LOL! Regarding Lindzen, Dog says:
Sure, compare his forecasts (like his 2011 paper) with empirical measurements and the most recent IPCC walkbacks. I thought you relied on the "entire body of scientific evidence?" RI, the thing is, you're just a talker. You talk big. You aren't relying on the body of evidence. You haven't read all these papers. Are you a climatologist, actively involved in climate research? You are relying on your sources. Instead of talking the subject with me, you continue to talk about what... ME. All you do is talk about me. I have cited numerous scientists in thread, Lindzen being just one.]
Why do you think I'm unfamiliar with Lindzen & Choi (2011)? I'm familiar with the whole damn Lindzen & Choi saga. Here's a pretty good summary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scie ... ted=3&_r=2[Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
But for more than a decade, Dr. Lindzen has said that when surface temperature increases, the columns of moist air rising in the tropics will rain out more of their moisture, leaving less available to be thrown off as ice, which forms the thin, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, these cirrus clouds act to reduce the cooling of the earth, and a decrease of them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases.
Dr. Lindzen calls his mechanism the iris effect, after the iris of the eye, which opens at night to let in more light. In this case, the earth’s “iris” of high clouds would be opening to let more heat escape.
When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.
Dr. Lindzen blames groupthink among climate scientists for his publication difficulties, saying the majority is determined to suppress any dissenting views. They, in turn, contend that he routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers.[/quote]
Lindzen & Choi (2011) was submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Four reviewers were assigned, two of whom were picked by Lindzen. The other two by the PNAS Board.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindze ... -2009.htmlYou can see the reviews here.
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-conten ... ttach3.pdf All four reviewers rated the paper as not of suitable quality for publication. All four reviewers said that the conclusions reached in the paper were not justified by the contents of the paper. PNAS wrote back:
All of the reviews are thoughtful assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript in question by leading experts, so they provide valuable hints for (possibly) improving the paper...I sympathize with Rev. 4's comments who concludes that the new paper simply has to explain why the opposite conclusions from the same data set by Trenberth et al. are flawed. If that could be achieved through a major review of the current version (hopefully accounting also for other important referee remarks) then the article would provide a crucial contribution to a most relevant scientific debate.
And so, of course, Lindzen wrote a new version of the paper that addressed the issues raised by the reviewers and it was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, changing the course of modern climate science.
Well, actually, he shopped around and finally got it published in an obscure Korean journal without addressing the issues raised by the reviewers.
I don't doubt that Lindzen honestly believes that he's right that the climate sensitivity is close to the radiative forcing of 1C. The problem is, as time has progressed and more science has been done, he's clung to that belief rather than accept the evidence. Hell, even Einstein had trouble accepting quantum mechanics. And he was damned Einstein. Lynn Margulis, a brilliant microbiologist, became an AIDS/HIV denier late in her career. It's not unusual to see retired scientists, or scientists late in their careers, clinging to pet theories that haven't been borne out by the evidence.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951