Dr. Lindzen's New Paper: 0.7°C temperature change from doubled CO2
James
Dr. Lindzen's New Paper: 0.7�C temperature change from doubled CO2
Drs. Lindzen's & Choi's new paper has been submitted to the Journal of
Geophysical Research. The paper updates and responds to criticisms of
their 2009 paper, but arrives at essentially the same conclusions. They
find on the basis of empirical satellite observations that the climate
sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is a mean of 0.7�C, implying CO2
has negative (not positive as assumed by IPCC models) feedbacks on water
vapor, and that all of the IPCC models exaggerate climate sensitivity.
This is in close agreement with other peer reviewed papers which have
examined empirical satellite and balloon data.
More here http://tinyurl.com/2d7oguk
Dawlish
I waited for the inputs on this from Bill, "Crunchy" and other deniers
who have argued blind that there was nothing wrong with Lindzen and
Choi's original 2009 paper. Do you remember how Bill Ward, especially
would not allow any crticism of this paper, arguing that the science
was absolutely correct and that the well-argued criticism by Trenberth
at al and the questions asked of Bill, on here, were dimissed with
sustained ignorance and accusations of "trolling".
Here's Lindzen and Choi's response to Trenberth's criticism, which was
essentially mine (and others') criticism of Lindzen's work (these are
Lindzen's actual words):
"This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al.
[2009], much of which was appropriate"
I'll discuss the new paper later, when I've read the whole thing and
not just the abstract, hopefully after acceptance by Bill Ward that
our criticism of his views on the 2009 paper were whollly justified.
Well, I'll discuss it anyway after the probable denialist silence that
greets this. The paper looks very interesting, but a scan of the
abstract shows that they are still only concentrating the study on the
tropics and they are still cherry-picking data; exactly the tow major
criticisms that I has before.
Dawlish
Well BIll?
Rob Dekker
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:4be44ce8$0$2444$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
Please report back to us when (if) this paper is accepted by GRL.
Even though they let the heavily flawed (as evidenced by acceptance of
Trenberth at al 2010) Lindzen and Choi 2009 through , the peer-review
process is still the best way to separate science from pseudo-science.
Rob
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quite incredible. After all that bluster about Lindzen and Choi (2009)
"proving" that AGW predictions were too high and that all the
criticism was unfounded.........not a peep. Silence from Bill and
every single denier. Similar flaws are there in this 2010 paper.It
appears that they are trying to find things to bolster their original
assertion, but the same cherry picking of data, the same focus on only
the tropics with some questionable assumptions about cloud cover and
influence over over land areas is apparent. Lindzen even resorts to
calling other scientists' work on CO2 projections "alarmist". No
wonder there's no comment on this in the various scientific sites - it
a paper that's dead in the water.
Bill is going to have to find another denialist scientist/hero who
will fill his need to prove mainstream science wrong........... whilst
global temperatures continue at record levels.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still not a peep from Bill Ward. It must be awful when your hero
confesses he wasn't quite the hero you thought he was and everyone
else was right about him.
Rob Dekker
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c93893b1-5427-4edd...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Dawlish,
I think you give Lindzen more credit that he deserves.
His two paper (Lindzen and Choi 2009 and 2010) are even much worse than you
already present here.
One of the major problems with Lindzen and Choi 2009 was that he simply
eliminated the Stephan Boltzman response (the so called "zero-feedback"
response) of Earth to any temperature change.
This creates an artificial (strong) negative feedback factor -1 in his
calculations where there is none in reality. That leads to the (completely
bogus) result that Earth apparently is virtually insensitive to CO2
emissions, with only 0.5 C increase per doubling of CO2.
This paper was heavily hyped by the AGW denial industry, and promoted by
(lord of the lies) Monckton on Glenn Beck on Fox News and Sen. Inhofe's
website. I'm not even going to give the links, since they are not worth the
Google juice.
Any way, scientifically speaking, the way in which Lindzen introduced this
elimination of zero-feedback response is shocking. I have never seen
anything like that before in any peer-reviewed paper, except in Miskolczi's
paper. It's very bluntly inserted in a formula just before the end of the
paper, and obscured by text.
After filing a "reader's response" to GRL last November, with little
immediate result, I pointed this problem out on serveral 'skeptics' blog
posts that promoted Lindzen and Choi 2009 as the "end of the AGW scam" and
similar nonsense, in November last year. One of these responses really stuck
: the one from Motl :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-energy.html
You can see my response in the "comments" section.
Motl agreed with me, and posted a new blog on this issue :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
Motl had contacted Dr. Roy Spencer, who has been Lindzen's long time ally.
But on this subject, he agreed with Motl (and me) that Lindzen had gone too
far.
