Agronomist claims the listed papers are not peer reviewed; that is wrong.

Agronomist also complains that Lindzen and Choi [LC] restrict their analysis to the tropics; LC 2011:

“we analyzed the complete record of CERES for the globe (Dessler, 2010) (Note that 469 ERBE data is not available for the high latitudes since the field-of-view is between 60°S and 60°N). As seen in the previous section, the use of the global CERES record leads to a result that is basically 471 similar to that from the tropical data in this study . The global CERES record, however, contains more noise than the tropical record. This result lends support to the argument that the water vapor feedback is primarily restricted to the tropics, and there are reasons to suppose that this is also the case for cloud feedbacks. Although, in principle, climate feedbacks may arise from any latitude, there are substantive reasons for supposing that they are, indeed, concentrated mostly in the tropics.”

The methodology for extrapolating from the tropics is explained in LC 2010 at Appendix 2:

http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf

After consideration of the observed data about OLR, atmospheric water vapour, radiative fluxes and cloud patterns and types LC conclude:

“As noted by Lindzen et al. [2001], with feedbacks restricted to the tropics, their contribution to global sensitivity results from sharing the feedback fluxes with the extratropics. 357 This leads to the factor of 2 in Eq. (6).”

Equations 6, 7a and 7b establish the feedback parameters globally and they remain negative.

LC show that the main climatic activity is in the tropics but that similar negative feedback is shown when the global data is considered AND when a scaled extrapolation is made from the tropics to the globe.

Agronomist has either misrepresented or not understood this point.

I will respond to Agronomist’s other unjustified complaints that LC use cherry-picked data and don’t consider ENSO in another post; however I note that Dessler 2011 has been critiqued in the links I provided in my first comment above and specifically in respect of SST see also:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/still-cooling-sea-surface-temperatures-thru-august-18-2010/

In respect of ENSO and the data period LC 2011 were aware of the complaints made against LV 2009 [line 132]; the choice of the data period was a balance as they say [line 125]:

“As explained in Lindzen and Choi (2009), it is essential, that the time intervals considered, be short compared to the time it takes for the system to equilibrate, while long compared to the time scale on which the feedback processes operate (which, in the tropics, are essentially the time scales associated with cumulonimbus convection). The latter is on the order of days, while the former depends on the climate sensitivity, and ranges from years for sensitivities on the order of 0.5°C for a doubling of CO2 to many decades for higher sensitivities (Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998).”

To solve this issue LC use 2 data periods [line 189]:

“This is also why we use the 36-day averaged SST for 1985−1999 and monthly SST for 2000−2008 in Fig. 2.”

LC 2011 justify their choice from 191-212; basically their choice removes “seasonality”, ENSO, but still allows SST change to be correlated with outgoing long-wave radiation from the top of the atmosphere and therefore a measure of the system’s feedback.

LC 2011 also consider the feedback/forcing relationship between clouds and the SST; like Spencer they note this can only be measured in the short term and even then which causes what is a matter of time. As Foster et al 2007 note:

“including non-instantaneous processes clearly blurs the distinction between forcing and feedback as there is no longer a clear timescale to separate the two; further including these processes in the forcing incorporates more uncertain aspects of a climate models response”

LC and Spencer and Braswell have done brilliant work on quantifying feedback and the system’s sensitivity, primarily in the short-term; the hostility shown towards them has not been on the basis that they are scientifically incorrect but that they undermine the edicts of AGW.

@ Robert LePage,

<< having been threatened by censorship once before, I try to be careful about saying anything that might offend the Anti AGW camp. They usually pop up and aim barbs at any serious comments and do not get censored in any way>>

LOL what serious comments were they Mr Le Page

Was this one of your serious comments?
<<Anyone who does not accept that the Arctic has gone into free fall melt at the moment is either blind or is trying to mislead.The passages around the North Russian coast are open…he NW passage also has become open…>>

It might be that those who see things differently take a longer perspective:
See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/

And declaring “the Arctic has gone into free “ is very big call –are you sure about that?

[Speaking of conspiracies I have just noticed something really twilight zonish. All speakers on the yae side on this thread have French names i) bonmot ii) Le Page iii) Agronismist ( from the French agronomie) & iv) Poirot (from the French province of Belgium)---if I was warmist I might see a tend in that!]

SPQR, I think you have a point. I returned last Friday from two months in France and can add to the TZ syndrome.

The French economy is broke, taxes on the wealthy are going up, small business is in decline, much of their heavy industry and power generation is owned by TATA, their car manufacturing is wrecked because only europeans by european cars (whoops), and the American car industry is moving production from Germany to the UK, they will continue to sell electricity to the Germans but will not accept Euros because Germany is building 23 new coal fired power stations and is burning 30% lignite, and for the first time in 60 years emigration by middle class French is on the increase.

Thats is why we have so many pseudo intellectuals with French names, it's a takeover. Pity they no longer have Madame Le Gillotine.

Keep up the good work.

Yours truly, Alan de Jones.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
SPQR, You might do well to read the page above and try to abide from it. It comes from the link that you quoted to me for watts up with that.
GrahamY the post from SPQR is an example of what I consider to be an attempt to annoy. if I replied in the same vein or was more inflamitery, would I be cut off?

The Arctic has often had thin ice.

USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole, March 17, 1959.

There's a picture of it somewhere I have seen, & the ice was pretty thin.