Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming

Someone PLEASE tell me this presentation (and its further dissemination) is going to have SOME kind of positive, logical, real, and measurable impact on the SCIENCE and meteorology community at large!
I’m literally going to make cardstock copies of this, spiral bind them and hand them out like a passionate religious zealot to all my “science is settled” warming friends!
Is there no balm in Gilead? LOL…

Slam dunk for Lindzen! Of course there was a foul due to roughing on the play so AGW will get two free throws…
I am always amazed by those who think the climate has positive feedback and is inherently unstable. It is amazing that the earth exhibits such tenacious stability year after year. BTW sure is cold tonight must be getting close to Halloween.

I read the presentation.
I hope the answer “where to we go from here” is, publish the low sensitivity.
This should be important in convincing honest scientist AGWmers that they are on the wrong track, that the models should be scrapped and rethought from initial assumptions.
Then the east and west coast intelligencia will be left without scientist support for its delusions.

It is very easy to overstate the case on both sides of this argument. No doubt most regular commenters here are of the view that the warmists overstate their case by claiming that things are certain when they are subject to serious rational dispute. Equally, we heretics are too often guilty of certainty in our criticisms of the warmists’ position.
Professor Lindzen is always careful not to overstate his position. I cannot claim to speak for him but my understanding is that he does not dismiss the alarmist case as having no conceivable merit, rather he asserts that the methods used to reach that case have serious flaws and that the factual evidence emerging since the case was made tend to contradict rather than support it.
Scientists who advocate a position are more likely to garner headlines than those who simply put forward a hypothesis for consideration and expose their methodology and supporting data for others to analyse. I know who I would trust more.

Anthony, I hope this is ok with you and Dr. Lindzen if we will post this pdf in our website, the links will be directed in this WUWT link?
REPLY: perfectly fine, Anthony

About the pdf file:
Lindzen ends up showing there is a negative feedback between reflected sunlight and sea surface temperatures. I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback. The variaiton of reflected sunlight is indeed itself inversely related to the amount of power absorbed by the oceans. The more the oeceans absorb sunlight, the less sunlight will be reflected. Then of course oceans are coupled to the rest of the planetary system, i.e. the block diagram shown is not complete. They reemit heat at a longer time scale and at different wavelengths (typically the IRs). So what’s the point exactly? Is he trying to show that oceans will absorb excess sunlight forever without ever releasing it?