Spencer promptly posted a 'rebuttal' on Lindzen and Choi 2009 :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Interesting is that Spencer (very politically correct) does not point out
the mathematical mistake in Lindzen's feedback formula, but instead re-did
the ERBE data analysis in his own way, and then reports that he did not find
the strong negative feedback that Lindzen did. He states (again very
politically correct) :
".. 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."
Besides that, Spencer clearly points out other problems in Lindzen and Choi
2009, including the (ab)use of AMIP models as comparative data. I will get
back to that issue below.
In my private email with Lindzen on this subject, Lindzen did neither deny
nor confirm the mistake I pointed out, but instead pointed me to a
conference paper, which in turn pointed to new publication, which would show
that climate feedback was truely as negative as he suggested.
Then there was Trenberth et al 2010, which clearly formalized the critisism
on Lindzen and Choi 2009,
but did a much better job than anyone else in pointing out the mediocracy of
Lindzen's ERBE analysis.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFOW_LC_GRL2010_GL042314.pdf
After solid rebuttal and re-analysis (for all to read above) Trenberth
reports :
"In all cases, the RT regression is less than the global Planck
function response, in contrast to LC09, suggesting an overall
positive feedback."
and :
"As shown here, the approach taken by LC09 is flawed,
and its results are seriously in error. LC09's choice of dates
has distorted their results and underscores the defective nature
of their analysis. Incidentally, LC09 incorrectly computed the
climate sensitivity by not allowing for the Planck function in
their feedback parameter. For their slope of ?4.5 W m?2
K?1
and using the correct equations (section 1), LC09 should
obtain a feedback parameter and climate sensitivity of ?0.125
and 0.82 K, respectively, rather than their values of ?1.1 and
0.5 K. In contrast, the case 4 (Table 1) results yield a positive
feedback parameter of 0.6 and a climate sensitivity of 2.3 K.
Moreover LC09 failed to account for the forcings in estimating
sensitivity.
"
It is absolutely clear that Lindzen and Choi 2009 is in gross error.
The interesting thing is that Lindzen and Choi 2009 without the blunt
rediculous zero-feedback error was not too bad at all. Without the lies, it
would have reported a 1.1 C per doubling feedback. Trenberth 2010 would
still have made the corrections that it did for statistical invalidation of
period analysis, but Trenberth's critisism would not have been so harsh.
So why on Earth did Lindzen resort to scientific fraudulous elimination of
zero-feedback response ?
I think the answer came in Lindzen and Choi 2010, the paper subject of this
thread.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
Here we see Lindzen first apologize for the elimination of the zero-feedback
response, and then state that his new result are essentially the same
(albeit a bit higher).
Even though this paper is not yet accepted (and if peer-review has any
meaning for GRL than it never will), since I have been at this from the
start, I took a quick peek as to why Lindzen claims that he still obtains
essentially the same result as in Lindzen and Choi 2009.
He could not possibly make the same mistake as he did in Lindzen and Choi
2009, now could he ?
Well, yes and no.
In Lindzen and Choi 2009, Lindzen added 4 W/m^2/K slope to the SW response.
That was madeup out of thin air.
So what does he do in Lindzen and Choi 2010 ?
He simply divides the radiation feedback response by 2.
I'm not kidding. It's in equation (6). He even writes :
"where the factor 2 results from the sharing of the tropical feedbacks over
the globe following the methodology of Lindzen, Chou and Hou [2001] (See
Appendix 2 for more explanation)"
When in Appendix 2 we read :
"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. This leads to the factor of 2 in Eq.
(6)"
In other words, a circular argument, which only relies on Lindzen et al
2001.
That is Lindzen's old Iris theory, which is really been debunked at least a
dozen times.
If he would not play this childish pseudo-science games, his findings (with
ERBE and CERES) would show a feedback resulting in 1.4 or 1.5 C per doubling
of CO2. That is at the low end of the IPCC estimates, but it would at least
be calculated fairly, and scientifically. And the critisism of his work
could be in the area of statistical validity, restriction to tropics etc.
Now, he is committing scientific fraud.
And why ? Why does a respectable scientist with 200+ publications resort to
fraudulently tweeking his publications by scientific fraudulent assertions ?
My guess : Because he obtains attention.
In the 'skeptics' or denier world, any publication that shows a low climate
sensitivity to CO2 is promoted and hailed as the end of AGW, and fossil-fuel
sponsored media puppets like Monckton actually will bring such messages to
the right-wing media stations to promote the anti-AGW message, using
'science' from 'scientists' like Lindzen as the 'proof'.
Even though Lindzen's '"science" is debunked, he still published LC09 just
to get a few moments of 'fame'.
And this is the more "respected" of the AGW denier scientists. The rest is
even worse.
>
> Bill is going to have to find another denialist scientist/hero who
> will fill his need to prove mainstream science wrong........... whilst
> global temperatures continue at record levels.
