Lindzen and climate feedback
Rob Dekker
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
It is the continuation of a discussion that was out of place under a
different subject.
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:paqdnbz9kLXQXFjX...@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:23:37 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
........
>>> Have you seen this?:
>>>
>>> <http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/
> lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf>
>>>
>>> It makes a pretty good case for negative feedbacks in reality. The
>>> models show positive feedback, but don't match the satellite data.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for the link. I did not see this study before. Interesting note :
>>
>> "Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave
>> radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave
>> radiation."
>>
>> Interesting is that increased water temp causes increased SHORTwave
>> radiation.
>
> I just assumed it's the satellite seeing reflected SW from the additional
> cloud cover when the water is warmer. It must originate from the Sun -
> the Earth doesn't emit much SW.
>
>> I've seen that before. In Wong's paper :
>>
>> http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%
> 2FJCLI3838.1&ct=1
>> That is Wong et al, 2006, which also does a SW analysis using ERBE over
>> the same 1985-1999 period !
>
> All I get is the abstract and a paywall. Can you excerpt the relevant
> parts under fair use?
>
Here is the entire Wong et al (2006) paper :
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdf
>> Here is the picture presented in this paper :
>> http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/
> ed3rev1_comparison.jpg
>>
>> It shows that SW radiation is highly variable, even more so than LW
>> radiation.
>> Specifically, the SW radiation spikes around 1991/1992 are quite
>> difficult to explain if SW radiation is related to ocean temps alone.
>>
>> Moreover, long term shows actually a DECREASE of SW radiation over the
>> 1985-1999 period (indicating positive feedback). This as opposed to the
>> paper you present, which shows an INCREASE over the same period, using
>> the same satellite measurements.
>
> Not having the Wong paper, I'll have to trust the reviewers. Lindzen was
> later, so I assume he's aware of Wong.
>
>> So these two papers seem to contradict each other using the same data.
>> Now either the ocean temperatures actually cooled over the 85-99 period,
>> or I misinterpret the data presented here, or there is something really
>> weird going on between these two papers. Alternatively, there is so much
>> noise in the data that we cannot draw any conclusions at this time.
>
> We can put limits on the feedback. It doesn't seem to be positive, from
> the sensitivity plots in Lindzen. The models assumed positive feedback,
> and they had a negative correlation to the actual data.
>
OK. I read Lindzen's paper in detail. Here are my findings :
Lindzen is twisting the data from ERBE. In fact, he makes some pretty big
mistakes that falsify his conclusions.
Here we go : Lindzen claims there is negative climate feedback visible from
the correlation between the NET flux of outbound radiation versus the SST
(sea surface temperature) in the tropics.
He presents SST info in figure 1a, top-left corner graph. That is data from
the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (his quote). I have
questions about that graph, but that is not relevant for what follows.
He presents outbound radiation flux from the ERBE rev.3 data set, just like
Wong et. al.
The LW ERBE data is in figure 1a, second graph from the left top (below the
SST graph).
The SW ERBE data is in figure 1b, first graph in the left top corner.
The NET flux -(LW+SW) is not given in his paper (not sure why not, because
he basis his conclusions on the NET graph).
However, Wong et al (2006) (see link above) gives all three graphs in figure
2 of Wong's paper.
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdf
Here is an amplified version of that graph :
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wongetal2006jclimateoceanhtstorage1.jpg
Now pay very close attention to the bottom (NET) graph in this picture.
And compare that to the SST graph (figure 1a, top left corner) in Lindzen's
paper.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
At first sight, there does not seem to be ANY correlation between these two
(NET and SST) graphs.
Maybe there is a little bit of long term negative correlation (indicating
positive climate feedback), but the anomalies of the 1988 and 1998 in SST
and 1992 in the ERBE graph make any correlation difficult.
However, Lindzen presents correlation data in Fugure 2 of his paper, top
left corner, to show the 'negative' climate feedback that he bases his
conclusions on.
Note that he uses only 13 data points for that picture.
Also note that these 13 data points are incorrectly placed !!!
For example, the data point in the top-right corner is a +0.7 C / +5 W/m^2
data point.
In the SST graph, there is only one +0.7 W/m^2 point, which is in 1998.
However, in 1998, the ERBE NET graph shows a close to 0 W/m^2 (and possibly
negative) radiation delta. So that point needs to move way south in his
Figure 2.
Two other points, on the other side, are at -0.5 C. The only points at -0.5
C in the SST graph are 1989 and 1985. However, the ERBE graoh shows close to
0 or mildly positive NET radiation flux for these years, while Lidzen puts
them at -1 and -3 W/m^2.
So the points in his graph need to go up north.
Lindzen obviously made some major mistakes in putting this Fugure 2,
top-left corner picture in place.
When all points are adjusted to the ERBE rev 3 data set, then his picture
will look very much like any of the other pictures (from the models) that he
so prominently displays as well.
The bottom line is that the negative feedback that he claims is simply not
there in the ERBE rev 3 data set.
