Third scandal found in CRU cybertheft case
Ouroboros Rex
Letters fails to use proper data, cherry-picks one of several sets. Errors
are so blatant they are caught by blog commenters. Even fellow denialist
Roy Spencer catches the errors, though it takes him weeks to 'fess up.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1066&filename=1257532857.txt
"From: Tom Wigley <wig...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Revised CC text
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
<x-flowed>
Thanks, Phil.
A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest
Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper
to avoid giving Lindzen the last word."
The paper being discussed is Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the
determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039628
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html#5283870209712270714
From comments: "I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with changes in sea temperatures.
That confusion leads to an incorrect figure 3 in his paper. In that figure,
the SW (short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2.
Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper would
need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data essentially is in
line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE data shows that there is
NO feedback at all (feedback factor 0) for short-term sea surface
temperature changes.
In summary : The Lindzen and Choi paper shows only that there is no
significant feedback on the short term, and that this is in line with model
predictions. "
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/roy-spencer-debunks-lindzen-and-choi.html
"Roy Spencer has weighed in here (thanks tb) with some analysis of the
Lindzen and Choi study that I briefly covered before. It seems that RS has
investigated the difference between CMIP (coupled atmosphere-ocean) and AMIP
(atmosphere with prescribed sea surface temperature) runs and found that
they give completely different answers. In other words, the analysis of AMIP
output that LC performed is not relevant to diagnosing the properties of the
fully coupled climate system. Which is what I suspected but had not checked.
RS also has various other criticisms about how the data were processed, and
his alternative analysis shows a much closer agreement between models and
data. Although his wording tries to be gentle (because he wants to believe
LC's overall conclusion that the models are too sensitive) it is quite clear
that he thinks the LC paper is wrong.
The sad thing about this is to see Lindzen getting his claws into some young
post-doc and teaching them how to do (and get published) shoddy analyses
without doing obvious checks. I hope this person learns how to not fool
himself so easily in future."...
Roy Spencer tries to be gentle. =)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
..."WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the
context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I've been
sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely
comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such
different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not
clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to
feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished)
of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.
Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it
might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen
and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do
their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined
above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the
authors' conclusions."
tunderbar
> Fraudulent paper by Lindzen and Choi published in Geophysical Research
> Letters fails to use proper data, cherry-picks one of several sets. Errors
> are so blatant they are caught by blog commenters. Even fellow denialist
> Roy Spencer catches the errors, though it takes him weeks to 'fess up.
>
>
> "From: Tom Wigley <wig...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: Phil Jones <p.jo...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Re: Revised CC text
> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
>
> <x-flowed>
> Thanks, Phil.
>
> A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest
> Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper
> to avoid giving Lindzen the last word."
>
> The paper being discussed is Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the
> determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
> doi:10.1029/2009GL039628
>
>
> From comments: "I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
> radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with changes in sea temperatures.
> That confusion leads to an incorrect figure 3 in his paper. In that figure,
> the SW (short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
> scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2.
>
> Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper would
> need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data essentially is in
> line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE data shows that there is
> NO feedback at all (feedback factor 0) for short-term sea surface
> temperature changes.
>
> In summary : The Lindzen and Choi paper shows only that there is no
> significant feedback on the short term, and that this is in line with model
> predictions. "
>
>
> "Roy Spencer has weighed in here (thanks tb) with some analysis of the
> Lindzen and Choi study that I briefly covered before. It seems that RS has
> investigated the difference between CMIP (coupled atmosphere-ocean) and AMIP
> (atmosphere with prescribed sea surface temperature) runs and found that
> they give completely different answers. In other words, the analysis of AMIP
> output that LC performed is not relevant to diagnosing the properties of the
> fully coupled climate system. Which is what I suspected but had not checked.
> RS also has various other criticisms about how the data were processed, and
> his alternative analysis shows a much closer agreement between models and
> data. Although his wording tries to be gentle (because he wants to believe
> LC's overall conclusion that the models are too sensitive) it is quite clear
> that he thinks the LC paper is wrong.
>
> The sad thing about this is to see Lindzen getting his claws into some young
> post-doc and teaching them how to do (and get published) shoddy analyses
> without doing obvious checks. I hope this person learns how to not fool
> himself so easily in future."...
>
> Roy Spencer tries to be gentle. =)
>
>
> ..."WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
>
> It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the
> context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I've been
> sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely
> comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such
> different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not
> clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to
> feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished)
> of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.
>
> Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it
> might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen
> and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do
> their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined
> above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the
> authors' conclusions."
Was that shit "peer-reviewed"? LOL.
Ouroboros Rex
Tundy is starting to figure out how these emails will really be viewed in
the future. lol
Too late, tundy, they are FTPd all around the world by now. Stunt after
stunt after stunt your buddies tried to play on these researchers. I bet
the final list is as along as your arm. ;)
Tom P
>
> It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the
> context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I've been
> sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely
> comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such
> different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not
> clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to
> feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished)
> of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.
>
> Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it
> might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen
> and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do
> their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined
> above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the
> authors' conclusions."
>
>
Hi,
do you know if the Lindzen paper still exists in its original form?
The comments on the blogs - even WUWT - indicate that it must have been
released in some form in March, but on scholar.google I can only find a
revised version from 3 months later which mentions in tiny print that
yes, they did use the 2002 data and that yes, Wong in 2006 proved that
the data was all wrongly calibrated.
T.
Ouroboros Rex
I don't know, but this is one of the examples used by the denialist liars
to show that "dissenters were marginalized", so I thought I'd fix that
little problem. =)