Incidentally, Bill was the one that first pointed me at Lindzen and Choi
2009. That was last year October, when I was fairly new on this NG. At that
time, I thought that people actually trust the scientific method as a way to
obtain truth. After Lindzen and Choi 2009, and my entire experience with
climate 'skeptics' starting with Bill on this NG, made me understand that
many people here despise science, and despise the truth of AGW that it
reveals.
Rob
Dawlish
>
> You can see my response in the "comments" section.
> Motl agreed with me, and posted a new blog on this issue :http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
>
> Motl had contacted Dr. Roy Spencer, who has been Lindzen's long time ally.
> But on this subject, he agreed with Motl (and me) that Lindzen had gone too
> far.
> Interesting is that Spencer (very politically correct) does not point out
> the mathematical mistake in Lindzen's feedback formula, but instead re-did
> the ERBE data analysis in his own way, and then reports that he did not find
> the strong negative feedback that Lindzen did. He states (again very
> politically correct) :
> ".. 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."
>
> Besides that, Spencer clearly points out other problems in Lindzen and Choi
> 2009, including the (ab)use of AMIP models as comparative data. I will get
> back to that issue below.
>
> In my private email with Lindzen on this subject, Lindzen did neither deny
> nor confirm the mistake I pointed out, but instead pointed me to a
> conference paper, which in turn pointed to new publication, which would show
> that climate feedback was truely as negative as he suggested.
>
> Then there was Trenberth et al 2010, which clearly formalized the critisism
> on Lindzen and Choi 2009,
> but did a much better job than anyone else in pointing out the mediocracy of
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Rob. Well done in seeing that error. Looking back at the maths
in the paper, you are absolutely right. I hadn't realised that even
Roy Spencer was in agreement with that too. The outgoing radiation
remains an increasing function of the temperature and would remain
unaffected by the negative feedback "found" by Lindzen and Choi.
There are changes in the 2010 submission, especially in the use of the
CERES data. I see the same assumtion flaws in this, however. Spencer
appears to feel that the new data is better, but with the same
assumptions, I can't see them being correct. Watts, of course, sees
"strong negative feedback" from the CERES data, but he saw negative
feedback from the previous data and trumpeted that on his site, as
BIll has done on here.
Nothing is remotely convincing in this. Lindzen saw his own errors,
accepted them and has tried to reproduce his original findings by a
different method. I don't think it has worked.
As I said
Dawlish
>
> You can see my response in the "comments" section.
> Motl agreed with me, and posted a new blog on this issue :http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
>
> Motl had contacted Dr. Roy Spencer, who has been Lindzen's long time ally.
> But on this subject, he agreed with Motl (and me) that Lindzen had gone too
> far.
> Interesting is that Spencer (very politically correct) does not point out
> the mathematical mistake in Lindzen's feedback formula, but instead re-did
> the ERBE data analysis in his own way, and then reports that he did not find
> the strong negative feedback that Lindzen did. He states (again very
> politically correct) :
> ".. 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."
>
> Besides that, Spencer clearly points out other problems in Lindzen and Choi
> 2009, including the (ab)use of AMIP models as comparative data. I will get
> back to that issue below.
>
> In my private email with Lindzen on this subject, Lindzen did neither deny
> nor confirm the mistake I pointed out, but instead pointed me to a
> conference paper, which in turn pointed to new publication, which would show
> that climate feedback was truely as negative as he suggested.
>
> Then there was Trenberth et al 2010, which clearly formalized the critisism
> on Lindzen and Choi 2009,
> but did a much better job than anyone else in pointing out the mediocracy of
Saw the last bit, I missed the "read more", Doh!
Yes the division by 2 I'd seen too and it depends on a calculation of
the amount of cloud cover over the extra-tropical araes of the
northern hemisphere which appears spurious. There are references to
other papers here, but you are right about the circular argument to LC
2001, which I had read.
It's the silence from his supporters that is interesting and
deafening, though Spencer is offering support on his website. I do
maintain that these 2 poor papers don't invalidate the previous work
of Lindzen, and Spencer's support doesn't invalidate his other
contributions at UAH; Spencer's work on radiation measurements from
AMSU-A helps to undermine so much of the denialist criticism of the
temperature record and the acceleration of GW since the 1970s. I'm
grateful for the public access to that work, but why he has got so
heavily into this, giving Lindzen advice, is worrying. It really is as
if this is the only scientific possibility left to the skeptics/
deniers and without Lindzen and Choi (2009/2010) what is left in the
present scientific literature? (If, as you say, 2010 get anywhere near
scientific literature; I'm not even sure the hungarian NAS will go
with this). Thus, Spencer has to show public support
Bill Ward
Not if you understand the difference between feedback and gain.
We've been over this. Your misunderstanding is not refutation.
