Unfortunately [or fortunately for the planet], it is that simple. I cannot disclose the source that backs up my assertion at his stage. However, you will soon find out that Paltridge’s work has been confirmed by independent observational evidence.

As I said in my previous post, I believe that we need to wait till this picture clears before drawing any profound conclusions.

Well, as far as I am concerned,if a CMIP scatter plot is produced that shows a significant discrepancy with the data there would be no need to wait until the exact AMIP CMIP relationship is established in order to discredit all models.

As far as Rob (15:07:50) : concerns about feedback factors, they are valid for climatology purposes, but beside the point, if for these scatter plots data and models disagree strongly, IMO..

Well you may be right, and this conclusion certainly seems to be supported by the observation (made by Covey et al in the paper that Bart references) that “replacing the observed SSTs and sea ice amounts in the AMIP simulation with the [calculated values from the] interactive sub-models used in the CMIP simulations tends to degrade the level of agreement with climate observations”. (My clarifying addition in square brackets.) This seems to bear out that the AMIP models with observed SST and sea-ice data used as input boundary conditions are used as benchmarks for the coupled GCMs, and not the other way around.

However, there is a paradox appearing here. Dr Spencer states in his post:
“As mentioned above, the corresponding climate model computations they [Lindzen et al] made had the opposite sign [relative to the observed outgoing flux and SST data], but as I have pointed out, the CMIP models do not, and the real climate system cannot have a net negative feedback parameter and still be stable.” (Again, my clarifying additions in square brackets.)
So the apparent paradox is that, on the one hand, the coupled GCMs, according to Dr Spencer, show a positive gradient of delta flux against delta SST, which he notes is essential for stability of the system, while, on the other hand, the atmospheric models which are embedded in the coupled GCMs and which are the platforms for the radiative flux calculations in those coupled GCMs show, according to Dr Lindzen, a negative gradient.

I admire both Spencer and Lindzen for their courage and integrity, and restate my hope that they can enlighten us all with some further communication on the apparent discrepancies in their findings. In the meantime, I would still recommend being cautious for the moment about drawing too bold a conclusion from Dr Lindzen’s work, until he has had an opportunity to respond to the challenge.

Let me try this one last time, since the issue is much more disturbing than anyone above describes here.

This issue is that Lindzen found feedback factor close 0 from his data analysis, but then turned this into feedback factor -1 by inserting it in a his formulas. In doing so he ignores the zero-feedback radiation, or in other words he violates Stefan Boltzmann law.

It’s that simple, and it’s that bad.

For those interested, Motl’s blog gives a reasonable explanation of the problem :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html

I pointed out this mistake to him in an email and asked him for an explanation. He pointed me to a newer publication where he does not make the same mistake, but still insists that zero-feedback radation does not apply for the tropics, and that “details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper”.

I think that Dr. Spencer did not want to be associated with such violation of scientific ethics and I admire his courage to present his own analysis, where he only points out that he could not reproduce Lindzen’s claim of negative feedback.

Now, I think I have said enough now, so I’ll leave you guys with whatever opinion you may have about Lindzen and Choi 2009 or about me as a whisleblower. But as far as I’m concerned, Lindzen has lost his last credibility.

Thanks

Rob

here is the response I got when I wrote showing contrary data

” (Name removed), You obviously know much more than me on this, but my impression is that only a few companies and a few scientists still believe that GHGs are not having a discernible effect on climate. The ppm level may be low, but everything I read suggests that weather patterns can be perturbed relatively easilty. A doubling or so of CO2 plus other gases, while small on a ppm scale, seems to be one of those “small” changes that can cause large shifts. But I’m a strict amateur on this with no pretensions to expertise. But I do report what the scientific community seems to believe, and it sure seems firmly on the side of gases causing increasing climate perturbances.”

What in the world happened to healthy skepticism (oops I mean denialism)?

I am heartened that Lidzen has had the same response from MIT admin
APE

I have seen dr Spencer’s concerns, but to me they are tangential to the crux of the argument from the delta(radiationflow) versus delta(SST) plots.

It may be true that feedback comes out differently using different data variables, and of course it should be cleared up for climatology reasons.

The discrepancy with the model outputs using the same variables though, is what deconstructs the use of the models for predicting further climate effects, imo, and is what is important.

Now in the parallel thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/
quote from Bart (19:57:04) :

Re AMIP vs. CMIP: AMIP is not part of CMIP, but it is used to validate it.
……..

……..
The CMIP typically diverges from AMIP. To bring them in line, researchers use fudge factors. Or, they find a CMIP which agrees with AMIP. Therefore, the veracity of AMIP is fundamental.

I cannot evaluate whether the CMIP ( seems these are protocols) really depends on the AMIP protocol, but if it does, as this comment says, then it is a waste of time to require the same delta(radiation flux) versus delta(SST) scatter plots from CMIP protocol model runs, though it would be good to see them in Lindzen’s analysis.

I’ve also just watched Gore on Jon Stewart’s show. No wonder he (Gore) doesn’t debate – he’d probably be worse than Gavin Schmidt. And that is saying something.

In my opinion, there is no “problem”. Dr. Spencer used a different way of averaging the ERBE data, and a different set of temperature anomalies (UAH instead of SST), and, consequently, got a different result for (delta F/delta T). Dr. Lindzen has repeated his analysis including the better CERES data, and verified his previous results. http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf Of course, the two will have to discuss their respective findings to resolve any discrepancy.

I am sure that Dr. Lindzen is fully aware of the fact that the AMIP models which he used for comparison are utter nonsense – not even conserving energy – and it would have been better to use “state of the art” coupled ocean-atmosphere models instead. However, this has no bearing on the (measured) ERBE/CERES results, which stand by themselves. The deduced negative feedback does not depend on any comparison with models.