I personally believe that there is too much noise in these signals to draw
any conclusion from. The SST varies over +/- 0.5 C and the ERBE data set
shows variability over 2-3 W/m^2 due to simple weather pattern changes
(ignoring the -6 W/m^2 Pinatubo 1991 eruption anomaly). So to draw
conclusions on climate sensitivity from such noisy signals seems fairly
futile from a scientific point of view.
However, Lindzen could have at least get the data from his own graphs
correct. That blunt inconsistency that invalidates his own conclusions is a
very grave mistake for any scientific publication.
Rob
Rob Dekker
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
It is the continuation of a discussion that was out of place under a
different subject.
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:paqdnbz9kLXQXFjX...@giganews.com...
Bill Ward
> This thread discusses a paper published by Lindzen et al. :
> http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/
lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
> It is the continuation of a discussion that was out of place under a
> different subject.
>
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:paqdnbz9kLXQXFjX...@giganews.com... ........
>>>> Have you seen this?:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/
>> lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It makes a pretty good case for negative feedbacks in reality. The
>>>> models show positive feedback, but don't match the satellite data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the link. I did not see this study before.
>>> Interesting note:
>>>
>>> "Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave
>>> radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave
>>> radiation."
>>>
>>> Interesting is that increased water temp causes increased SHORTwave
>>> radiation.
>>
>> I just assumed it's the satellite seeing reflected SW from the
>> additional cloud cover when the water is warmer. It must originate
>> from the Sun - the Earth doesn't emit much SW.
Does your lack of comment indicate agreement?
>>> I've seen that before. In Wong's paper :
>>>
>>> http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%
>> 2FJCLI3838.1&ct=1
>>> That is Wong et al, 2006, which also does a SW analysis using ERBE
>>> over the same 1985-1999 period !
>>
>> All I get is the abstract and a paywall. Can you excerpt the relevant
>> parts under fair use?
>>
>>
> Here is the entire Wong et al (2006) paper :
> http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdf
Thanks. That helps a lot.
>
>>> Here is the picture presented in this paper :
>>> http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/
>>> ed3rev1_comparison.jpg
>>>
>>> It shows that SW radiation is highly variable, even more so than LW
>>> radiation.
>>> Specifically, the SW radiation spikes around 1991/1992 are quite
>>> difficult to explain if SW radiation is related to ocean temps alone.
Perhaps reflection from high particulates?
Visual correlations are notoriously unreliable. That's what signal
analysis is for.
>
> However, Lindzen presents correlation data in Fugure 2 of his paper, top
> left corner, to show the 'negative' climate feedback that he bases his
> conclusions on.
> Note that he uses only 13 data points for that picture.
Also note he explains why:
<Begin quote from page 2>
The next obvious question is whether fluctuations with
the time scales associated with feedback processes exist in the
observed data and models. Figures 1a and 1b show that such
fluctuations (DFlux) are amply available in OLR and SWR,
although data are not currently available in some periods in
1993 and 1999. However, it is possible that many of the very
small fluctuations are simply noise. Restricting oneself to
fluctuations in SST (DSST) which exceed 0.2 K still leaves
nine cases in the available data (red and blue lines in
Figure 1a). Note that appreciable fluctuations of the anoma-
lies are due to El Nino events (in 1982/83, 1986/87, 1991/92, ̃
and 1997/98), La Nina events (in 1988/90), and Pinatubo eruption (in
1991) [Wielicki et al., 2002a; Wong et al., 2006].
<end quote>
Also see the explanation that follows and table 1 on page 4 to see why he
picked those points. None of the statistical analyses resulted in a
positive slope.
> Also note that
> these 13 data points are incorrectly placed !!! For example, the data
> point in the top-right corner is a +0.7 C / +5 W/m^2 data point.
> In the SST graph, there is only one +0.7 W/m^2 point, which is in 1998.
> However, in 1998, the ERBE NET graph shows a close to 0 W/m^2 (and
> possibly negative) radiation delta. So that point needs to move way
> south in his Figure 2.
> Two other points, on the other side, are at -0.5 C. The only points at
> -0.5 C in the SST graph are 1989 and 1985. However, the ERBE graoh shows
> close to 0 or mildly positive NET radiation flux for these years, while
> Lidzen puts them at -1 and -3 W/m^2.
> So the points in his graph need to go up north.
The points are selected to have a minimum of .1K difference to eliminate
high frequency noise. Note the axes are dflux and dsst. Look at the red
and blue sections in the fig 1a SST graph. I believe that represents the
0.2 max delta he mentions in the quote above.
Table one shows the thirteen (0.1K) point case he chose had slightly
better statistics.
> Lindzen obviously made some major mistakes in putting this Fugure 2,
> top-left corner picture in place.
I think you may be misinterpreting it. It seems to me to be exactly what
he says it is.
> When all points are adjusted to the ERBE rev 3 data set, then his
> picture will look very much like any of the other pictures (from the
> models) that he so prominently displays as well.
>
> The bottom line is that the negative feedback that he claims is simply
> not there in the ERBE rev 3 data set.