> The interesting thing is that Lindzen and Choi 2009 without the blunt
> rediculous zero-feedback error was not too bad at all. Without the lies,
> it would have reported a 1.1 C per doubling feedback. Trenberth 2010
> would still have made the corrections that it did for statistical
> invalidation of period analysis, but Trenberth's critisism would not
> have been so harsh.
>
> So why on Earth did Lindzen resort to scientific fraudulous elimination
> of zero-feedback response ?
>
> I think the answer came in Lindzen and Choi 2010, the paper subject of
> this thread.
> http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/
Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
>
> Here we see Lindzen first apologize for the elimination of the
> zero-feedback response, and then state that his new result are
> essentially the same (albeit a bit higher).
He simplified the explanation, and added a couple of explicit visual aids
(Figs 1 & 2), for those who couldn't understand the difference between
open loop gain and feedback.
>
> Even though this paper is not yet accepted (and if peer-review has any
> meaning for GRL than it never will), since I have been at this from the
> start, I took a quick peek as to why Lindzen claims that he still
> obtains essentially the same result as in Lindzen and Choi 2009. He
> could not possibly make the same mistake as he did in Lindzen and Choi
> 2009, now could he ?
> Well, yes and no.
>
> In Lindzen and Choi 2009, Lindzen added 4 W/m^2/K slope to the SW
> response. That was madeup out of thin air.
>
> So what does he do in Lindzen and Choi 2010 ? He simply divides the
> radiation feedback response by 2. I'm not kidding. It's in equation (6).
> He even writes :
>
> "where the factor 2 results from the sharing of the tropical feedbacks
> over the globe following the methodology of Lindzen, Chou and Hou
> [2001] (See Appendix 2 for more explanation)"
>
> When in Appendix 2 we read :
> "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. This leads to the factor of 2
> in Eq. (6)"
>
> In other words, a circular argument, which only relies on Lindzen et al
> 2001.
He explains it on pg 25 and 26 of the paper. It's not circular.
In still other words, the feedback from the tropics is shared equally
with the extratropics. When you share a cookie equally with a friend,
you give him half, and keep half. When you share your feedback equally
between the tropics and the extra tropics, each gets half. It doesn't
really seem that hard to understand.
> That is Lindzen's old Iris theory, which is really been debunked at
> least a dozen times.
Nope. It's being confirmed by the recent papers.
> If he would not play this childish pseudo-science games, his findings
> (with ERBE and CERES) would show a feedback resulting in 1.4 or 1.5 C
> per doubling of CO2. That is at the low end of the IPCC estimates, but
> it would at least be calculated fairly, and scientifically. And the
> critisism of his work could be in the area of statistical validity,
> restriction to tropics etc. Now, he is committing scientific fraud.
Your lack of understanding doesn't constitute fraud on Lindzen's part.
Your accusations show far more about you than they do about Lindzen.
> And why ? Why does a respectable scientist with 200+ publications resort
> to fraudulently tweeking his publications by scientific fraudulent
> assertions ?
And why would you make such wild allegations? It seems especially ironic
after your denial that the climategate emails showed fraud.
> My guess : Because he obtains attention. In the 'skeptics' or denier
> world, any publication that shows a low climate sensitivity to CO2 is
> promoted and hailed as the end of AGW, and fossil-fuel sponsored media
> puppets like Monckton actually will bring such messages to the
> right-wing media stations to promote the anti-AGW message, using
> 'science' from 'scientists' like Lindzen as the 'proof'. Even though
> Lindzen's '"science" is debunked, he still published LC09 just to get a
> few moments of 'fame'.
I think you're projecting your own motives onto Lindzen.
> And this is the more "respected" of the AGW denier scientists. The rest
> is even worse.
>
>
>> Bill is going to have to find another denialist scientist/hero who will
>> fill his need to prove mainstream science wrong........... whilst
>> global temperatures continue at record levels.
Sorry, I don't depend on authorities. I can explain what convinces me
and why. I can even try to help you understand, but I can't make you
learn what you don't want to know.
> Incidentally, Bill was the one that first pointed me at Lindzen and Choi
> 2009. That was last year October, when I was fairly new on this NG. At
> that time, I thought that people actually trust the scientific method as
> a way to obtain truth. After Lindzen and Choi 2009, and my entire
> experience with climate 'skeptics' starting with Bill on this NG, made
> me understand that many people here despise science, and despise the
> truth of AGW that it reveals.
I can understand your need to discredit Lindzen and Miskolczi, but you're
doomed to failure until you can understand what they are doing and why.
Lindzen's new version should be easier for you to to follow, as it's been
somewhat simplified. He uses explicit diagrams which show the connection
to opamps. Also note that the new data confirms the original results.
There's no positive feedbacks to be found. Trying to find
inconsequential "errors", when you don't yet understand the basics, isn't
going to change how the climate system works. You just have to deal with
it.
