Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And there are citation numbers and the peer reviewers. Did you read the rest of the Wikipedia article on Lindzen?
Climate sensitivity
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[9] Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.[46][47] Lindzen disputed this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[48]
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate system's 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, and all existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris effect, nullifying future warming.[3] This claim was criticized by climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of the effects of the Iris effect and cites empirical cases where large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Niño events, the Ultra-Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and recent trends in global temperature and water vapor levels to show that, as predicted in the generally-accepted view, water vapor increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperatures decrease.[49]
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]
The level of "skepticism" for general climate models expressed around here is NOT reasonable. Climate scientists have been more than forthcoming about their uncertainties regarding clouds. But progress has been made and the latest assessment report covers the topic thoroughly.Did you read the rest of the Wikipedia article on Lindzen?
Wikipedia? Don't you have something more reliable, like Dagosa?
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback.
Does skepticism about computer models sound unreasonable?
The level of "skepticism" for general climate models expressed around here is NOT reasonable. Climate scientists have been more than forthcoming about their uncertainties regarding clouds. But progress has been made and the latest assessment report covers the topic thoroughly.
I think if one takes into consideration that not all inputs and not all processes are fully understood - as scientists have NEVER attempted to hide, NO skepticism is reasonable. The folks on your side of the argument seem to assume that scientists believe the output of their models is the word of god. That is not the case. The folks on your side of the argument have also decided to reject ALL models out of hand, which is absolutely not justified by the facts. I gave up trying to argue the facts as I never found any of "your ilk" willing or capable of listening to reason on the matter. Did you know the definition of "ilk" is completely benign? People have decided that it means something derogatory because of the way it sounds, but it doesn't.What level of skepticism is reasonable?
I think if one takes into consideration that not all inputs and not all processes are fully understood - as scientists have NEVER attempted to hide, NO skepticism is reasonable. The folks on your side of the argument seem to assume that scientists believe the output of their models is the word of god. That is not the case. The folks on your side of the argument have also decided to reject ALL models out of hand, which is absolutely not justified by the facts. I gave up trying to argue the facts as I never found any of "your ilk" willing or capable of listening to reason on the matter. Did you know the definition of "ilk" is completely benign? People have decided that it means something derogatory because of the way it sounds, but it doesn't.
The standard denier opinion of climate models is completely unjustified.I think if one takes into consideration that not all inputs and not all processes are fully understood - as scientists have NEVER attempted to hide, NO skepticism is reasonable.
Sounds like no skepticism is unreasonable.
I am assuming its the output of a model. It is not perfect but, as I've said, it has value.The folks on your side of the argument seem to assume that scientists believe the output of their models is the word of god.
I don't assume scientists believe that. People who say we can't be skeptical seem to assume it is.
a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. "Martin Luther King Jr and his ilk". Jesus and his ilk" "God and its ilk"Did you know the definition of "ilk" is completely benign?
Like birds of a feather. And?
The standard denier opinion of climate models is completely unjustified.
I am assuming its the output of a model. It is not perfect but, as I've said, it has value.
a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. "Martin Luther King Jr and his ilk". Jesus and his ilk" "God and its ilk"
The people building, running, and publishing results from models have been perfectly transparent about their shortcomings.The standard denier opinion of climate models is completely unjustified.
You said that Lindzen was skeptical of computer models and it seemed like you disagreed with his,
or anyone's skepticism. And then you said "that not all inputs and not all processes are fully understood". Was that meant to make skepticism sound less reasonable? Or more reasonable?
a type of people or things similar to those already referred to
Or birds of a feather. Sounds benign to me. And?
The people building, running, and publishing results from models have been perfectly transparent about their shortcomings.
Do you not see my position? It doesn't seem as if you do.The models have shortcomings?
So it's reasonable to be skeptical about them.
Do you not see my position? It doesn't seem as if you do.
So you don't see my position. I've tried. I'm done.Lindzen's position is, he's skeptical of the models.
Have you posted anything that shows he's wrong to be skeptical?
I see that you understand some of their shortcomings.
So you don't see my position. I've tried. I'm done.
The people building, running, and publishing results from models have been perfectly transparent about their shortcomings.
Then why can't you or any denier cultist point to the lies?It’s all right there in black & white for the world to see.
We did, you uneducated buffoonThen why can't you or any denier cultist point to the lies?
TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
Wow. And what is it that all that has to do with global warming or the environment?Leftists ignore everything which runs counter to their handlers' orders.
The result is crooked, incompetent, treasonous Biden as president, surrounded by transgender incompetents,
insane rules and vaccines killing thousands, grooming innocent children in schools across America, out of control
spending, insane gas and food prices, illegals flooding across the southern border.
America is doomed! The Democrat Boiling Pot is killing our once great nation.
It has to do with it's politics driving so called "science."Wow. And what is it that all that has to do with global warming or the environment?
No, they didn't. That's just a story you made up. That's why you can't post those supposed emails, even after I ask for them over and over.The emails showed them discussing how they falsify their data to dupe the low-IQ left such as yourself
