Lindzen agrees with a strong WV feedback -- who disagrees?

Well it sounds a bit like Rondanelli and Lindzen are stating Dessler's results without necessarily concurring with them. I'd have to read more of the paper to get a sense as to what they're arguing in terms of the water vapor feedback, and unfortunately the paper doesn't seem to be available for free anywhere yet.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=66609108...

But as for the question at hand, I'm not sure about Roy Spencer's opinion on the subject. He certainly thinks clouds will be a major negative feedback, but I don't know about water vapor. He probably agrees it's positive.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-glob...

*edit* ah see that's why I wanted to read the paper. If Lindzen is using Dessler as a reference for assuming RH will remain relatively constant, then certainly he thinks it's a positive feedback.

I am quite sure you are mistaken about that. Positive feedback theory is negated by dim Earth. He stated as much in this lecture at 25 minutes and thirty seconds into it.

http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/...

If he actually stated that, it is taken out of context. The water vapor positive feedback is not consistent with the faint earth paradox. The cirrus clouds are negative feedback. That is consistent. The fact that he doesn't agree with the logic on positive feedback means that he doesn't buy the argument. He might have acknowledged that the increasing WV would be consistent. That is not the same thing.

another example

"Now, along comes Richard Lindzen to argue that negative feedbacks, that is feedbacks that tend to keep the earth's temperature constant, are more plausible than positive feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."

"

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/December2009...

Is that paper you mention by Lindzen available anywhere in full? Where did you get that quote? All I can find is the abstract.

This is one of the few journals my university isn't;t subscribed too. Grrr. I would need to read it before commenting, as all the papers ive read of Lindzens in the past have been rather , well, poor would be a polite term.

I believe the assumption of that fact. What approximately if a shark assaults someones off the coast of Australia and has their legs for lunch? Now that individual is not any greater beneficial in actual experience, yet possibly he turns into greater beneficial in spirit and character. Oh, I merely began off pessimistic yet grew to become that around. damn't. "unfavourable little Tink Tink"! Haha.