Where do you find a direct correlation between SW and SST in Wong? You
need both to see the negative feedback.
> I personally believe that there is too much noise in these signals to
> draw any conclusion from. The SST varies over +/- 0.5 C and the ERBE
> data set shows variability over 2-3 W/m^2 due to simple weather pattern
> changes (ignoring the -6 W/m^2 Pinatubo 1991 eruption anomaly). So to
> draw conclusions on climate sensitivity from such noisy signals seems
> fairly futile from a scientific point of view.
That's why he reduced the noise by focusing on the ratio of the slopes.
Think of it as a crude but clever bandpass filter.
> However, Lindzen could have at least get the data from his own graphs
> correct. That blunt inconsistency that invalidates his own conclusions
> is a very grave mistake for any scientific publication.
I think you need to read the Lindzen paper again, focusing a little more
on the details. Remember, he cites Wong, so he's aware of the issues
raised.
Bill Ward
Please see response in alt.global-warming.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Visual correlations are notoriously unreliable. That's what signal
> analysis is for.
These words of wisdom are needed here in the
alt.gobal-warming newsgroup. The deniers
here don't know how to compute correlations
and regressions. They often 'see' phantoms.
Earl Evleth
bc16ab84-0642-4a91...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Roger
Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> The deniers
> here don't know how to compute correlations
> and regressions.
Curious since they are always regressive
Rob
I did not want to make any assumptions, but now that you mention it,
you bring up an issue that I pointed out in some of our previous
discussions :
If you look at the ERBE graphs, you see that SW radiation became lower
in intensity over the decade(s).
So if you assume that SW radiation relates to cloud cover (as you
mention above), then even though the planet's climate and ocean waters
became warmer over that period, the amount of cloud coverage became
smaller.
>
> >>> I've seen that before. In Wong's paper :
>
> >>>http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%
> >> 2FJCLI3838.1&ct=1
> >>> That is Wong et al, 2006, which also does a SW analysis using ERBE
> >>> over the same 1985-1999 period !
>
> >> All I get is the abstract and a paywall. Can you excerpt the relevant
> >> parts under fair use?
>
> > Here is the entire Wong et al (2006) paper :
> >http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdf
>
> Thanks. That helps a lot.
>
>
>
> >>> Here is the picture presented in this paper :
> >>>http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/
> >>> ed3rev1_comparison.jpg
>
> >>> It shows that SW radiation is highly variable, even more so than LW
> >>> radiation.
> >>> Specifically, the SW radiation spikes around 1991/1992 are quite
> >>> difficult to explain if SW radiation is related to ocean temps alone.
>
> Perhaps reflection from high particulates?
>
Probably, from the Pinatubo eruption, most likely...
> >http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f20.pdfHere is an amplified
> > version of that graph :
> >http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/
>
> wongetal2006jclimateoceanhtstorage1.jpg
>
> > Now pay very close attention to the bottom (NET) graph in this picture.
> > And compare that to the SST graph (figure 1a, top left corner) in
> > Lindzen's paper.
> >http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/
>
> lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
>
>
>
> > At first sight, there does not seem to be ANY correlation between these
> > two (NET and SST) graphs.
> > Maybe there is a little bit of long term negative correlation
> > (indicating positive climate feedback), but the anomalies of the 1988
> > and 1998 in SST and 1992 in the ERBE graph make any correlation
> > difficult.
>
> Visual correlations are notoriously unreliable. That's what signal
> analysis is for.
Agreed. As long as the correct data is used...
>
>
>
> > However, Lindzen presents correlation data in Fugure 2 of his paper, top
> > left corner, to show the 'negative' climate feedback that he bases his
> > conclusions on.
> > Note that he uses only 13 data points for that picture.
>
> Also note he explains why:
>
> <Begin quote from page 2>
>
> The next obvious question is whether fluctuations with
> the time scales associated with feedback processes exist in the
> observed data and models. Figures 1a and 1b show that such
> fluctuations (DFlux) are amply available in OLR and SWR,
> although data are not currently available in some periods in
> 1993 and 1999. However, it is possible that many of the very
> small fluctuations are simply noise. Restricting oneself to
> fluctuations in SST (DSST) which exceed 0.2 K still leaves
> nine cases in the available data (red and blue lines in
> Figure 1a). Note that appreciable fluctuations of the anoma-
> lies are due to El Nino events (in 1982/83, 1986/87, 1991/92, ̃
> and 1997/98), La Nina events (in 1988/90), and Pinatubo eruption (in
> 1991) [Wielicki et al., 2002a; Wong et al., 2006].
>
> <end quote>
>
> Also see the explanation that follows and table 1 on page 4 to see why he
> picked those points. None of the statistical analyses resulted in a
> positive slope.
Sure. But I cannot possibly find the data points that he claims are
responsible for the slope. See here again :
>
> > Also note that
> > these 13 data points are incorrectly placed !!! For example, the data
> > point in the top-right corner is a +0.7 C / +5 W/m^2 data point.
