Yup, CO2’s going up and the models say the temperature should be going up too – but the temperature isn’t going up. So why is that?
I would expect that most people who are seriously interested in global warming know the IPCC models incorporate positive feedback factors. These feedback factors multiply the effect of CO2’s warming by several times.
A recent paper accepted by the Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, by Lindzen (MIT, USA) and Choi (EWU, Korea), May 2011, ‘On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications’ investigates the topic by comparing changes in satellite measured outgoing radiation with changes in sea surface temperatures. The paper updates their earlier work published in 2009. The last few sentences from their May 2011 abstract states
‘We find again that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST [sea surface temperature] fluctuations exceeds the zero feedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA [top of atmosphere] outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 [IPCC] atmospheric models forced by the SST are less than the zero feedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterise these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.’
Just came to this site via Climate Conversation. Great to see another NZ blog dealing with these issues.
Thanks Andy.
Yep – I’m agreeing with Andy.
As for Lindzen, just a brilliant logical, quietly-spoken dude who simply lets the science do the compelling. (You could say I’m a fan).
Exactly right. With top scientists like Lindzen consistently pushing the science forward, the AGW hypothesis is having to defend itself, and it isn’t doing too well so far.
Nice blog, btw, like Andy I came across it via CCG.
Thanks Bob D
Robin, thanks for giving exposure to this paper, it helps to keep the BIG papers front-of-mind when they are brought up continually although given the content I don’t think this one will be forgotten especially by those that wish it would just go away and did their darndest to make the original disappear.
It will be interesting to see the reception (or otherwise) that it gets.
I would be interested to know also what the NZ Climate Change Office and PMSAC make of it. Given that it is probably not on their reading list, I suggest that you present it to them directly (my strategy of late). Exposure on this blog is fine but to be really effective the science has to be addressed by our govt institutions and Prime Ministerial advisers.
Climate Change Office contact: Mary Carrington
PMSAC contact: Megan Jeffries
Thanks Richard for the suggestion and the email addresses. I will write letters as you suggest.
Oops the email addresses didn’t print because they were enclosed in what was interpreted as HTML tags.
MfE, CC: mary.carrington@mfe.govt.nz
PMSAC: megan.jeffries@pmcsa.org.nz
Gareth Morgan’s book, “Poles Apart”, analysed the arguments adduced by his selected alarmists and sceptics, finding that the two sides were nowhere near as far apart as he had been expecting.
Having reportedly spent $500,000 in investigating the issues, he came to the conclusion that the entire question turned on whether net feedbacks were positive or negative. If positive, then carbon sensitivity would be about 3 (vide IPCC) while it would only be about 1 (as argued by sceptics) if negative.
As there was no firm observational evidence either way, Morgan (and his team of VUW advisers) went through a lengthy exercise in weighing the probabilities. The conclusion was that, on balance, positive feedbacks seem more likely.
Lindzen is probably the world’s most distinguished climate scientist, and his initial finding that ERBE results showed negative feedbacks was devastating to the alarmist cause. Ergo, enormous firepower was brought to bear on criticising his peer-reviewed paper. Some of those criticisms hit home and there was a question as to whether the Lindzen & Choi findings would stand. This new paper puts the matter beyond doubt.
Morgan will now have to re-write his book!