When we talk about feedback we need to first establish whether the system we are looking at is at equilibrium and shows linear behaviour, or if it is far from equilibrium and exhibits non-linear non-equilibrium behaviour and pattern formation. It make a very important difference concerning what the effects and significance of negative and positive feedbacks are.
Feedbacks are at the centre of the debates about climate dynamics and so-called “forcings”. A chaotic nonlinear paradigm results in predicted outcomes that are diametrically, 180 degrees, opposed to the predictions of a linear reductionistic-mechanistic paradigm.
What is the difference between the “linear reductionist-mechanistic (LRM) and the chaotic non-linear (CN) paradigms?
Negative feedbacks, in the LRM paradigm, basically oppose any force causing a change with a force reversing the change, so that status quo returns. Anti AGW scientists and commentators like negative feedbacks since they can be expected to oppose AGW.
Positive feedbacks on the other hand, in the LRM paradigm, result in runaway self-reinforcing change, and are thus popular with the AGW proponents. In fact the basis of the AGW position is arguing how a small CO2 forcing can initiate positive feedbacks with the help of water vapour and other factors.
The CN paradigm is quite different. Here, negative feedback is given another name: friction (or sometimes “damping” or “dissipation”). Friction is when a forced change sets in motion processes which act to oppose the change. And in non-linear, non-equilibrium dynamic systems, friction has one major outcome: it stimulates the emergence of pattern formation. A system becomes fruitful with rich emergent patterns within its phase space when it is far from equilibrium and in the bifurcating non-linear regime and friction is present in the system.
The literature is replete with experimental studies substantiating this thoroughly well-established theory. (“friction + pattern + formation + non-linear” in Google scholar just yielded 15500 hits). Examples of such systems include:
The classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction,
Rayleigh-Benaud convection,
Catalysed CO oxidation on a Pt surface,
Coastline formation by sea currents on sand,
The formation of pattern in mammalian trabecular bone,
And many more. So while negative feedback causes a simple return to status quo (whatever that is) in the LMR paradigm, negative feedback or friction causes the emergence of pattern and structure in the CN paradigm.
What about positive feedback?
In teh CN paradigm, positive feedback kills emergent pattern. Feedbacks have to be suppressed in order for rich and complex patterns to emerge. The Pt-catalysed oxidation of CO, studied by Matthias Bertram and others shows this clearly [2]. The system generates rich and complex geometric spatial patterns, but these collapse into a set of uniform sinusoidal oscillations when the gas pressures are adjusted to increase feedback in the system. Another, biomedical study
shows that in the biochemical regulation of bone turnover, inactivation of the gene for OPG which acts against osteoblast-osteoclast coupling (feedback by yet another name) results in a debilitating genetic bone disorder where complex trabecular bone pattern collapses into an abnormal and pathological series of parallel plates [3].
So while in the LRM paradigm positive feedback is what produces unidirectional sustained change, in the CN paradigm, it reduces complex and pattern-rich structure into simple periodic structure. So it actually opposes sustained change.
Oscillations by the way are the norm for a planetary ocean and atmosphere system such as ours which is under continuous periodic forcing from the Milankovitch, solar and other cycles, and which in response – as a dynamically chaotic / non-linear system – generates intrinsic oscillations of its own. The type of feedbacks in the system determine the nature of the oscillations. Negative feedbacks (friction or damping) result in complex pattern with for instance log-log power law scales of magnitude. Positive feedback, by contrast, reduces oscillation to a simple wave.
That’s what I mean about the outcomes of feedback being opposite according to the LGM and CN paradigms respectively. According to the CN paradigm, the AGW camp needs therefore to be arguing for negative, not positive feedback.
If you want to see a nice video of emergent pattern in a non-equilibrium system under periodic forcing, please go to:
http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/research/vibrated_cornstarch.htm
and click on the link for “see a movie”.
Note that by emergent structure in the climate context one can include things like ice ages, El Nino and La Nina ocean current events, Pacific and Atlantic and other oceanic oscillations, the MWP, the LIA, the CWP, and others. Richard Lindzen points out [1] that negative feedbacks are generally underestimated, since systems will try to return to equilibrium via negative feedbacks. Basic thermodynamics dictates that applied forces induce opposing forces.
Thus complexity and rich emergent pattern can be expected as the order of the day.
[1] Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, Geophysical Research Letters, July 14, 2009.
[2] Bertram M et al. Pattern formation on the edge of chaos: Experiments with CO oxidation on a Pt(110) surface under global delayed feedback. Phys. Rev. E 67(3) 036208 (2003)
[3] Salmon PL. Loss of Chaotic Trabecular Structure in OPG-Deficient Juvenile Pagets Disease Patients Indicates a Chaogenic Role for OPG in Nonlinear Pattern Formation of Trabecular Bone. J. Bone Miner. Res., 2004; 19 (5): 695-702.

1. Isn’t it about time that the ‘sensibilities of the educated classes of the East Coast’ were affronted sufficiently regularly for policy makers to be comfortable doing so?
2. Isn’t it about time that scientists applying for Govt grants sign a waiver form that their applications contain no statements which are ‘deliberately misleading, distorting or generally interpret data in a political- rather than a scientific manner’? Roll up, roll up, climatologists…..
3. Will the enlightened policy makers please go study how it was that Al Capone was finally brought to book (I think you’ll find that he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge but was still put away….)?
4. Will the stock market investors stick to real investments like alternative energy (that ugly evil monster ExxonMobil has, horror of horrors, been doing cost-effectiveness research on the use of algae to generate novel power sources…..), solar panel technology or sustainable construction material technology please?
5. And will Joe Public vote for folks who have scientific qualifications a bit more often please??

In the “news story” linked by Gregg E (22:09) there is a quote :
“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
I am stunned into disbelieving silence. Who is this guy ?

O, my bad. SW reflection actually lowers when SST hightens.

I love this part of the presentation:
“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”
—US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922
Looks like the Arctic will be ice free by 1930.

John Barrett (02:52:06) :
In the “news story” linked by Gregg E (22:09) there is a quote :
“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
I am stunned into disbelieving silence. Who is this guy ?
————————————————-
The main source for the chapter on climate change in the new book superfreakanomics.
🙂 glad to help.

Were starting to get some media play here in Australia – interviews with Monckton on the radio, Lindzen mentione din the interview, opinion articles in the mainline press. Have linked all here;
http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/one-faith-to-rule-them-all/

4 billion (03:55:40) :
“The idea of ‘positive feedback’ from the human-produced 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should appear farcical to any reasonably rational person.”
I think sandy was correct 10 ppm man made co2 3% of co2 not 30% 100ppm

peeke: there MIGHT be such a form of feedback, but we actually haave no idea, do we? At least, Lindzen shows no sign of such type of regulation neither does he even mention it.
Sandy: I beg to differ on this one. The effects of a positive feedback can only be observed typiically after some treshlod has been exceeded.

