Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (761526)	1/5/2014 11:47:05 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574060

"Richard Lindzen says most of it is BS." Richard Lindzen is BS; he is always wrong. = Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity Debunked by Trenberth Debunked by Murphy Debunked by Chung Debunked by Dessler 2011 Repeat Lindzen and Choi tried to address some of the criticisms of their 2009 paper in a new version which they submitted in 2011 (LC11), after Lindzen himself went as far as to admit that their 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing." However, LC11 did not address most of the main comments and contradictory results from their 2009 paper. Lindzen and Choi first submitted LC11 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after adding some data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described. As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented, "The paper is based on...basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity" These remaining flaws in LC11 included: Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks. Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics. Inadequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results. Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler). Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so. As a result of these fundamental problems, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. skepticalscience.com = Science stunner: “Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming” — an amplifying feedback (sorry Lindzen and fellow deniers) In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the deniers/delayers/inactivists, led by MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate system. In particular, they have asserted that clouds are a negative feedback. A major new study in Science from “ Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback” (subs. req’d) is thus a potentially huge — and worrisome — piece of research.