On Monday, October 26th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The video is now available in addition to the powerpoint. Thanks to CEI’s globalwarming.org
Video link of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming”
Here is part 1 through 6 as a play list
(thanks to “therightscoop”)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whoops. The equation in my above post got scrambled. It should read:
“If he replaces it with
F = 1/Go – DeltaFlux/DeltaTemp, then I think the rest of his linearised equations work.”
Sorry.
Paul (19:10:00) :
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..
Paul,
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.
Ninderthana (03:35:27),
Well I hope you’re right.
There have been some serious attempts to improve SH measurements – notably since the launch of the AIRS system (2002), but not enough data have been collected for this to provide definitive evidence yet. Comparisons with AIM data support the view that the models are overpredicting SH in upper troposphere, especially in the tropics, but the errors are not dramatic enough to kill off the models given the data uncertainties in the abstracted SH measurements. So I am curious about your mystery independent observational evidence. I wait with curiosity…
As I recollect, the Armstrong et al paper showing the lack of a hot spot was stating only that it showed the H2O feedback was not present – which is what Ninderthana is repeating and which isn’t or shouldn’t be controversial since it agrees fine with the theory and the positive feedback has always been an unjustified assumption. G Schmidt and others ignored that and instead asserted that all warming would cause a hotspot, including solar warming, so therefore Armstrong et al were wrong. Of course it was just another strawman. All warming, including solar warming do not necessarily have to have a positive feedback. The only caveat to that, as Andrew Dessler pointed out is that the solar theory perhaps needed that feedback too. But you don’t have to have an alternative cause to find that there is no positive feedback. The evidence against it comes from 2 different sources and Santer’s supposed rebuttal was a disgrace, full of post-hoc data adjustments, a cherry picked time period and incoherence about data error bars overlapping the obs error bars. Lindzen, error or not, makes it a 3rd source finding zero feedback. What is causing the warming who knows but as far as i can tell at least half to 2/3’s of it is from upwards adjustments anyway, especially from that totally guessed and nonsensical TOBS adjustment.