In the general public’s mind this whole thing has degenerated into a playground shoving match: “Yes it is, No it isn’t, ………”
The problem is that such shoving matches tend to evolve into gang fights with guns, knives, etc.
I fully expect to see the argument turn violent in the not too distant future, and not just between individuals, but between and within countries. The politically powerful alarmists (not the man on the street alarmist), as evidenced by their commitment to use climate for political agendas, will not “go quietly into the night”. They are far too invested in their political goals to give up now.
They WILL force the issue.
The only question is the level of commitment to the fight by those who value freedom.
The most committed will win.

For Rob Vermuelen, who wrote:
“I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback.”
Others have answered this question more technically, but let me put it in terms that make sense to me and which I think make the point easily comprehensible.
All of the claims of catastrophic climate damage are dependant on positive feedback happening throughout the climate system. Any part of this which actually operates with negative feedback will act as a damper on the entire system, thus invalidating the “tipping point” hypothesis. It isn’t necessary to prove that all of the feedback is negative; Lindzen simply needs to prove that a significant amount of the feedback is negative and he’s destroyed the alarmist’s case.
A previous poster used friction as an example of negative feedback; think “brakes”. If the system has automatic brakes, then there’s no need to worry about it turning into a runaway train.
Common sense alone would tell us this is the case – if the earth didn’t have significant negative feedback systems which function to always return it to a stable mean, it would have reached any theoretical “tipping point” long ago. On that topic, it does look like the Earth has reached a global cooling “tipping point” several times within the last 4 million years, but never a warming one.

Gregg E. (22:09:04) :
Here’s the latest broadside from the cult of AGW.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20091026%2Fap_on_sc%2Fus_sci_global_cooling
Have at it.
Your wish is my command.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Whether the goose if frozen or fried, it makes no difference, if it is already dead. Problem is, both are still alive.
The thing works both ways. If the skeptical take is wrong, warmist selection is perilous, for it’s the latter that seek global alteration, not the skeptic. That’s the problem. The Earth was warming, and now is cooling, and it’s not precisely known why. This isn’t the 1st time the guess was wrong. It was wrong in the 70’s, and was caught looking then, too.
i.e. – until we know how the climate works, predicting it is fraught with error. There is a catch, however.
Copenhagen need do nothing more than flip a coin and prepare for the coming consequences of a warming or cooling Earth. They have an equally good chance of getting it right or wrong. They will either succeed in saving the Planet (if it is even in danger), or destroying it if it is not. Except for, perhaps, Murphy’s Law, and the frightful price they are willing to exact to force mass redistribution plus endangerment of political and military power balances. The coin at Copenhagen, however has two tails, and the odds of getting it right are now 25%.
Here’s the thing:
The world is little different today than it was 2000 years ago. Given an opportunity, what self-respecting power would not jump at the chance to seize the reins of the world while thier opponents shoot themselves in both feet and blow off both kneecaps In Search of Utopian Fantasy?
This is what tips the balance of outcome at Copenhagen. No matter the ecological outcome, the fall of the West is almost guaranteed, should they suceed in implementing both economic and political change concurrently.
Into the vacuum pours chaos.
20,000 delusionals meet across the sea.
And that is why 2 wrongs don’t make a right. It’s wrong to gamble at massive alteration of whole civilizations, and it’s wrong to do it blindfolded.
History teaches us that adaptation is the best thing humans have going for them. I see no reason to abandon it in favor of outright hysteria.

What a Faustian bargain Susan Hockfield, President of MIT, has made. In the past I have watched her get up on stage with Immelt, Head of GE, and discuss clean energy. Now she has chosen to completely ignore her own eminent MIT climate expert and instead to tell outright lies ostensibly in order to share the stage with the President of the United States.
Science has become completely subservient to political will and the greedy corrupt business of seeking grants and power.
A very very sad day for MIT. I feel so sorry for Susan, who at some point made the Faustian Bargain to agree to tell lies (ignoring established Science and Fact) in order to seek power for herself and no doubts with a noble cause in mind: more funding for MIT.
I am so very very glad I went to an eminent Canadian University to study Engineering Physics (including atmospheric physics) and did not go to MIT. This supression of science and fact in order to achieve political agendas and generate funding is very simply, white collar corruption.

Beyond serving various political agendas, AGW feeds the neuroses of our elites–mostly of the left persuasion. Reason and evidence will never squash it. It is simply too useful.

I am pleased to see that Lindzen is adding the CERES data to his analysis. I have been wondering how the newer data would fit in.

wws: the problem is that it is well known in dynamical theory that negative feedbacks, when coupled to positive feedbacks, can lead to instabilities as well. The result is then typically multistability. Moreover, the results shwon show no indication about the ammplitude of this “negative” feedback so there’s really no proof whatsoever that it will settle every instability.

When the Lemmings are running there’s no stopping them. Best to stand on a rock, out of their way, and watch –if you can– until only you and the timid remain. We are wrong if we think we are smarter than Lemmings. Stupidity is a genetic trait, a dominant trait.

