Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Solar heat | Main | Iris hypothesis bridges model-observation gap »
Tuesday
Apr212015

The Iris Hypothesis from the archives

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited.

Justin Gillis in the New York Times

...the basis of Lindzen’s argument, which itself is the basis of all remaining relatively credible climate contrarianism, is entirely false...

Dana Nuccitelli

You have people who keep propping [the discredited theory] up,...Lindzen may still hold to it, but no one would still be listening to him. He wouldn't be given a platform.

Prof Joel Norris of Scripps

Refuted by four peer-reviewed studies within a year of the publication of Lindzen's hypothesis.

Nuccitelli again

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (19)

...Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited.

Justin Gillis in the New York Times...

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory politically unacceptable.

There. Fixed that for you, Justin.

Apr 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

What should be expect from the guardians of a failed religion? The knee-jerk reaction from the unintelligent CAGW classes.

Attack and burn the heretics - with them gone (or silenced) we do not need to justify our position.

Apr 21, 2015 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterCharmingQuark

DNA is a good marker for establishing genetic origins.

The Dana Nuccitelli Appraisal of a climate science paper, is a good indicator of the probable truth contained within it. The worse the DNA, the better it is.

In this manner, Dana Nuccitelli has made an outstanding contribution to climate science.

If Dana Nuccitelli's Appraisal is bad, it's good!

Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Dana Nuccitelli - the Devil's Peer reviewer?

Apr 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterGraeme No.3

Dana's language as usual shows a heavy Mannian influence "the basis of all remaining relatively credible climate contrarianism, is entirely false" - pepper your comment with absolutes, nuance must be eradicated.

Apr 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k

I appreciate that in the 21st century age is not considered necessarily to correlate with wisdom but there is something rather amusing for we oldies to watch the antics of still wet-behind-the-ears post-adolescents (as Mann was in 1998 and Nuccitelli is still) pontificating on the life's work of such as Lindzen.
I don't know what Nuccitelli's doctoral thesis was about but he admits to having "researched climate as a hobby" since 2006 during which time he has set himself up as a cheerleader for the grubbier side of the discipline (along with Cook, of course) while many of us, without the benefit of his physics education, have been doing the same thing for at least twice as long and attempting to do what climate scientists, if they are genuinely scientists rather than priests, ought to have been doing which is challenging the received wisdom instead of furiously shouting down anyone who disagreed with even one iota of it.
As Richard Tol says, science will correct itself. It will do it quicker without the Cooks, Nuccitellis and Lewandowskys of this world.

PS mrsean2k
... and the more syllables you can cram into each word the better the chance that your reader will die of boredom before the end of the sentence and so not discover you're not actually saying anything that has any meaning!

Apr 21, 2015 at 1:09 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

What exactly is theory they are attacking? Could it be the one that says "If grant money for research dries up, climate change is no longer a problem." Is that the theory they are against? I'm reasonably sure that the REAL one they are denouncing is every bit as true as the one I just mentioned.

Apr 21, 2015 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom O

MJ, I'd describe Nuccitelli as more of a sturmbannführer than than a cheerleader.

Apr 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart
Only in his own mind.
Imagine him as a cheerleader complete with the costume and the fuzzy things they wave around. Go on.You know you want to! ☺

Apr 21, 2015 at 5:09 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

You criticising a paper you only use slime and you have not got facts. And when you do whatever it is your think you are doing its certainly not science.

Meanwhile over at the Guardian Nuccitelli, the failed cartoonists side kick, is in danger of stepping on Lew papers sensitive toes has he tries to set himself up has the leader in the area of the 'psychology of deniers ' , will a slap down shortly follow?
Well let us hope so .

Apr 21, 2015 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

Reflections from a clouded iris.
========

Apr 21, 2015 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Mike, I was thinking of the sartorial predilections of Nuccitelli's colleagues at Skeptical Science. Obligatory link.

I'll save my mental images of cheerleaders for more deserving people, thank you very much.

Apr 21, 2015 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Mike:

Nuccitelli doesn't have a doctoral thesis. just a degree and MS (just like me)

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dana-nuccitelli/7/a44/661

Apr 21, 2015 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

knr:

Prof Lewandowsy is a fully signed up scientist participant to the course, he has 2 video interviews:
which are:
https://youtu.be/0i3UJDd_spU
https://youtu.be/0i3UJDd_spU

Apr 21, 2015 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

As MIT's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, a lead author of the execrable IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen (retired 2013) hypothesized that tropical sea-surface temperatures impact global cloud-cover to reduce Earth's overall infrared "radiative leakage", a negative climate-feedback due to increase planetary cooling rather than Klimat Kultists' unobserved peccatogenic warming (AGW).

Fourteen years later, Lindzen's "Iris Hypothesis" has been descriptively if not definitively validated, as incorruptible satellite data (RSS) indeed register marginal downtrends in global atmospheric/oceanic temperatures from late 1996 (now 220 months, 18.33 years). Needless to say, no adjunct/circular AGW Model either incorporates or forecast Prof. Lindzen's objective, rational, hard-science result; nor have PCBS maunderings such as Nucitelli's or Romm's had any genuine bearing on the controversy whatsoever.

Now entering an observationally verified 70-year "dead sun" Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 - 1715, Planet Earth's seven billion endangered souls --"seething maggots" in John Holdren's thanatistic terms-- deserve better than death-eating Warmists' purposeful, willful destruction of global coal, oil, nuclear energy economies, lusting to impose themselves as Grand Theft rentiers while everyone not of their excrescent kaligarchy freezes, sickens, starves in holodomic misery.

Apr 21, 2015 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterLloyd Martin Hendaye

Interesting article about it by Paul Voosen here
http://m.chronicle.com/article/In-Search-of-Limits-a-Climate/229513/
Including the opinions of several climate scientists. Trenberth is not happy.
I wonder if Stevens is going to have to recite his Credo again...

Apr 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Alarmists never mention that Dr. Lindzen rebutted all 5 published critiques of his Iris hypothesis. You can find them on my list in the Cloud section following his 2001 paper.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Clouds

Propagandists like Dana failing to mention such rebuttals existing is one of the reasons I got involved in this debate.

Apr 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPoptech

"He wouldn't be given a platform."

Ah, the usual response to inconvenient hypotheses: don't examine them or argue against, just make sure they are not heard.

Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Duffin

And so it starts:

Andy Dessler (Real Climate)

Just because Lindzen et al. did not convincingly demonstrate their case does not mean the iris hypothesis is wrong.

I think the debate over the iris hypothesis is a testament to the efforts the scientific community goes through to evaluate challenges to theories and find ways to improve our understanding of the climate (for instance, see Bill Ruddiman’s post from last week). This is one of the most important reasons I have such high confidence in the scientific process for figuring out how the universe works.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/the-return-of-the-iris-effect/

Apr 24, 2015 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>