Maybe this presentation is now outdated, and so let us take a look at how Lindzen describes the "greenhouse effect" today in
- Reconsidering the Climate Change Act Global Warming: How to approach the science. (Climate Models and the Evidence?)
- Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms Westminster, London 22nd February 2012.
- Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must elevate the average emission level, and because of the first point, the new emission level is colder than the original emission level.
- This reduces the outgoing infrared radiative flux, which no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation.
- Note that this mechanism leads to the simple result that doubling CO2 gives rise to warming of about 1C.
Lindzen here refers to the Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1C resulting from an application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation Law in the form dQ = 4 dT with
dQ = 4 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" from doubling of CO2.
We see that Lindzen no longer puts forward his idea from 1997 of a surface temperature of + 80 C with radiation alone, but instead uncritically adopts the Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism used by IPCC.
I have argued at length that the Basic Postulate should not be accepted as a starting point, because it is based on a way too simplistic model of the climate system as the simple algebraic
equation dQ = 4 dT setting dQ = 4 by a wild guess and obtaining a dT = 1 without scientific significance.
Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and Lord Monckton all seem to confess to the Basic Postulate and thus give IPCC a free ticket to sell CO2 alarmism.
When I try to discuss the nature of the "greenhouse effect" and the scientific relevance of the Basic Postulate, I meet silence or ridicule from leading skeptics. Reasonable?
I have asked Prof Lindzen for a comment or clarification without any response.
Iceskater says:
SvaraRaderaAs a beginning point a non-emitting atmosphere would be enormously hot away from the surface day or night. And yet day or night the cooling ability of the surface would be extremely higher than it is now since the surface would always only see a sky temperature of -270C even though the atmosphere might be 200C
So an 80C day time surface for a non-emitting atmosphere with a warm wind blowing over it seems reasonable providing a minus 30 surface exists at night with a warm wind blowing over it.
Where importantly rising hot air has no mechanism to get the surface other than by turbulance, so you would expect the lower air at night to quite quickly become colder.
I must repeat myself against my will and still propose ”(this figure)”.
SvaraRaderaIf the 15 microns band was influenced by the density of CO2 in the said manner, you should see very strong differences since the ratios of CO2 are Venus/Earth = 300000 and Mars/Earth = 25.
I think something is wrong in forecasting.
Michele