Ed Scott (07:38:36) :
The imposition of Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill.
——————————–
There was a particularly ridiculous article in the Washington Post on this, describing how Kerry, who is a bigger scientific simpleton than Al Gore (and that takes some doing), destroyed Inhofe with his science.
I posted a zinger of a response, relating to the Briffa and Steig papers and even sent a link on the pine beetle situation, to pass on to Kerry:
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m10d22-Pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-of-manmade-climate-change-destruction
Most of the comments are from climate realists, and the opposing responses seem to mostly be comprised of individuals arguing that skeptics are Republicans.
My comments were censored, although they were up for a while. That’s the first time I’ve ever been censored in my life (other than when Charles the moderator busted me for bad language on here !!).

isotopious (04:28:59) :
What’s more scary?
1) Global warming
or
2) You are a monkey and you live on a planet.
or
3) You are a monkey and you live on a planet with other monkeys
None.
1. Has no time scale and so has no conclusion.
2. Is wrong, we are Primates.
3. Is premised with an error, so the statement is a grammatical nonsense.

Pascvaks
– As demonstrated by your post.

Pressed Rat (08:48:32) :
Pascvaks
– As demonstrated by your post.
_________________________
So true!

” Rob Vermeulen (08:03:16) :
the problem is that it is well known in dynamical theory that negative feedbacks, when coupled to positive feedbacks, can lead to instabilities as well.”
Point to the positive feedback. The one that is certainly present is quite small and well bounded.
The shortform simplification of AGW is:
1) An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a quite small direct net retention in heat. This warming – in itself – isn’t directly relevant. (We can calculate the direct greenhouse effects directly, and even an overwhelming amount of carbon dioxide isn’t exciting directly. But…
2) The fact that the atmosphere is slightly warmer means there is more water vapor due to equilibrium with the oceans.
3) More water vapor means more clouds.
4) Clouds act as a strong radiation blanket causing more warming.
5) Return to #2 – with amplification. Strong amplification.
Looking at the well understood #1, there is a hefty chunk of unexplained warming remaining. There’s only one other spot to assign the apparent warming to in this model. So when you -fit- this model, you calculate a strong positive feedback from cloud cover.
What Lindzen is saying is: When one actually puts satellites up and observe step four directly, as opposed to via models – one finds that step four should read “4) Clouds insulate the ground from the incoming radiation better than they retain the existing heat. Thus they cause a net cooling.”
More CO2 -> More heat -> More Clouds -> More cooling isn’t a runaway feedback loop. Well, unless the first step is wrong. But we have the physical chemistry for that step pretty well nailed down. The entire reason we were looking for a positive feedback loop in the first place was that the quite solid science of the “More CO2 -> More Heat” steps was dramatically failing to answer why, precisely, we were getting more heating than that.
This fundamental parameter “How much warming does an increase in cloud cover cause?” is one of the inputs in the circulation models.

Lindzen’s climate sensitivity of 0.5 C per doubling CO2 is extremely low when compared to the consensus of 2 to 4.5 C per doubling by most experts. I wish his value were true but it is an outlier.
Here are two good links that discuss forcings and feedbacks:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Bony_etal.html

“In other words, had the earth just been a lump of rock at this distance from the sun, its average temperature would be about 40F. Does anyone have a link to the source of this info? (Of course, it would have to be peer reviewed…)”
The Moon is a lump of rock without an atmosphere at 1 AU from the sun.

I found this paragraph a classic:
“However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt.”

Jeremy (07:01:27) :
I am so very very glad I went to an eminent Canadian University to study Engineering Physics (including atmospheric physics) and did not go to MIT. This supression of science and fact in order to achieve political agendas and generate funding is very simply, white collar corruption.
The AGW exercise teaches us something about models. Specifically that models of complex systems fail with regularity. And because models (aka sims) are created by people they are subject to bias. In this case a heavy political bias against western interests. This gives substance to the idea that the behavior of august institutes and governments are little more than components of a flawed model itself.
The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.

Sandy (02:57:28) : I initially made the mistake that the climate modelers were asserting overall positive feedback as well, and concluded that this was impossible, as you do, because it would already have created a runaway effect.
However, that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is that there are positive feedbacks in an overall negative feedback system, which increases the gain at low frequencies, hence the sensitivity to forcings.
Take the simple system H(s) = 1/(s – eps), where s is the Laplace variable and eps is a positive constant. Stabilize it with a negative feedback K > eps. The closed loop is now Hcl(s) = K/(s + K-eps). The dc gain is K/(K-eps) > 1. As eps increases, the dc gain is amplified.
Rob Vermeulen (00:31:19): I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback.
Overall positive feedback is disproved by the stability of the climate to date. The question is whether internal positive feedback is causing amplification of the sensitivity to CO2 forcing. Lindzen is saying that, no, the internal feedback which is modeled as a critical amplifier in all the models is, in fact, negative. In the example I gave Sandy above, the dc closed loop gain is K/(K+eps) < 1 rather than what you get with positive feedback. The AGW hypothesis relies on amplification by this particular mode to assert increased sensitivity to CO2 forcing. If Lindzen is right, then the AGW prognostication based on the models is wrong, or at least, erroneously concluded.