I still recommend you read up on op-amp circuits to help you understand
what Lindzen's doing. Here's a link to an old National app note:
<http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-20.pdf>
S/B provides a gain of around -4, and opamps are designed for much higher
open loop gain, but the feedback principles are the same.
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:Jp-dnex4XbpZoHXW...@giganews.com...
Bill,
Kind of childish to keep on coming up with you op-amp analogy.
Here is what Lindzen has to say about Lindzen :
"This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009],
much of which was appropriate."
and
"...there has recently been a paper [Lindzen and Choi, 2009] that has
attempted this though, as we will show in this paper, the details of that
paper were, in important ways, incorrect."
and
"The choice of zero feedback flux for the tropics in Lindzen and Choi [2009]
is certainly incorrect in this respect."
and
"Accordingly, with respect to separating longwave and shortwave feedbacks,
the interpretation by Lindzen and Choi [2009] needs to be corrected."
And these are just the statements made by LINDZEN HIMSELF !
Lindzen made it very clear that he understands that he made a mistake, and
that admits to that mistake.
That I respect a lot from this scientist, and he definitely scored some
points in my book with the statements above.
I still have to see the same thing happen with Bill Ward.
Rob
Bill Ward
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Jp-dnex4XbpZoHXW...@giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 02:25:33 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c93893b1-5427-4edd-
bd0c-471...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Do you even know what analog computing is? Of course it's an analogy.
That's what opamps do. If you understood how, you might be able to
follow Lindzen's logic. Assuming you really want to.
> Here is
> what Lindzen has to say about Lindzen :
>
> "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al.
> [2009], much of which was appropriate."
I also criticized some of the details in the paper. It was a bit too
dense, and assumed too much from the reader. And that still doesn't
change the key finding: Using a robust input-output analysis, the
absence of overall positive feedback in the climate system is confirmed.
Quibbling over inconsequential details does not affect that observation.
The new paper simplifies and clarifies some of the issues where Lindzen
incorrectly assumed readers would be able to follow his reasoning.
Perhaps he didn't go far enough, as there are still those who apparently
missed the importance of an analysis based on temperature change events
rather than trying to correlate time series.
>
> and
>
> "...there has recently been a paper [Lindzen and Choi, 2009] that has
> attempted this though, as we will show in this paper, the details of
> that paper were, in important ways, incorrect."
Those "details" have no affect on the finding of no positive feedback, as
I keep explaining to you.
> and
>
> "The choice of zero feedback flux for the tropics in Lindzen and Choi
> [2009] is certainly incorrect in this respect."
I think he's he's translating between disciplines to avoid confusing the
climate folks. In analog design, "zero feedback" is "open loop gain".
There's still no overall positive feedback. I/O analysis works, no
matter what terms you use.
>
> and
>
> "Accordingly, with respect to separating longwave and shortwave
> feedbacks, the interpretation by Lindzen and Choi [2009] needs to be
> corrected."
Another detail that affects only the allocation of feedbacks, not the key
finding of no overall positive feedback.
>
> And these are just the statements made by LINDZEN HIMSELF ! Lindzen made
> it very clear that he understands that he made a mistake, and that
> admits to that mistake.
What "mistake" do you think invalidates the finding of no overall
positive feedback?
Did you notice that inclusion of the new CERES data confirms the absence
of positive feedback?
> That I respect a lot from this scientist, and he definitely scored some
> points in my book with the statements above.
>
> I still have to see the same thing happen with Bill Ward.
Sorry, I can't help until you're willing to learn.
Rob Dekker
I follow Lindzen's logic and I understand analog circuitry (I designed
analog circuits for some 10 years of my life). The analogy is fine, but it
is a strawman argument, because nobody disputes it.
There are many ways to define feedback, and climate science typically uses a
different definition than analog circuit designers. The reason is that the
Stephan Bolzman response of a planet is typically called the 'zero-feedback'
response, while in analog circuit design, such a feedback is a strong
negative feedback.
So it is important on climate science that you define exactly what your
feedback formula is.
Lindzen did that in L&C 2009, and clarifies it with the nice pictures in L&C
2010 (which by the way are already present in a conference paper that
Lindzen published in 2009).
So can you stop bringing up the op-amp analogy, because that is really not
relevant here in this discussion.
>
>> Here is
>> what Lindzen has to say about Lindzen :
>>
>> "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al.
>> [2009], much of which was appropriate."
>
> I also criticized some of the details in the paper.
Really ? Where ?
> It was a bit too
> dense, and assumed too much from the reader.
In which way ?
> And that still doesn't
> change the key finding: Using a robust input-output analysis, the
> absence of overall positive feedback in the climate system is confirmed.
