Showing posts with label lindzen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lindzen. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Missing News: Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm

ABC remain in the grip of a fantasy about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and ignore reasoned rational debate on the issue. This piece by Atmospheric Scientist Richard Lindzen missing from our Auntie's news and opinion reports:

Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm
Climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one or more interests or prejudices. Once the issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes. Anything can serve as a supporting omen.

Follow the link for the rest.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Missing News: Lindzen on sensitivity

Roger Peilke Snr covers the publication of a new paper by atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen:
New Paper “Climate Physics, Feedbacks, And Reductionism (And When Does Reductionism go Too Far?)” By Dick Lindzen

Don't expect to see it on our ABC.


The concluding remarks read
This paper considers approaches to estimating climate sensitivity involving the basic physics of the feedback processes rather than attempting to estimate climate sensitivity from time series of temperature. The latter have to assume a perfect knowledge of all sources of climate variability —something generally absent. The results of a variety of independent approaches all point to relatively low sensitivities. We also note that when climate change is due to regional and seasonal forcing, the concept of one dimensional climate sensitivity may, in fact, be inappropriate. Finally, it should be noted that I have not followed the common practice of considering the feedback factor to be the sum of separate feedback factors from water vapor, clouds, etc. The reason for this is that these feedback factors are not really independent. For example, in fig. 2, we refer to a characteristic emission level that is one optical depth into the atmosphere. For regions with upper level cirrus, this level is strongly related to the cloud optical depth (in the infrared), while for cloud-free regions the level is determined by water vapor. However, as shown by Rondanelli and Lindzen [30], and Horvath and Soden [31], the area covered by upper level cirrus is both highly variable and temperature dependent. The water vapor feedback is dependent not only on changes in water vapor but also on the area of cloud-free regions. It, therefore, cannot readily be disentangled from the cloud feedback.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Missing News: Climate models exaggerate climate sensitivity

Professor Richard Lindzen has documented the path through peer review for his latest paper written with Yong-Sang Choi. The paper titled "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications" has been accepted for publication in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
ABC NEWS once again miss the opportunity to scoop its rivals and have thus far not mentioned the study. The abstract concludes: "The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity."

Not like this isn't worth reporting! Richard Lindzen's account of the submission process including links to peer review comments, and the various versions of the paper, including the version accepted for publication can be found HERE.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Richard Lindzen Presents...

COMMENT: We doubt that this excellent presentation on climate change by MIT climate scientist Dr Richard Lindzen will find its way onto our ABC. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt and wait a while before posting a complaint.

While we wait you can see it here...
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#