New paper from Lindzen demonstrates low climate sensitivity with observational d

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

July 23, 2009

EXCERPT:

“…ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/ne...m-lindzen/

[Itscoldinhere]

Hehe, nice! I had this on the front page, too. Lindzen is looking at ERBE data but through similar analysis of newer satellite data Spencer is coming to the exact same conclusion-negative feedbacks act to cut the warming effect of CO2 down considerably, whereas the models that predict catastrophic warming have the opposite behavior-Usually more than doubling the warming effect of CO2. All contingent on the models getting realistic cloud feedbacks...in spite of the repeated failure of models to handle clouds well. Heck, cloud spatial scales are infinitesimal compared to the climate model world, so even if we understood cloud processes we could still only approximate their behavior through "parametrization"-what surprises me is the confidence in model sensitivities given their dependence one of the things models do the worst job simulating.

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=Itscoldinhere link=topic=126.msg809#msg809 date=1248378005]
Hehe, nice! I had this on the front page, too. Lindzen is looking at ERBE data but through similar analysis of newer satellite data Spencer is coming to the exact same conclusion-negative feedbacks act to cut the warming effect of CO2 down considerably, whereas the models that predict catastrophic warming have the opposite behavior-Usually more than doubling the warming effect of CO2. All contingent on the models getting realistic cloud feedbacks...in spite of the repeated failure of models to handle clouds well. Heck, cloud spatial scales are infinitesimal compared to the climate model world, so even if we understood cloud processes we could still only approximate their behavior through "parametrization"-what surprises me is the confidence in model sensitivities given their dependence one of the things models do the worst job simulating.
[/quote]

I predict that AGW believers will as usual call him names and say he does not know what he is talking about and mumble jumbo.... zzzz.

[Mike Davis]

Expect something from RC and Desmogblog. Maybe even Tamino will share his faith with us.