>
That's not true. Trenberth clearly shows that Lindzen's method, if properly
done (robust input-output analysis) shows a positive feedback parameter of
0.6 9and a climate sensitivity of 2.3 K per doubling of CO2).
> Quibbling over inconsequential details does not affect that observation.
>
Going from 0.5 C / doubling to 2.3 K per doubling is not an "inconsequential
detail".
> The new paper simplifies and clarifies some of the issues where Lindzen
> incorrectly assumed readers would be able to follow his reasoning.
Good. I'm glad that you are now better able to understand Lindzen's
reasoning.
> Perhaps he didn't go far enough, as there are still those who apparently
> missed the importance of an analysis based on temperature change events
> rather than trying to correlate time series.
Perhaps he did not. Because the analysis based on temperature change shows a
positive feedback parameter of 0.6. Incidentally, this is fairly close to
what Dr. Spencer found in HIS analysis of the ERBE data.
Remember that analysis ? Or do you need me to post the cite for it ?
>>
>> and
>>
>> "...there has recently been a paper [Lindzen and Choi, 2009] that has
>> attempted this though, as we will show in this paper, the details of
>> that paper were, in important ways, incorrect."
>
> Those "details" have no affect on the finding of no positive feedback, as
> I keep explaining to you.
>
And you keep on being wrong, since you have not addressed Trenberth's or
Spencer's analysis.
>> and
>>
>> "The choice of zero feedback flux for the tropics in Lindzen and Choi
>> [2009] is certainly incorrect in this respect."
>
> I think he's he's translating between disciplines to avoid confusing the
> climate folks. In analog design, "zero feedback" is "open loop gain".
> There's still no overall positive feedback. I/O analysis works, no
> matter what terms you use.
I think you need to re-read L&C 2009. Lindzen was very clear in the
definition of his feedback formula.
He just made a mistake in the "zero feedback" calculation, and he admits it
here.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that ?
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Accordingly, with respect to separating longwave and shortwave
>> feedbacks, the interpretation by Lindzen and Choi [2009] needs to be
>> corrected."
>
> Another detail that affects only the allocation of feedbacks, not the key
> finding of no overall positive feedback.
>
See above. The positive feedback is quite clear from Trenberth's analysis of
ERBE data, and he even points out exactly why Lindzen got different numbers.
>>
>> And these are just the statements made by LINDZEN HIMSELF ! Lindzen made
>> it very clear that he understands that he made a mistake, and that
>> admits to that mistake.
>
> What "mistake" do you think invalidates the finding of no overall
> positive feedback?
See above. There were several mistakes. The "zero feedback" formula was
incorrect, AND the choice of start and end points of the temperature change
intervals that Lindzen choose were incorrect.
Trenberth fixed both mistakes and then shows that Lindzen would have
obtained positive feedback (+0.6).
>
> Did you notice that inclusion of the new CERES data confirms the absence
> of positive feedback?
I noticed that it is consistent with the prior time series. Which means
there is still a positive feedback.
Or are you claiming that somehow the CERES data shows such a huge negative
feedback that it un-does the positive feedback from the 1985-2000 analysis
from ERBE ?
>
>> That I respect a lot from this scientist, and he definitely scored some
>> points in my book with the statements above.
>>
>> I still have to see the same thing happen with Bill Ward.
>
> Sorry, I can't help until you're willing to learn.
And that goes both ways.
Rob
Bill Ward
Perhaps you are confusing analog circuits with analog computing via
opamps. Before digital processors, electronic models were constructed
from opamps with feedbacks tailored to solve sets of linear differential
equations.
>
> There are many ways to define feedback, and climate science typically
> uses a different definition than analog circuit designers.
That seems to be a common problem with climate "science". It helps to
confuse the unwashed. Feedback has a specific meaning, and redefining it
has no more effect than redefining a cow's tail as a leg. A cow still
has four legs.
The power of analog computers is the fact they could (can) very quickly
solve linear differential equations, which can be an analog of many
physical systems. Redefining key terms is not helpful or credible.
> The reason is
> that the Stephan Bolzman response of a planet is typically called the
> 'zero-feedback' response, while in analog circuit design, such a
> feedback is a strong negative feedback.
That's strange. The S/B equation represents a gain dependent on the bias
temperature (Gain = derivative at that point). It's not a feedback at
all. What kind of circuit did you have in mind?
> So it is important on climate science that you define exactly what your
> feedback formula is.
> Lindzen did that in L&C 2009, and clarifies it with the nice pictures in
> L&C 2010 (which by the way are already present in a conference paper
> that Lindzen published in 2009).
>
> So can you stop bringing up the op-amp analogy, because that is really
> not relevant here in this discussion.
>
>>> Here is
>>> what Lindzen has to say about Lindzen :
>>>
>>> "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al.
>>> [2009], much of which was appropriate."
>>
>> I also criticized some of the details in the paper.