HI Chris:
Since you apparently believe in the 3C with feedbacks it should be easy for you to take a bet on whether or not the next decades avg temp will increase .2C. Looking at the IPCC numbers .2 would be somewhere near 1 SD south of the expected pace or an event that should happen about 1/6 th of the time. This would mean that someone who really believed in the IPCC model projections should be very very happy to bet even money on something they believe should happen 84% of the time.
So If you or anyone else that you know in the AGW community would like to place a substantial wager on either of the satellite data sets or even better, the implied OHC numbers generated by the ARGO network I would be more than happy to take the other side. (Sorry no GISSTEMP or HADCRUT silliness).
Thanks
david

@ NK (12:40:55) :
I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.
I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):
Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.

MartinGAtkins,
If you are not scared by the fact that you live on a planet, then most certainly
you take temperature for granted.
Only a fool would do that.

I think Professor Lindzen is being rather subtle when he uses the title “Deconstructing global warming”.
IMHO a more descriptive title would be “Demolishing AGW”.

Scott A. Mandia (17:38:20) :
@ NK (12:40:55) :
I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.
I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):
Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.
Have you looked at the PDF presentation, link above in the post?
The numbers you give are from climate models .
The crux of the presentation is in the last figure, which plots the results of an equation on which the models and data are evaluated and the small sensitivity comes from where the data cross the curve. The models cross the curve at a different point than the data.
It is the CERES data that give an outlier.
Who wins?
Models or data?

A scary global warming story( with positive feedback)
Time:18,000 B.C. Ice age humans gather around their Shaman and asking him: Oh all knowing Nesnah, please tell us what our future will bring. Not good, said Nesnah. We reached the tipping point. We are at the end of Milankovitch cycle.The sun will shine a little bit stronger and the ice will start to melt. No big loss, said the ice age humans, we have plenty ice an we can use a little bit more sunshine. Aha, said Nesnah, but you are forgetting positive feedback.When the ice melts, the albedo is reduced and you will get even more warming and more ice melting and it will go on until all the ice is gone. How will build your igloos without any ice? With the polar bears all gone where will you get your furs to protect you? I tell you, we are facing a bleak and terrible future.

@ anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :
Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.
The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.

Scott A. Mandia (06:12:13) :
@ anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :
Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.
The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.
Look at the last figure of the presentation found in http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf , page 48 :
The models are there with their sensitivities. It is the data of ERBE-CERES that hit the curve at a different point than the models.
You could criticize the theoretical formula which is described in the presentation, and find an error in its formulation, if youcan. You cannot say “the value from the data is an outlier”, when the outliers are the values of the modelsas far as this simple formula goes.

Scott–
What is the significance of an outlier as compared to other models? Answer, are the other models right or not. Lindzen here makes a much stronger case that observational data shows the qualities of cloud formation and albedo, and that data outweighs theoretical constructs of water vapor creation and ocean heat content, hence he concludes that the positive feedback models are erroneous. IF Lindzen is right about that (I agree that can’t be proven yet), being an outlier makes him correct vis a vis the erroneous models. The fact that he is an ‘outlier’ as compared to other models is irrelevant, because you presuppose that the assumptions imbedded in the other models are correct. That is why AGW modelling can never be science; change the assumptions and the answers the models pump out also change. Sorry you make no pertnent point.

TO: George E. Smith (10:43:21) :
Your negative feedback suggestion is far more plausible to me than the AGW positive feedback theory. However my skeptism requires me to remind you your plausible suggestion has not been proven by scientific method. The scale of climate, coupled with the distinct possibility there is no feedback mechanism of any kind because the entire climate system is chaotic, gave the AGW alarmists the wiggle room to spread their nonsense. That is one reason how this AGW thing morphed into a political game rather than a scientific issue.