> > In the SST graph, there is only one +0.7 W/m^2 point, which is in 1998.
> > However, in 1998, the ERBE NET graph shows a close to 0 W/m^2 (and
> > possibly negative) radiation delta. So that point needs to move way
> > south in his Figure 2.
> > Two other points, on the other side, are at -0.5 C. The only points at
> > -0.5 C in the SST graph are 1989 and 1985. However, the ERBE graoh shows
> > close to 0 or mildly positive NET radiation flux for these years, while
> > Lidzen puts them at -1 and -3 W/m^2.
> > So the points in his graph need to go up north.
>
> The points are selected to have a minimum of .1K difference to eliminate
> high frequency noise. Note the axes are dflux and dsst. Look at the red
> and blue sections in the fig 1a SST graph. I believe that represents the
> 0.2 max delta he mentions in the quote above.
>
> Table one shows the thirteen (0.1K) point case he chose had slightly
> better statistics.
>
> > Lindzen obviously made some major mistakes in putting this Fugure 2,
> > top-left corner picture in place.
>
> I think you may be misinterpreting it. It seems to me to be exactly what
> he says it is.
Let's try this again :
Just for the fun of it, focus on the first 'extreme' point in the
right-top corner of his ERBE delta-flux/SST graph : +5W/m^2 delta-
flux / +0.7 C delta-SST.
Try to find that point in the data sets : +0.7 C delta-SST is only
occurring in 1998 (according to his own SST graph).
Then find the delta-flux in the NET graph for 1998 from ERBE edition
3 :
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wongetal2006jclimateoceanhtstorage1.jpg
and you find something close to 0 W/m^2 delta-flux. Certainly not +5W/
m^2 !!
Similar problems with the 2 or 3 other extreme data points that
ultimately determine the slope and 'fitting' numbers from table 1.
So there is something very, very fishy here..
>
> > When all points are adjusted to the ERBE rev 3 data set, then his
> > picture will look very much like any of the other pictures (from the
> > models) that he so prominently displays as well.
>
> > The bottom line is that the negative feedback that he claims is simply
> > not there in the ERBE rev 3 data set.
>
> Where do you find a direct correlation between SW and SST in Wong? You
> need both to see the negative feedback.
Wong did not make any SST analysis, nor any negative feedback
analysis.
He only mentioned that the radiation numbers match accurately with
heat-storage numbers, and that the radiation numbers match with
existing models and current climate predictions from that.
I think I have mentioned once that negative feedback can be deduced
from the the ERBE SW radiation reduction measurements : Climate
warmer : less SW radiation. Thus negative feedback.
>
> > I personally believe that there is too much noise in these signals to
> > draw any conclusion from. The SST varies over +/- 0.5 C and the ERBE
> > data set shows variability over 2-3 W/m^2 due to simple weather pattern
> > changes (ignoring the -6 W/m^2 Pinatubo 1991 eruption anomaly). So to
> > draw conclusions on climate sensitivity from such noisy signals seems
> > fairly futile from a scientific point of view.
>
> That's why he reduced the noise by focusing on the ratio of the slopes.
> Think of it as a crude but clever bandpass filter.
>
> > However, Lindzen could have at least get the data from his own graphs
> > correct. That blunt inconsistency that invalidates his own conclusions
> > is a very grave mistake for any scientific publication.
>
> I think you need to read the Lindzen paper again, focusing a little more
> on the details. Remember, he cites Wong, so he's aware of the issues
> raised.- Hide quoted text -
I read it. In great detail.
The slope that he calculates (from ERBE and SST data) depends on a
very small set of measurement points, which do not seem to be
correctly determined (see above).
Consequently, I do not trust this paper one bit.
Rob
Last Post
> This thread discusses a paper published by Lindzen et al. :http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.20...
> Here is an amplified version of that graph :http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wongetal2006jclimateoc...
>
> Now pay very close attention to the bottom (NET) graph in this picture.
> And compare that to the SST graph (figure 1a, top left corner) in Lindzen's
•• Bullshit
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html
Bill Ward
[...]
[BW]
>> I think you need to read the Lindzen paper again, focusing a little
>> more on the details. Remember, he cites Wong, so he's aware of the
>> issues raised.- Hide quoted text -
[Rob]
> I read it. In great detail.
> The slope that he calculates (from ERBE and SST data) depends on a very
> small set of measurement points, which do not seem to be correctly
> determined (see above).
In table 1, he shows a dozen statistical analyses of scenarios ranging
from 3 to 176 intervals. All show negative feedback. He selected the one
(13 points) with the lowest error as the best estimate, which seems OK to
me.
> Consequently, I do not trust this paper one bit.
Do you understand his logic? Roughly, he's using edges in the natural
driving function to see the response of the system in the frequency range
of interest. By focusing on larger events, he can improve the in-band
S/N ratio.
Put on your system analysis hat and read it more carefully. The fact
that all of the actual data analyses show negative feedback, while all
the models show positive feedback seems rather convincing to me.
