"Bill Ward" <bw...
@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 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 !!
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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 . 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.
Nice try Bill.
I look 'below' and I see Lindzen's text which I quoted to you myself that
answers the question.
Lindzen is aware that the negative slope he puts on the models plots is
Still, his figure 2 (which shows these slopes that are physically 'unreal')
are now put out there in right-wing media as 'proof' that global warming is
a hoax. It's sad. So sad.
>>>> 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'
>> Actually Lindzen explains that nicely himself in the last sentence of
>> paragraph  :
>> "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
>> 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.
Bill, you are a hard nut to crack.
Which part about the slope (delta OLR/delta SST) feedback factor (in
Lindzen's own words) did you not understand ?
>>>> 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  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.
He got you good...
OK. Please read this carefully, since I spend some time thinking about how
to exactly word this.
Paragraph 12 only talks about delta-flux/delta-SST (no distiction between SW
Now look at formula 2, and think what it would take to get NO feedback in
You see that no feedback means that F (- delta-flux/delta-SST) is zero.
Now if, with delta-flux, he means the OBSERVED change in outbound radiation
for a change in SST, that does not really make sense. Because without
feedback, Stephan Boltzmann tells that the outbound LW radiation will
increase by 4 W/m^2/K. Because of the change in sign between F and
delta-flux/delta-SST, the F for LW would increase by 4 W/m^2/K even for a
'non-feedback' situation. He knows that, so he 'corrects' the F factor by
subtracting 4 W/m^2/K to the F for OLR radiation in paragraph 13. That's all
cool, and although somewhat confusing, the formula is now consistent : if
delta-OLR/delta-SST is 4 W/m^2/K and delta-SW/delta-SST is 0, then the
overall factor F would be 4 + 0 -4 = 0, which is exactly right for no
feedback, as he states himself in the sentence :
"In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0), DOLR/DSST less than 4 W m!2 K!1
represents positive feedback; DOLR/DSST more than 4 W m!2K!1 represents
But where he goes wring is that he then adds that 4 W/m^2/K to the F of SW.
That is completely out of the blue, and makes everything wrong. With that,
if delta-SW/delta-SST is 0 (no SW feedback), then FSW become 4 which is
feedback factor -1, which is in direct contradiction with the sentence that
FSW==0 means no SW feedback.
Note that this is the ONLY mistake he makes in the formula's, and that he
hides it by writing the truth in the next sentence. I guess he hopes that
people that read fomula's do not read sentences and visa versa.
Too bad. I read both and they directly contradict each other.
>> 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  and .
>>>> 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  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 .
Sure, but paragraph 18 is a distraction. Where exactly the lack of OLR or SW
feedback comes from (high or low clouds) is not the issue. The issue is the
lack of feedback measurable in the ERBE data.
>> 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  and , 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  :
>> "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 sign change is OK. Subtracting an arbitrary 4 W/m^2/K from SW is not.
That's called fraud.
>> The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and in
>> the formula.
> And explained in the text.
In science, it is not possible to correct a mistake in a formula with 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.
I do not know these other guys.
I only know that this paper from Lindzen and Choi contains a monumental
mistake which nulifies it's conclusions.