George Smith — Your theory suffers from two flaws. The first is the assumption that an increase in total evaporation must lead to an increase in cloud cover. This is not necessarily true. Possible, but not necessarily. For example, the increase in temperature, and the increase in evaporation, is partly due to the increase in the saturation vapor pressure of water in the warmer atmosphere. Loosely translated, it means the air can hold more water *without condensation*. It does not necessarily translate that the increase in water vapor will result in more clouds. In fact, it could result in less.
In addition, your assumption that more clouds results in a negative feedback is also suspect. It is believed that more low clouds will result in an increase in albedo, how ever an increase in high clouds is expected to result in a positive feedback, where there will be a net greenhouse effect. High clouds are to be expected over low clouds, because of the change in lapse rate in a warmer atmosphere… although Lindzen argues that low coulds will form at the tropics, and so provide a desired negative feedback.
Basically, clouds generally form at the altitude where temperatures have dropped to the point where water vapor can condense. That’s why on a normal afternoon you can look up and all of the clouds seem to be floating at the same altitude. Moist air warms, rises to the altitude where the temperature is low enough for condensation, and clouds form at that altitude. A higher temperature raises this altitude. It’s not entirely that simple, but that’s my point…
Using basic common sense *to a point*, but only to a point, is fallacious. It’s much more complicated than that. And the people who are being paid to do it (whether you think they should be paid or not) are putting a lot of time and thought into this.

Jeremy (13:54:37) :
Indiana Bones:The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.
You make it sound like a small thing to tell outright lies (what MIT is doing). Do you and Susan Hockfield perhaps share the same ethics…which is that honesty is secondary to getting the funding necessary for a good cause.
I made no comment re: honesty. If you are “forced to back a failed AGW campaign,” it’s sorta like backing the local despot. You do so to stay alive and hope the despot meets an imminent end. We are all aware of the poor ethical behavior of the AGW community. Implicit in my comment is the idea that such a failure is caused by problems with ethics.
The need for domestic energy independence remains.

Bart — That is still be evaluated (that his data show a negative feedback). In particular, he relies heavily on the concept that the system has already reached equilibrium, when his measured time scales for SST increases are in mere months. This is true in an insensitive climate, as he argues, but there is a lot of evidence that the climate is not so insensitive, and so the crux of the paper has a major issue. I personally read both his recent paper, and the 1994 paper on which it heavily relies, and found a lot of holes in his logic. At the same time, I have seen a number of references to the fact that the data he used still doesn’t seem to jibe with what’s been published elsewhere.
That being said, yes, you are right, Lindzen doesn’t give a mechanism, just an argument against AGW, and I have a big problem with that. It’s not how science should work. Coming up with a hypothesis is part of the process. The hypothesis of “I don’t want AGW to be true and I’m going to disprove it” is rather lame.
Not being a climatologist, I will wait to hear what the experts have to say before going too far in any direction, but my own gut reactions are:
(1) Such a convenient safety net in a climate system that clearly is not so stable as he implies would be just too good to be true (“go ahead and be careless, humanity, God has everything covered”).
(2) The lack of an explanation for the observed behavior is a big hole. Science isn’t about proving that the sun comes up every day, it’s about understanding how and why the sun comes up every day.
(3) The tone and content of the presentation referenced here is, too me, extremely unprofessional and makes his own work suspect. In particular, there are any number of obvious fallacies in the arguments he presents. If he only put forth good, valid arguments he’d be credible. When he puts forth as many arguments as he can, many of them suspect, then I suspect all of his arguments, even the ones that seem good on the surface.
(4) He has a decades long history of trying to argue this same point, that everything is fine and the climate will take care of itself, no worries. Each time his arguments are insufficient, he goes back to the well one more time, trying to find another angle. After a while, it just doesn’t seem like science anymore. It seems more like a wife nagging her husband to cut the grass.
But, as I said… I will wait for climatologists to finish their reviews of his work. For now, it’s hardly the “stake in the heart of AGW” that deniers seem to think it is, though.

ThinkingBeing (10:14:48) :
“That being said, yes, you are right, Lindzen doesn’t give a mechanism, just an argument against AGW, and I have a big problem with that. It’s not how science should work.”
You have it exactly backwards. That is precisely how science should work. You start with data, then form an hypothesis, not the other way around. Lindzen is starting with the data. The AGWers started with the hypothesis, and have been trying ever since to fit the data to it. The data inform the science, the science does not inform the data.
Someone on another board quoted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character in this respect. I though it was extremely apropos, so I saved it.
‘“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Sherlock Holmes.’

Some comments:
(1) Such a convenient safety net in a climate system that clearly is not so stable as he implies would be just too good to be true (“go ahead and be careless, humanity, God has everything covered”).
It is not merely convenient. It is no coincidence. The climate must be very stable, else we would not be here.
(2) The lack of an explanation for the observed behavior is a big hole. Science isn’t about proving that the sun comes up every day, it’s about understanding how and why the sun comes up every day.
But we start with the data, which says the sun comes up every day.
(3) The tone and content of the presentation referenced here is, too me, extremely unprofessional and makes his own work suspect. In particular, there are any number of obvious fallacies in the arguments he presents. If he only put forth good, valid arguments he’d be credible. When he puts forth as many arguments as he can, many of them suspect, then I suspect all of his arguments, even the ones that seem good on the surface.
You would have to walk a mile in Prof. Lindzen’s shoes. It is the very model of restraint compared to what his opponents have put him through.
(4) He has a decades long history of trying to argue this same point, that everything is fine and the climate will take care of itself, no worries. Each time his arguments are insufficient, he goes back to the well one more time, trying to find another angle. After a while, it just doesn’t seem like science anymore. It seems more like a wife nagging her husband to cut the grass.
This could be said of the other side, as well, except they have huge media support to provide backup and flush inconvenient prior assertions down the memory hole. I see it right now in the AGWers furious attempt to minimize the inconvenient cooling spell we are going through which they never expected.