> Rob
Sorry to snip so much, but this post has the Google property that
prevents pan from editing it the normal way.
Rob
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:55:50 -0700, Rob wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> [BW]
>
> >> I think you need to read the Lindzen paper again, focusing a little
> >> more on the details. Remember, he cites Wong, so he's aware of the
> >> issues raised.- Hide quoted text -
>
> [Rob]
>
> > I read it. In great detail.
> > The slope that he calculates (from ERBE and SST data) depends on a very
> > small set of measurement points, which do not seem to be correctly
> > determined (see above).
>
> In table 1, he shows a dozen statistical analyses of scenarios ranging
> from 3 to 176 intervals. All show negative feedback. He selected the one
> (13 points) with the lowest error as the best estimate, which seems OK to
> me.
>
Once again, that would be fine if he is using the right data sets.
> > Consequently, I do not trust this paper one bit.
>
> Do you understand his logic? Roughly, he's using edges in the natural
> driving function to see the response of the system in the frequency range
> of interest.
That's one way of explaining it. In my words :
He wants to show the correlation between radiation balance changes and
SST changes, over a timespan that is long for direct effects (days)
and short for the feedback effects that may 'obscure' cause and
effect (years). He experiments with a month to 7 months as workable
windows.
By itself that is a reasonable goal ; there can be many different
feedback factors of various different timescales, and it is good to
understand and measure the individual effects of each by data
correlation techniques.
> By focusing on larger events, he can improve the in-band
> S/N ratio.
Makes sense, since the 'smaller' events (within 0.1 K or within 0.4 W/
m^2 deltas) especially on small time scales are very, very noisy, and
virtually uncorrelated (as his table 1, last 3 lines indicates).
But here comes the first problem : The 'correlated' data sets are very
sparse : All well-correlated data sets are less that 10 data points,
most have 5 or less. It's easy to get reasonable correlation with a
straight line with 3 or 4 or 5 random points, so these tests are
pretty useless.
Only one reasonable correlating data set (0.1k unfiltered) is 13 data
points large, and this is the one that be plots in fig 2, top-left
corner.
However, that plot shows the second problem : The 13 dots are fairly
uncorrelated, and the 'fitting' with the slop is mostly determined by
3 or 4 crucial data points in the corners. These are most likely the 3
or 4 data points that he found in the other table 1 lines as well,
because the relate to the 'larger' events.
But that hits the biggest problem : These crucial 3 or 4 data points
seem to be incorrectly placed (as I now explained twice).
Please tell me where he got the first crucial point (+0.6 C / +5 W/
m^2) from ?
>
> Put on your system analysis hat and read it more carefully. The fact
> that all of the actual data analyses show negative feedback, while all
> the models show positive feedback seems rather convincing to me.
If we cannot even explain the first point on the first plot of what he
claims is the experiment that best shows his findings, then how are we
supposed to believe any of the drastic conclusions that he draws
(discrediting established models, and adjusting Earth's climate
sensitivity) in the remainder of his paper ?
>
> > Rob
>
> Sorry to snip so much, but this post has the Google property that
> prevents pan from editing it the normal way.
Sorry, my regular NNTP server let me down. Forced to work vioa Google
for now.
Rob
Bill Ward
Note the slope is +4.23 with a SE of 1.54. All the models are negative
slopes.
> However, that plot shows the second problem : The 13 dots are fairly
> uncorrelated, and the 'fitting' with the slop is mostly determined by 3
> or 4 crucial data points in the corners. These are most likely the 3 or
> 4 data points that he found in the other table 1 lines as well, because
> the relate to the 'larger' events.
>
> But that hits the biggest problem : These crucial 3 or 4 data points
> seem to be incorrectly placed (as I now explained twice).
>
> Please tell me where he got the first crucial point (+0.6 C / +5 W/ m^2)
> from ?
Probably from near the end of the sequence, from around 1998 to 2000.
You could always ask him.
I still don't think you understand the analysis. Each point on the plot
is derived from the ratio between the slope of the ERBE and the slope of
the SST data in specific time intervals where the SST varied by some
threshold (0.1C in this case). The number of those intervals at each
threshold and the resulting statistics are shown in Table 1.
Because of the noise, a visual confirmation is not likely to be
convincing. If you want to replicate the analysis, I think you'll need
to get the cited datasets, perform the specified filtering, and crunch
the numbers to see if you agree with Table 1.
>> Put on your system analysis hat and read it more carefully. The fact
>> that all of the actual data analyses show negative feedback, while all
>> the models show positive feedback seems rather convincing to me.
>
> If we cannot even explain the first point on the first plot of what he
> claims is the experiment that best shows his findings, then how are we
> supposed to believe any of the drastic conclusions that he draws
> (discrediting established models, and adjusting Earth's climate
> sensitivity) in the remainder of his paper ?
It's a published paper. If you find an error that changes the
conclusions, you'll be famous, and several reviewers will have egg on
their faces.
Rob Dekker
\I double checked some of the graphs (SW and OLW), and found that at least
the ones that he printed in the paper are from the ERBE edition 2 data set.