>
> Really ? Where ?
>
>> It was a bit too
>> dense, and assumed too much from the reader.
>
> In which way ?
It assumed the reader could make sizeable leaps to concepts that were
obvious to L, but not to most readers, including Spencer and Trenberth.
>
>> And that still doesn't
>> change the key finding: Using a robust input-output analysis, the
>> absence of overall positive feedback in the climate system is
>> confirmed.
>>
>>
> That's not true. Trenberth clearly shows that Lindzen's method, if
> properly done (robust input-output analysis) shows a positive feedback
> parameter of 0.6 9and a climate sensitivity of 2.3 K per doubling of
> CO2).
When you redefine feedback, you kind of miss the point.
Can you quote the part you're referring to?
>> Quibbling over inconsequential details does not affect that
>> observation.
>>
>>
> Going from 0.5 C / doubling to 2.3 K per doubling is not an
> "inconsequential detail".
It is if you had to redefine "feedback".
>> The new paper simplifies and clarifies some of the issues where Lindzen
>> incorrectly assumed readers would be able to follow his reasoning.
>
> Good. I'm glad that you are now better able to understand Lindzen's
> reasoning.
>
>> Perhaps he didn't go far enough, as there are still those who
>> apparently missed the importance of an analysis based on temperature
>> change events rather than trying to correlate time series.
>
> Perhaps he did not. Because the analysis based on temperature change
> shows a positive feedback parameter of 0.6. Incidentally, this is fairly
> close to what Dr. Spencer found in HIS analysis of the ERBE data.
> Remember that analysis ? Or do you need me to post the cite for it ?
Spencer made the same mistake, in trying to do time series analysis.
Can you quote the part you're referring to?
>>> And these are just the statements made by LINDZEN HIMSELF ! Lindzen
>>> made it very clear that he understands that he made a mistake, and
>>> that admits to that mistake.
>>
>> What "mistake" do you think invalidates the finding of no overall
>> positive feedback?
>
> See above. There were several mistakes. The "zero feedback" formula was
> incorrect, AND the choice of start and end points of the temperature
> change intervals that Lindzen choose were incorrect. Trenberth fixed
> both mistakes and then shows that Lindzen would have obtained positive
> feedback (+0.6).
>
>
>> Did you notice that inclusion of the new CERES data confirms the
>> absence of positive feedback?
>
> I noticed that it is consistent with the prior time series. Which means
> there is still a positive feedback.
> Or are you claiming that somehow the CERES data shows such a huge
> negative feedback that it un-does the positive feedback from the
> 1985-2000 analysis from ERBE ?
Look at fig 7. The dflux/dSST ratio shows negative feedback
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
At least Bill has replied. Ignoring the fact that Lindzen himself
accepted most of Trenberth's criticism, which Bill has been defending
for months, he's still trying to say that Lindzen and Choi are correct
- now in their 2010 paper. Let's see if this paper actually gets
published, first of all. After the faults of the last one (Lindzen and
Choi 2009) were published, any publication will be looking at the
methodology and assumptions of their 2010 paper very closely.
I think this work is dead in the water, together with Lindzen's work
on this particular area of climate research. It doesn't require
further analysis.
What it means is that the outright deniers have even less to hold on
to. With so much evidence to the contrary, how can anyone completely
dismiss CO2 as a candidate for the main driver of the present warming?
It's just a bizarre intellectual schema.
Meteorologist
> On May 7, 6:29 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > Monday, May 3, 2010
> > Dr. Lindzen's New Paper: 0.7°C temperature change from doubled CO2
> > Drs. Lindzen's & Choi's new paper has been submitted to the Journal of
> > Geophysical Research. The paper updates and responds to criticisms of
> > their 2009 paper, but arrives at essentially the same conclusions. They
> > find on the basis of empirical satellite observations that the climate
> > sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is a mean of 0.7°C, implying CO2
> > has negative (not positive as assumed by IPCC models) feedbacks on water
> > vapor, and that all of the IPCC models exaggerate climate sensitivity.
> > This is in close agreement with other peer reviewed papers which have
> > examined empirical satellite and balloon data.
>
> > More herehttp://tinyurl.com/2d7oguk
>
> I waited for the inputs on this from Bill, "Crunchy"
WOW! Dawlish mentions me by name here
with his characteristic rudeness. So, proper
form dictates that usenetters use my legal
name - David Christainsen.
More importantly, Dawlish has got it wrong
because of his incapacity to engage in serious
usenet interaction with me. Specifically, I
AM NOT a denier and I am on the record on
this. Further, I ALWAYS recognized that
there were serious flaws in Lindzen and
Choi (2009) because of my advanced background
in statistics stemming from my days as
Dr. Thornton Roby's research assistant (Dr. Roby
was world-famous in the field of small groups
experimental psychology).
