>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

>>>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> [Rob]
>>>>> OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
>>>>> essentially like this :

>>>>> ---

>>>>> I looked at the Lindzen and Choi paper in detail. I'm not a climate
>>>>> expert, so I may be wrong here, but I found what seems to be a
>>>>> fundamental error in reasoning in the paper.

>>>>> Lindzen did a correlation between changes in outbound radiation (OLW
>>>>> + SW) from ERBE, against natural changes in sea-surface temperature.
>>>>> He found a reasonable correlation that shows that total outbound
>>>>> radiation goes up at about 4 W/m^2 per K increase in sea surface
>>>>> temperature. In Figure 3 of the paper, Lindzen shows that the
>>>>> measured 4 W/m^2/K is almost exclusively caused by an increase in
>>>>> long-wave (OLW) radiation. The the flux for SW is virtually
>>>>> independent of sea-surface temperatures (delta-flux/delta-SST is
>>>>> close to 0 W/m^2/K for SW).

>>>>> Stephan Boltzmann's law says this (increase of OLW radiation at a
>>>>> slope of 4 W/m^2/K) is exactly what you would expect from a planet
>>>>> radiating at around 255 K, as long as there is no feedback mechanism
>>>>> in place.

>>>>> Still, somehow Lindzen claims that this finding implies a strong
>>>>> negative feedback, and even claims that the 'models' predict a
>>>>> negative slope (a decrease in radiation if sea surface temperatures
>>>>> go up). To obtain a reduction in radiation after an increase in Sea
>>>>> Surface Temperatures,  is essentially physically impossible, with or
>>>>> without feedback mechanisms.

>>>>> I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
>>>>> radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in
>>>>> surface temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback
>>>>> factor scale in 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, so that the 0
>>>>> W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

>>>>> 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 (feedback factor 0) at least for
>>>>> short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

>>>>> ---

>>>>> [Bill]
>>>>> That should be interesting.  Keep us posted on the response.

>>>> Got a reply today that my letter is in the hands of the editors.

>>>>>> ********************

>>>>>> Still,Lindzen reports in Figure 3 that the ERBE data implies a
>>>>>> feedback factor of -1, and this paper is now used as proof that
>>>>>> there is strong negative feedback in place, and that thus the

>>>>>> Where did that all come from ? That was not in the ERBE data !!

>>>>>> [Bill]
>>>>>> Your analysis didn't find it. Perhaps Lindzen's analysis was able to
>>>>>> reduce the noise further than yours.

>>>>> I don't think the problems are with the data. It's in the reasoning.

>>>> Bill.
>>>> What do YOU think about Lindzen's paper ? Lindzen found a 4 W/m^2/C
>>>> slope from ERBE, which is to be expected for a system without
>>>> (significant) feedback. Right ?

>>> He took that into account on page 4 paragraph [11].  I'd quote it, but
>>> it's pdf.  He  takes the actual inverse derivative of the Planck
>>> function at 255k and arrives at 0.925K dT/dQ, close enough to your 1K.

>> Exactly. He is correct there. For the non-feedback case, Earth radiates
>> 4 W/m^2 per K extra.

>>>> His Figure 2 shows that 4 W/m^2/C in the ERBE data, and also shows
>>>> that the 'models' predict that radiation would go down if SST would go
>>>> up. How can the models predict a reduction in outbound data when SST
>>>> goes up ?

>>> That would be the positive feedback they all assume.  Remember the ERBE
>>> is looking down.  Models assume the high tropospheric WV increases with
>>> SST, so they reduce the outgoing LWIR accordingly.

> You must have missed the above.  It directly answers your question, which
> you appear to ignore below.

>>>> Even the simplest model (Stephan Boltzmann equation) predicts a 4
>>>> W/m^2 increase in radiation for every degree C increase in SST. If the
>>>> models truely would predict a REDUCTION in radiation for an INCREASE
>>>> in surface temps, then that would imply a runaway 'greenhouse' effect.
>>>> Right ?

>>> Well, that's correct at the surface, but the ERBE is looking down at
>>> TOA values.  According to the models, that LWIR should be reduced by
>>> increased WV in the upper troposphere.  According to the ERBE, it's
>>> not, which is consistent with actual radiosonde measurements that
>>> confirm the upper troposphere has been drying instead of humidifying.

>> Reduction (below 4 and above 0 W/m^2/K) indicates positive feedback.
>> Increase (above 4 W/m^2/K) would indicate a negative feedback. Any
>> reduction (below 0 W/m^2/K or a negative slope) indicates infinite
>> positive feedback.

>> Think about it. I set a fire for a day on the surface, and this causes
>> the surface to heat up, which (with a negative response to increased
>> surface temps) cause a reduction in Earth's outbound radiation. This
>> reduction will heat up the planet, which in turn causes less radiation,
>> which in turn heats up the planet, ad infinium... Runaway 'heathouse'
>> effect.

>> Actually Lindzen explains that nicely himself in the last sentence of
>> paragraph [13] :

>> "In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0), DOLR/DSST less than 4 W m!2K!1
>> represents positive feedback; DOLR/DSST more than 4 W m!2K!1 represents
>> negative feedback; DOLR/DSST less than 0 W m!2K!1 represents infinite
>> feedback,
>> which is physically unreal."