Not from the edition 3 data set that he claims they are based on.
The edition 3 data set is the altitude-adjusted set, and should be used for
climate analysis.
Not sure if that makes much of a difference for the short-term analysis that
he is doing, but it is another indication that Lindzen is a bit sloppy with
where he got his data from... And I'm sure that it will at least affect his
analysis a little bit. After all, even Lindzen himself admits that the slope
is very sensitive for small delta adjustments. And the climate sensitivity
factor is very sensitive to the slope.
> All the models are negative
> slopes.
>
I'm sure that you have read some of the blog reviews of the Lindzen and Choi
paper. If not, please Google that and read them. The models that he used are
not intended for the type of feedback analysis that he wants to do.
Also, I don't really care much about the models that he brought into this
paper.
The important finding that he reports is about a (read 'one') short-term
feedback mechanism. That's more than enough to deal with in one paper AFAIK.
Climate sensitivity analysis and feedback mechanisms are difficult enough as
is.
>> However, that plot shows the second problem : The 13 dots are fairly
>> uncorrelated, and the 'fitting' with the slop is mostly determined by 3
>> or 4 crucial data points in the corners. These are most likely the 3 or
>> 4 data points that he found in the other table 1 lines as well, because
>> the relate to the 'larger' events.
>>
>> But that hits the biggest problem : These crucial 3 or 4 data points
>> seem to be incorrectly placed (as I now explained twice).
>>
>> Please tell me where he got the first crucial point (+0.6 C / +5 W/ m^2)
>> from ?
>
> Probably from near the end of the sequence, from around 1998 to 2000.
> You could always ask him.
I do have a day job and a family, so I don't think I can get much done in
short time.
However, I will likely do so if my first analysis does not confirm that data
point.
>
> I still don't think you understand the analysis. Each point on the plot
> is derived from the ratio between the slope of the ERBE and the slope of
> the SST data in specific time intervals where the SST varied by some
> threshold (0.1C in this case). The number of those intervals at each
> threshold and the resulting statistics are shown in Table 1.
I do understand, Bill.
The only thing I am not sure about is how he determined the time interval
lengths.
For example, if the SST is increasing straight-line 0.6 C over one year,
then there are many data points that you can get from that :
One point that increases 0.6 C, or two points that increase 0.3 C or three
points that increase 0.2 or 6 points that increase 0.1 C. All these points
are above the set lower 0.1 C limit. Which ones did he choose ? Or did he
choose overlapping data points ?
Or does he choose the data points (the time segments) by Monte Carlo
approach ?
He is not very clear about that.
I will ask him that once I'm ready to shoot him an email.
>
> Because of the noise, a visual confirmation is not likely to be
> convincing. If you want to replicate the analysis, I think you'll need
> to get the cited datasets, perform the specified filtering, and crunch
> the numbers to see if you agree with Table 1.
I got the ERBE edition 3 numbers (monthly for the tropics).
I would like to get the SST numbers, but I can't find that. Only individual
ocean section numbers.
I'll look a bit deeper.
Any way, I'd like to do my own data analysis first before I bother him with
questions about his.
>
>>> Put on your system analysis hat and read it more carefully. The fact
>>> that all of the actual data analyses show negative feedback, while all
>>> the models show positive feedback seems rather convincing to me.
>>
>> If we cannot even explain the first point on the first plot of what he
>> claims is the experiment that best shows his findings, then how are we
>> supposed to believe any of the drastic conclusions that he draws
>> (discrediting established models, and adjusting Earth's climate
>> sensitivity) in the remainder of his paper ?
>
> It's a published paper. If you find an error that changes the
> conclusions, you'll be famous, and several reviewers will have egg on
> their faces.
I'm not looking for that.
I'm just looking for the truth.
You know that I believe that the case for GW from CO2 has not been made yet.
I believe the theory (GW by CO2) is correct, but we have not seen enough
evidence to support (or discard) that theory yet. Meanwhile, I give the
researchers the benefit of the doubt.
That opinion is based on the lack of evidence that I've seen, and the
discussions we had about this subject.
Same thing with Lindzen. I give him the benefit of the doubt, that there may
be a short-term negative feedback mechanism in place. That does not discard
the vast amount of research that shows equilibrium temps for doubling of CO2
in the range of 4 C, but Lindzen's paper also does not throw that end-result
away at all.
I'll take this one paper at a time. For now, I suspect that Lindzen is
twisting data to serve his incentive of showing negative feedbacks. The
paper has inconsistencies which as suspicious. Will you help me get the data
straightened out ? I'm not very good with statistics. Can you help ?
Bill Ward
Perhaps he used the wrong graphs (it happens), but I doubt he'd base the
analysis on the uncorrected data. That's kind of the point of the paper,
to answer one of the criticisms of his earlier work, to wit:
"... this result was internally inconsistent since the persistence of the
imbalance over a decade implied a positive feedback. A subsequent
correction to the satellite data eliminated much of the decadal variation
in the radiative balance." (from page 1)
So it seems he was quite aware of the shortfalls in the original,
uncorrected dataset.
