how black-body radiation works, enough to understand how the greenhouse effect works, and enough to strongly suspect that Mr. Armstrong is -- somewhere in his several pages of equations -- mistaken.

It is not my job to demonstrate that Mr. Armstrong is mistaken or to elucidate his error; it is Mr. Armstrong's burden to demonstrate that his rather extraordinary claim is correct. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal, or even citation by a peer-reviewed paper, would be a significant step forward in that demonstration.

Presentation of the material at a Heritage Foundation sponsored tent-revival denialist circus is not. Self-publication of a monograph, and posting a link to that monograph on a blog that, by explicitly stated intent and design, makes no attempt to differentiate between totally valid and totally bogus material, also is not.

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying -- "Exceptional claims demand exceptional proof."

BT:

Good Point... As Carl Sagan was fond of saying -- "Exceptional claims demand exceptional proof."

So where is the exceptional proof of AGW?
Or even some sloppy half proof.
Or even some convincing evidence.
Or even a convincing explaination.
or fully formed theory.
or sensible argumemt.
or even a good pun.

you got nothin

"Thank goodness! Benson finally provides a link to Weart's book, along with, of course, its NYT review. It's been literally days since he's blessed all of us ignoramuses with a link to the holy scripture."

LOL I couldn't have said it better myself. However, I've decided to promote some OTHER books...here's the books that will provide you with a genuine understanding of the AGW debate:

Blue Planet in Green Shackles (Klaus)

The Chilling Stars (Svensmark/Calder)

Climate Confusion (Spencer)

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (Michaels/Balling Jr.)

The Deniers (Solomon)

Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How the Truth Became Controversial (Mathiesen)

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (Michaels)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Horner)

A Primer on CO2 and Climate – Second Edition (Hayden)

Red Hot Lies (Horner)

The Satanic Gases (Michaels/Balling Jr.)

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (Michaels)

The Skeptical Environmentalist (Lomberg)

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (Singer/Avery)

I'm assigning ALL of these as required reading for Kipp, Steve Bloom, David B. Benson, and Brookline Tom!

David;
"Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Globally now warmer than during MWP; "

With respect; you do NOT know that, you believe that.
There is NO way any of us can say for sure.
However, there is FAR FAR more evidence for a Warmer MWP than for the Mann re-writting of history.

Mr. Bloom,

You said, Paul, you don't understand how the "iris" is supposed to work. It would operate to damp warming or cooling from any cause.

Au contrare, my dear Bloom. It is you who does not understand the Iris Effect. Otherwise, you would not have made the ridiculous assertion that can be seen in your second sentence in the above quote.

The relevant quote in Dr. Lindzen's text is ...any warming that arises from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the natural fluctuations in climate from processes internal to the climate system itself.

You must do more Googling and quickly.

See, Paul, the tendency to resort to that sort of confused dodge is why people like you are called denialists. Your Lindzen quote refers to what he believes will happen with the "iris" in effect under conditions of GHG-induced warming. It says nothing about what he thinks the physical mechanism is or how that would apply to cooling or other causes. You would need to actually read his papers for the details.

Gary | April 7, 2009 10:44 PM --- You must have copied this onto a later thread. I replied there. Here I'll be shorter: you are wrong.

AGW is not Science | April 7, 2009 10:36 PM --- I'll use my time to further my understanding of how the climate actually works, thanks. Physics doesn't give a hoot for politics nor spin.

Ah, yes, bloom, like you know what the Iris Effect is. Your tendency to resort to the elitist dodge is typical of the AGW style of argument. You know, the science is settled, why do we even bother with you argument. Your pseudo-intellectualism fails to impress me.

Try again.