>> So it is aware of this effect, and still he puts the 'models' result in
>> Figure 2 at a negative slope (infinite positive feedback). So either he
>> used the models incorrectly, or he deliberatly 'forgot' about the 4
>> W/m^2/K slope increase so that the models would look really bad against
>> reality. Which one do you think it is ?

> I think you are confusing loop gain G with feedback.  The G factor (~4)
> is approximately constant over the small deviations in operating range.
> The feedback is an additional factor F, depending on SST.  See equations
> 1,2 and 3.

> Read paragraph 12 more carefully, especially, "The negative sign pertains
> because increased outgoing flux means energy loss."  If Lindzen wanted to
> be devious, I don't think he would have been so explicit.

>>>> And then what do you think about Figure 3, pane 2 ? Shortwave
>>>> radiation. ERBE data showed (according to Lindzen and my own analysis
>>>> as well) that there is little correlation between shortwave radiation
>>>> and SST changes. In summary : If sea surface temps change, outbound
>>>> shortwave does not chance much. So, shortwave radiation is not
>>>> affected much, and ERBE data shows 0 W/m^2/C. That means that there is
>>>> no feedback to speak of that comes from shortwave radiation.

>>> See paragraph [18] on page 5.

>> In that paragraph he does not say that there is SW feedback or not, nor
>> does he say anything about SW measurements from ERBE. In fact, he is
>> particulary vague about SW measurements from ERBE throughout the paper.

>> His ERBE SW measurements ONLY show up in Figure 3, pane 2. Look at the
>> left scale, and the ERBE horizontal error bars. It's right around 0
>> W/m^2/K !
>> That means that he found that SW is not affected by SST changes. In my
>> book, that means NO feedback from SW. But according to Lindzen, this
>> means a feedback factor of -1 (see right scale or Figure 3, pane 2).

>> Tada ! Caught his error right there.

> I don't think so.  Read paragraph 12.

>> To top it off, he plots the models (which predict virtually no feedback
>> for SW) on the 'feedback' (right) scale, so that they look completely
>> out of line with ERBE. Pretty clever deception if you ask me.

>>>> Now, how can it be that the 0 W/m^2/C left scale lines up with -1
>>>> feedback factor on the right scale ?

>>> Because he explicitly separated the T^4 effect as an internal gain, not
>>> a feedback. See paragraphs [11] and [12].

>>>> And then Lindzen claims that most feedback is from shortwave... While
>>>> in fact ERBE shortwave data shows that there is as SW effect on
>>>> feedback as there is from me typing this post.

>>> See paragraph [18] on page 5.  ERBE can only measure the radiation, it
>>> can't tell where it originated.

>> Sure it can. It distinguishes very nicely between OLW and SW.

> That's wavelength, not altitude.  That's why he mentions lidar and radar
> for height resolution in [18].

>>ERBE
>> showed 4 W/m^2/K increase of OLW (indicating no OLW radiation) and 0
>> W/m^2/K increase of SW  (indicating no SW feedback either).

>>>> How do YOU figure that he reasoned to get to a -1 feedback factor (and
>>>> the remainder of his conclusions) for something that does not change
>>>> with SST's ?

>>> In paragraphs [12] and [13], he covers that in detail.  What
>>> specifically did you find wrong with his logic?  It looks OK to me.

>> OK. So far we found his 4 W/m^2/K mistake only in the plots. Where did
>> he go wrong in the formula's ? Again, very subtle, and hard to spot the
>> error. But here it is :
>> Paragraph [13] :

>> "When considering LW and SW fluxes separately, F is replaced by FLW +
>> FSW. In the observed DOLR/DSST, the nonfeedback change of 4 W /m^2 /K is
>> included. "

>> So far so good (that non-feedback factor of 4 W/m^2/K applies to OLW
>> only since Stephan Boltzmann deals with OLW only). But then :

>> "Also DSWR/DSST needs to be balanced with DOLR/DSST. From the
>> consideration, FLW = -DOLR/DSST + 4 and FSW = - DSWR/DSST - 4."

>> Right there : He subtracted 4 W/m^2/K from the FSW ! No explanation for
>> that, and absolutely incorrect.
>> That's how he got a feedback factor of -1 for SW while SW is not
>> affected by SST changes.

> See above for the difference between open loop gain and feedback, and the
> necessity for the sign change.  It looks consistent to me.

>> The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and in
>> the formula.

> And explained in the text.

>> Why he did this ?
>> His findings actually show feedback factor 0, which is much lower than
>> IPCC's factor 3, albeit that his analysis covered a few months only, and
>> IPCC's factor 3 is estimated to show up only after many decades of
>> consistent forcing.
>> I have my thoughts why he inserted this crucial 4 W/m^2/K "mistake", but
>> I won't go into that now.

>> All I can say is that he had me fooled for a while, and apparently also
>> his paper's reviewers.

> Congratulations, if true.  But I wouldn't break out the champagne just
> yet.  You seem to be assuming Lindzen works under the same mindset as
> Hansen, Briffa and Jones, et. al.