> Not sure if that makes much of a difference for the short-term analysis
> that he is doing, but it is another indication that Lindzen is a bit
> sloppy with where he got his data from... And I'm sure that it will at
> least affect his analysis a little bit. After all, even Lindzen himself
> admits that the slope is very sensitive for small delta adjustments. And
> the climate sensitivity factor is very sensitive to the slope.
>
>> All the models are negative
>> slopes.
>>
>>
> I'm sure that you have read some of the blog reviews of the Lindzen and
> Choi paper. If not, please Google that and read them.
If you'll recommend a specific link, I'll review it. Otherwise, I'd
rather rely on the paper itself rather than a random blogger's comments.
> The models that he
> used are not intended for the type of feedback analysis that he wants to
> do. Also, I don't really care much about the models that he brought into
> this paper.
Neither do I. Do you have a favorite you can recommend?
> The important finding that he reports is about a (read 'one') short-term
> feedback mechanism. That's more than enough to deal with in one paper
> AFAIK. Climate sensitivity analysis and feedback mechanisms are
> difficult enough as is.
Remember short-term negative feedbacks have lasting effects.
OK, now I think I understand the problem. Look at the SST graph at the
top of page 2. Count the red and blue segments. I get nine, 5 red
ascending, and 5 blue descending. Now turn to Table 1 and note the
second entry, with nine data points. I assume that the colored segments
represent those nine points, selected by the threshold used. I'm not
sure how he took the derivatives, but it seems logical to simply take the
difference between the end points, since the information between is out
of band anyway.
The point is that the sample interval is not constant. Think of each
warming or cooling interval as a separate event yielding a slope, and the
overall result the average of the slopes. He chose the set containing 13
events, probably because it gave the lowest error.
Does that make sense to you?
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't consider myself anywhere near
statistically competent enough to advise anybody. Google would probably
be more help.
Rob
On Oct 10, 12:01 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
......
> > \I double checked some of the graphs (SW and OLW), and found that at
> > least the ones that he printed in the paper are from the ERBE edition 2
> > data set. Not from the edition 3 data set that he claims they are based
> > on. The edition 3 data set is the altitude-adjusted set, and should be
> > used for climate analysis.
>
> Perhaps he used the wrong graphs (it happens), but I doubt he'd base the
> analysis on the uncorrected data. That's kind of the point of the paper,
> to answer one of the criticisms of his earlier work, to wit:
>
> "... this result was internally inconsistent since the persistence of the
> imbalance over a decade implied a positive feedback. A subsequent
> correction to the satellite data eliminated much of the decadal variation
> in the radiative balance." (from page 1)
>
> So it seems he was quite aware of the shortfalls in the original,
> uncorrected dataset.
Yes, he is aware of the Edition 3 set, but I'm not sure he used it.
Two reasons for being sceptical about this :
(1) He used the Edition 2 set in a paper that he wrote earlier this
year :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback
Which was promply followed by a blog, pointing out that he used the
old Edition 2 data :
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback
Now if that mistake was pointed out so quickly, couldn't he have
double-checked that his graphs were correct for the real paper to
Geophysical Reasearch Letters ?
(2) The data points from his figure 2 (especially the +0.6 C/+5 W/m^2
point) may be there in the Edition 2 data set, but I sure can't find
them in the Edition 3 data set. (see my analysis below).
......
> > The models that he
> > used are not intended for the type of feedback analysis that he wants to
> > do. Also, I don't really care much about the models that he brought into
> > this paper.
>
> Neither do I. Do you have a favorite you can recommend?
Here are two on his choice of models :
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_thread/thread/796e8951bc6a5b92?pli=1
>
> > The important finding that he reports is about a (read 'one') short-term
> > feedback mechanism. That's more than enough to deal with in one paper
> > AFAIK. Climate sensitivity analysis and feedback mechanisms are
> > difficult enough as is.
>
> Remember short-term negative feedbacks have lasting effects.
>
That depends on how strong other feedback mechanisms are.
Also, please understand one thing : If there is no feedback at all on
the short (months) term that Lindzen analysed, then we SHOULD see a
slope of 4 (W/m^2 per C), simply because of the Plank function : a 1 C
warmer surface radiates 4 W/m^2 extra.
Incidentally, he found approximately a slope of 4 (W/m^2/C) so that
indicates no short-term feedback.
.....
> > I got the ERBE edition 3 numbers (monthly for the tropics). I would like
> > to get the SST numbers, but I can't find that. Only individual ocean
> > section numbers.
> > I'll look a bit deeper.
> > Any way, I'd like to do my own data analysis first before I bother him
> > with questions about his.
OK. I did my analysis. Here we go :
I picked up the ERBE Edition 3 (rev 1) data set for the tropics, for
the monthly, as Lindzen used. Here it is, in understandable (and
parsable) form :
http://earth-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbeweb/Edition3_Rev1/Edition3_Rev1_wfov_sf_monthly_tropics
I can't find the SST data, so as a start, I entered the 9 segments
from Lindzen's graph manually. With delta-SST for each time segment
(red and blue).