> and other deniers
> who have argued blind that there was nothing wrong with Lindzen and
> Choi's original 2009 paper. Do you remember how Bill Ward, especially
> would not allow any crticism of this paper, arguing that the science
> was absolutely correct and that the well-argued criticism by Trenberth
> at al and the questions asked of Bill, on here, were dimissed with
> sustained ignorance and accusations of "trolling".
>
> Here's Lindzen and Choi's response to Trenberth's criticism, which was
> essentially mine (and others') criticism of Lindzen's work (these are
> Lindzen's actual words):
>
> "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al.
> [2009], much of which was appropriate"
>
> I'll discuss the new paper later, when I've read the whole thing and
> not just the abstract, hopefully after acceptance by Bill Ward that
> our criticism of his views on the 2009 paper were whollly justified.
> Well, I'll discuss it anyway after the probable denialist silence that
> greets this. The paper looks very interesting, but a scan of the
> abstract shows that they are still only concentrating the study on the
> tropics and they are still cherry-picking data; exactly the tow major
> criticisms that I has before.
Let's get some NON-cherry-picking...
David Christainsen
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh.
Sorry, Crunchy kind of brings that reaction on.
PS what does this mean? "....exactly the tow major criticisms that I
has before". *>))
Meteorologist
You always were a hothead. <grin>
> PS what does this mean? "....exactly the tow major criticisms that I
> has before". *>))
"Similar flaws are there in this 2010 paper.It
appears that they are trying to find things to bolster their original
assertion, but the same cherry picking of data, the same focus on
only
the tropics with some questionable assumptions about cloud cover and
influence over over land areas is apparent. Lindzen even resorts to
calling other scientists' work on CO2 projections "alarmist". No
wonder there's no comment on this in the various scientific sites -
it
a paper that's dead in the water."
-----
Moving on, the climate science is not settled; please
see -
WHY HASN'T EARTH WARMED AS MUCH AS EXPECTED?
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2009-JA.pdf
Estimations of climate sensitivity based on top-of-atmosphere
radiation imbalance
http://atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009.pdf
Greenhouse Gases without Greenhouse Effect
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/greenhouse.pdf
David Christainsen
Bill Ward
You've got to be kidding? That's nowhere in the same league with
Lindzen's work.
<quote>
This study explores a potential method to reduce climate feedback
uncertainties by considering the mean transient climate states and
addressing previously mentioned issues within the idealized energy
balance models. The climate model used here is both complicated enough to
account for major physical processes of the climate with an increasing
external forcing and simple enough to understand the physics of the
results and analyzed physical processes.
<\quote>
The paper estimates the response of a climate model, not the actual
climate system. Lindzen measured the actual response of the tropics, not
a model. Of course models have positive feedback - it's implicit in the
assumptions.
> Greenhouse Gases without Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/greenhouse.pdf
This one is a lot closer. It compares a version including LTE, as
Miskolczi does, to the IPCC radiation-only dogma:
<quote>
Conclusion
We have considered two basic simplistic models for global climate, one
model with radiation only based on Stefan-Boltzmann’s Radiation Law used
by IPCC to determine a basic value of climate sensitivity or global
warming of 1 C upon doubling of CO2 , and another model with conduction
only based on Fourier’s Law with a climate sensitivity a factor 5 − 10
smaller.
Neither model includes heat transport from convection-evaporation/
condensation of crucial importance in the real atmosphere, and thus
neither model can be used to draw any conclusion about climate
sensitivity. Or turned the other way around: If Stefan-Boltzmann
radiation is viewed as a valid model as IPCC does, then Fourier
conduction can equally well be viewed as a valid model, with a factor 10
smaller climate sensitivity. One can also easily argue that the Fourier
model should be closer to reality.
The alarmism of IPCC is based on an estimated global warming of 1 C
derived from a simplistic radiation model which does not describe
relevant physics, and thus lacks scientific rationale.
<\quote>
Not bad.
Dawlish
> smaller.
>
> Neither model includes heat transport from convection-evaporation/
> condensation of crucial importance in the real atmosphere, and thus
> neither model can be used to draw any conclusion about climate
> sensitivity. Or turned the other way around: If Stefan-Boltzmann
> radiation is viewed as a valid model as IPCC does, then Fourier
> conduction can equally well be viewed as a valid model, with a factor 10
> smaller climate sensitivity. One can also easily argue that the Fourier
> model should be closer to reality.
>
> The alarmism of IPCC is based on an estimated global warming of 1 C
> derived from a simplistic radiation model which does not describe
> relevant physics, and thus lacks scientific rationale.
>
> <\quote>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you now think of Lindzen's 2009 paper; your championing of it
for months and Lindzen's own acceptance of it's flaws that were
pointed out by Trenberth and several on here, at length, while you
aregued and argued that there were no flaws?