If you draw a boundary between the outer atmosphere and space and treat the planet (with atmosphere) as a closed system, at equilibrium the amount of energy released through the boundary must be equal to the amount of energy passing into the boundary from the sun. As a baseline, everyone assumes that the amount of energy passing into the system from the sun remains constant. If the temperature of the system inside the boundary is to increase, it is absolutely necessary that the total energy passing through the boundary must go down, at least temporarily, permanently trapping the energy in the system and raising the system temperature.

Dr. Lindzen’s paper shows that once a temperature increase occurs — regardless of the reason — the system responds by moving out of equilibrium and releasing more energy into space than is provided by the sun. Thus, the temperate falls from the new (perturbed) temperature to a level between the initial equilibrium and the post-perturbation temperatures, until the equilibrium is reestablished.

Any model that results in a system temperature above the initial perturbation (above roughly 1C for doubling of CO2) MUST, mathematically, do so by reducing net radiation released into space below the equilibrium point so that the additional energy can accumulate and the temperature can rise. Only by reducing net energy released into space can the system heat itself. All other forms of heating must, by definition, simply move energy within the closed system resulting in redistribution of energy but no net heating.

The author of the note above notes “Models that assumed otherwise [from increased radiation resulting from increased temperature] would have near infinite temepratures.” Dr. Lindzen addresses this explicitly in his paper. “Indeed, Figure 3c suggests that models should have a range of sensitivities extending from about 1.5C to infinite sensitivity (rather than 5C as commonly asserted), given the presence of spurious positive feedback. However, response time increases with increasing sensitivity [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998], and models were probably not run sufficiently long to realize their full sensitivity.”

I often find that scientists over-complicate matters. If you treat climate change as a simple energy balance equation around the Earth’s atmosphere, Dr. Lindzen’s findings make perfect sense.

No negative atmospheric feedback.

Ergo: for each doubeling of CO2, the resulting warming diminishes.

A strike to the very heart of the climate hypothesis.

That is:

I claim that the moon is fully cheese.

You go to the moon. Come back with gravel.

I claim that the moon is almost fully cheese, but gravel in some places.

You go back to the moon. Come back with even more gravel and a few largers stones.

I claim that the moon is fully cheese, exept for a few places, where there is gravel and a few large stones.

You go back to the moon, etc,etc…

We now have a hypothesis that can not be disproved. It only expands to encompass any criticism.

It is irrefutable.

re-read it Lindzen & Choi assurt that as surface temps increase radiation to space also increases, where as the IPCC models hold the opposite to be true. (IE green house effect, due to Co2 holding /stopping/ reflecting the heat back into the earths atmosphere). In other words, in “all the models” it is assumed is that the increase of Co2 in-turn increases the temperature, and the increase of temperature in-turn further increases the temperature because less can radiate out of the atmosphere due to the Co2. So their study was on the effects of temperature and radiation, which found that increases in temperature are marked by strong increases in radiation. In the entire scheme of things, the likely result is that the increase of temperature is not due to increased rates of Co2. Its case and point.

Secondly, convection (Ya’ll remember thermodynamics?) No object is holding in heat. Heat always moves from hot to cold, high energy to low energy. All an object can do is change the rate of heat exchange. It’s why your air conditioner works.

Short answer: CO2 is not warming the planet and the atmosphere, in general, acts somewhat like an heat exchanger.

Since water vapor alone can do the deed, CO2 is really not required to have runaway temperature increase, if greenhouse gas is the culprit. Something is really wrong with our thinking here.

It is PHYSICS like the IPCC people like to say. As anything gets warmer its radiation increases.

The idea that GG’s delays radiation enough to actually cause a noteable effect is something you will eventually get over.