|WikiProject Environment / Climate change||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Looking at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/ it appears clear that the Iris Hypothesis suggests "that the warmer the cloudy region, the less cirrus you get" and therefore the more infrared leakage into space. The article currently talks about "visible-length radiation leakage" which appears incorrect.
Looking at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2.html, the "fallacy" was found to be the finding that "clouds are much more reflective (51 percent instead of 35 percent) and somewhat weaker in their greenhouse effect than Lindzen’s model predicts". So the current line "The fallacy was that more infrared radiation would be trapped, cancelling out the cooling from the visible-wavelength radiation leakage" does not appear to be correct.
In any case, is "fallacy" the correct word to use? At http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris3.html it says "At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven". The article at present appears to assume that the hypothesis is disproven by using the word "fallacy". Is it even reasonable to use the adjective "partially-discredited" if the jury is still out? What do people think?
I was trying to research this story from NPR and this page was the closest thing I could find.. is this related, and if so then does that lend some credibility to the Iris hypothesis? I realize that cirrus clouds aren't in the stratosphere but the mechanisms described in the NPR story sound pretty similar (fewer clouds in the tropics, etc.) --Lewis (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Spencer et al evidence disputed by Lin et al
The last phrase of this article notes that Spencer et al present evidence in favor of the iris hypothesis, but it may be worth noting that this evidence is disputed by Lin et al, who, using a more advanced model that takes into account interannual correlations, find a positive feedback that does not show up in the short term. They note that using short term observations and runs may produce feedback estimates that are significantly in error.
Lin, Bing, Qilong Minb, Wenbo Sunc, Yongxiang Hua and Tai-Fang Fan, 2010a, Can climate sensitivity be estimated from short-term relationships of top-of-atmosphere net radiation and surface temperature?, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Article in Press, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.03.01
Still in press last time I checked, but I'm pretty sure that it did already pass peer review.
- I would say a bigger concern is that the so-called evidence is by Spencer and Lindzen. Even without Lin's objection, if all the evidence for the iris hypothesis comes well-known climate skeptics then this is no different from putting foxes in charge of the hen house. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)