Excuse me, I mean the SST forcing of flux. I forgot which analysis we were discussing. What a drag it is getting old…

ThinkingBeing (12:42:13):
You seem to be saying that, yes, there may be an initial positive correlation (negative climate feedback) between delta-SST and delta-ourward flux, but that does not preclude the possibility that the relationship could invert later.
But, what you appear to have missed is that all of the current climate models, upon which the current alarm is founded, show a negative correlation from the get go. Does this not call into question those models?
Am I not right in concluding that, if I take your cautious stance, and assuming the analysis has been carried out correctly and the data are valid, Lindzen may be wrong, but the other modelers are definitely wrong?

“You highlight another problem with Lindzen’s paper.”
You have not established that there are any problems with it.
“it’s not the AMIP models at all, it’s the CMIP models that are used for that purpose…”
Are you conceding and/or declaring that the AMIP models are fundamentally flawed and their results virtually useless?
“But he couldn’t use the CMIP models because they aren’t tied to specific SST observations.”
CMIP and AMIP agree closely in their fundamental predictions. If you remove the positive feedback from the AMIP, they will diverge considerably.
In this paper, the authors state of the CMIP models:

These coupled climate models have exhibited a problem not evident in the behavior of atmospheric GCMs run with prescribed SSTs and sea ice. Errors in fluxes of heat, momentum and water across the ocean-atmosphere interface can lead to “climate drift” away from observations. Nonphysical, ad hoc flux adjustments were initially regarded as necessary to correct the problem.

The paper then discusses “two recently developed coupled models that do not use flux adjustment.” I read that as, the CMIP models were tweaked specifically to bring them closer in line to the AMIP results, i.e., the AMIP models were used as “truth” models to validate the CMIP. It follows that if the AMIP models are buggered, so are the CMIP models, yes?

Bart —
“You have not established that there are any problems with it.”
Yes I have, repeatedly and I think quite clearly. This is typical “denial” behavior… just pretend not to see what’s right in front of you.
But it’s clear evidence that this isn’t a discussion for you, it’s a game. I don’t play games with this subject.

All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are accurately calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. See how in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

“I pinned your queen…”
Oh, yes, your brilliant analysis and rapier debating abilities, along with Lindzen’s oh so insightful deconstruction of every aspect of the AGW position, has completely eliminated the question of global warming. It’s all over, everyone. Bart has declared himself the winner. We can all go home in our SUVs and watch movies on plasma TVs now. Nothing more to be done.
[All you have done is to prove to me that you, like many of your ilk, cannot have a rational discussion, because your favorite argument is to simply declare that black is white, or that I just said that black is white. It’s easy for you to “pin my queen” if you do so by simply ignoring the rules and making up your own.]
So, farewell. Enjoy ranting and raving at like minded people that all agree with you… But Lindzen’s paper, even if it holds up, is not the end of the discussion. It’s a small piece. There’s no such thing as “pinning the queen” in this, and it’s not a game.
That’s a lot of the denial problem. You keep looking for one magic bullet that will topple the AGW house of cards, and there is none. It’s far too complex for that. That only works for the simple minded that think life is like the action movies you see in the theaters, where the lone good guy, who knows better than his clueless superiors and everyone else, breaks the rules to save the day.
Well, I should let you go. You must have an anger management class to attend.

Gentlemen, let’s get the facts right. Global warming does not exist. At least to the degree that we can do a damn thing about it.Al eGore has done a great job of speading all the lies while laughing all the way to the bank. LOLOLOL LMAO! ds

I do not think the risibly self-styled ‘ThinkingBeing’ even knows what it is to have one’squeen pinned. It is not likely that he is one given over to intellectual pursuits.
He fell into the trap essentially by conceding that Lindzen had shown the AMIP results to be on shaky ground, but tried to evade it by claiming that AMIP was not pertinent to CMIP. When I showed that the latter was validated on the basis of the former, he had no way out without exposing his king.
And like a rat being herded into a corner, he snarled and bared his teeth, grasped at some straws, and leapt for the nearest exit.

Invariant,
Perhaps your idea of the “time integral of the magnetic field of the solar wind” would give as good a correlation as the time-integral of sunspot count. It could not do much better.
By “energy balance” I was, of course, referring to the first law of thermodynamics which is the fundamental basis of the analysis.
Energy content is proportional to temperature. Average global temperature anomaly data are available.
The excellent temperature correlation was achieved without directly referring to the “heat content in the oceans” which is an effect, not a cause.
I expect that sunspots cause changes to cloud area and average cloud altitude (the temperature at which clouds radiate) which have far more influence on average global temperature than TSI. By correlating with sunspot count, all of that is accounted for.
The magnitude and duration of the cyclic ocean turnover during the 20th century and on into the 21st century were discovered by the analysis. Once discovered, they are part of the model and are not an input to it.
This analysis produces calculated temperatures that have a standard deviation of 0.064 C with concurrent measured temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st. It shows that any influence that “other factors” have is minuscule and can be ignored.

The ‘heat equation’ as described in Wikipedia only applies to conductive heat transfer. Heat transfer in the oceans is primarily by convection i.e. mass transport of circulation(s).
Apparently small temperature gradients exist along the circulation paths. The local surface temperature varies depending on what part along the length of the path happens to be on the surface. Apparently the effect on average global temperature of the net result of all this is the observed 32 year long uptrends and downtrends with a magnitude range of 0.45 C. The combination of the trends and the time-integral of sunspot count accurately produces the temperatures measured during the 20th century and at least to the present.
The analysis discovers at least three things:
1. The net average global temperature oscillation as a result of ocean turnover can be represented by 32 year up-trends and 32 year downtrends with an amplitude range of 0.45 C.
2. The time-integral of sunspot count accounts for the net temperature increase over the oscillation that was observed during the last half of the 20th century.
3. Average global temperature history during the 20th century and at least to the present can be calculated with no consideration whatsoever of added atmospheric CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.
No one has been able to reliably predict what the future holds. Given the current quiet sun and assuming the oscillation observed during the 20th century continues, we are probably in for planet cooling. But given the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans, even with no sunspots it will take decades to get down to the temperatures observed around 1913.

I think that there is something funny about Lindzen’s analysis. He has selected certain periods of time when there is a large temporary fluctuation in temperature, to look at the outgoing radiation. These particular incidents represent mainly the result of internal variation due to ocean currents such as El Nino/ La Nina. These are special circumstances during which the oceans are losing energy because a large expanse of warm water pools at the surface.
There is something special about these events according to detailed studies.
It seems that global warming during these incidents is not driven by radiation imbalance but rather by hydrological imbalance. So looking at the radational imbalance to understand these events, as Lindzen does may not be correct.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/papers/auad/Global_Warm_ENSO.pdf
The selection of these events, by Lindzen for his studies, does not prove that radiational imbalance due to CO2 is not driving the general trend in temperature that we have seen over the past 30 years or so.
It is no surprise that thespecial El Nino conditions selected by Lindzen are not reproduced accurately by the models he has chosen. These are different models from the GCM’s used to predict climate trends.
I expect that when this new paper is studied carefully by climate scientists,
that it will be found to be deeply flawed.

Bart — Please see http://www.drroyspencer.com (Dr. Roy Spencer, who is most certainly NOT an alarmist) for his take on Lindzen’s paper, which is very much in line with what I was saying…
In summary:
The system is not in equilibrium, so a snapshot of the radiation at the point where temperatures have just finished ramping up (or down) is not indicative of what is going to continue to happen, especially in terms of long term feedbacks that may take some time to manifest.
The use of AMIP models is limiting, and here Spencer taught me some things about why AMIP models and CMIP models are different in this respect, and so the AMIP models would understandably appear different and the CMIP models are both different and better.
He gives other useful information, too, but his closing paragraph really sums it up.

ThinkingBeing (08:08:50) : You don’t even read my responses, do you? AMIP is used to validate CMIP. I included a reference and everything. Scroll up and do some reading.

This is all true, Dr Lindzen has clearly proven that Global warming is a conspiracy. It is a plan to bring in a one world government that will control all free world markets. Kevin Rudd is trying to sell Australia out right now, but the liberal party has blocked him for now. This is no joke you NEED to listen to this audio interview: http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998
This is communist dictatorship that is designed to do away with all democracy world wide.
This is a wicked game and something that everyone should stand up and fight for there freedom. This type of dictatorship is going to give by like what the societ union has over financial markets in there reign.
This is worse though, because at Copenhagen in early December this conference on climate change is where a treaty is going to be signed that will lock any country that is stupid enough to sign it, to complete control permanently over how the country run their economy.
Global warming is a smoke screen to take full world control, via heavy taxing.
However is reading this I URGE you to find out for yourself, this is no joke, I wish it were.
Thank you