Then I wrote a small program that does correlation analysis using the
SW and OLW columns from ERBE, along the 9 time segments indicated.
I calculate the Pearson product moment (R) factor over the 9 data
points, using this algorithm :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient#Computing_correlation_accurately_in_a_single_pass
My first experiments gave correlation factors close to 0. Then I found
that there is an aweful lot of noise in the data. The SW and OLW vary
widely and fast over the months, and the choice of time segments is
crucial to get ANY form of correlation between delta SST and delta
flux. Misplaced time segments and correlation collapses.
After I very carefully placed the 9 time segments according to
Lindzen's SST graph, I got my first 'unfiltered' result (SW+OLW
monthly, no time-averaging) that were showing some correlation :
delta-SST delta-flux
1. 0.300000 6.020000 slope: 20.066667
2. -0.500000 -3.550000 slope: 7.100000
3. 0.300000 -1.760000 slope: -5.866667
4. -0.250000 -2.180000 slope: 8.720000
5. 0.200000 -4.670000 slope: -23.350000
6. 0.250000 -0.880000 slope: -3.520000
7. -0.200000 2.680000 slope: -13.400000
8. 0.600000 3.030000 slope: 5.050000
9. -0.600000 -5.220000 slope: 8.700000
Results :
N:9 average weighted slope : 2.250768 correlation (R): 0.547974
First note that weighted slope is lower (2.25 versus 4.5) than Lindzen
found.
If may be that he calculated the best-fitting slope differently, but
with only 9 data points, and segment slopes going all over the place,
who knows what the 'actual' slope is.
Second, note that the mistery of the +0.6 / +5W/m^2 data point may be
solved !
The only +0.6 C spot is indeed the onramp for the 1998 El Nino,
But the delta-flux over that one-year period is 3 W/m^2.
That's fairly close to Lindzen's 5 W/m^2, so I have to assume we are
talking about the same segment. The difference can easily come from
the Edition 2/3 data set difference, or even choice of revision number
of the data set.
No matter how I positioned that time segment, I could never get more
than 3 W/m^2 increase. Another indication that Lindzen may be using an
older data (Edition 2?)set, where the OLR and SW were larger than in
the correct set.
Third, and most importantly : the correlation is worse than what
Lindzen found.
No matter how hard I tried (move the time segments start and end-dates
back and forth a month or so) I could not get an R larger than 0.6.
Now, Lindzen used 7-month SW averaging to eliminate noise (and
temporal aliasing effects) in the data. I did the same here :
delta-SST delta-flux
1. 0.300000 2.205714 slope: 7.352380
2. -0.500000 -2.531428 slope: 5.062856
3. 0.300000 -1.455715 slope: -4.852383
4. -0.250000 -2.987143 slope: 11.948572
5. 0.200000 -1.714286 slope: -8.571430
6. 0.250000 2.297143 slope: 9.188572
7. -0.200000 2.390000 slope: -11.950000
8. 0.600000 0.405714 slope: 0.676190
9. -0.600000 -2.830000 slope: 4.716667
N:9 average weighted slope : 2.582305 correlation (R): 0.524967
See that indeed neither the slope nor the correlation changes much (as
Lindzen also noticed). However, notice that even with 7-month running
average of SW, the slopes of the data points still go all over the
place.
Overall, correlation is low, and the slope (if you can talk about that
with such low correlation) is lower than Lindzen found. There is way
to much noise for me to draw any conclusions other than that there is
no signal to speak of.
I found something very interesting by doing separate OLW <-> SST
analysis, comparing how long-wave radiation changes with changes in
sea-surface temperature :
0.300000 -0.790000 slope: -2.633333
-0.500000 -2.620000 slope: 5.240000
0.300000 0.080000 slope: 0.266667
-0.250000 -2.740000 slope: 10.960000
0.200000 2.700000 slope: 13.500000
0.250000 0.500000 slope: 2.000000
-0.200000 -0.530000 slope: 2.650000
0.600000 1.800000 slope: 3.000000
-0.600000 -3.250000 slope: 5.416667
N:9 average slope : 4.488889 correlation (R): 0.830673
Correlation of 0.83 is pretty strong, indicating that LW radiations
indeed changes with SST. At a slope of about 4 (W/m^2/C). That's
pretty close to the Planck curve, and thus would be expected in
absense of any short-term feedback.
Separate SW <-> SST shows this fuzzy picture :
0.300000 6.810000 slope: 22.700000
-0.500000 -0.930000 slope: 1.860000
0.300000 -1.840000 slope: -6.133333
-0.250000 0.560000 slope: -2.240000
0.200000 -7.370000 slope: -36.850000
0.250000 -1.380000 slope: -5.520000
-0.200000 3.210000 slope: -16.050000
0.600000 1.230000 slope: 2.050000
-0.600000 -1.970000 slope: 3.283333
N:9 average slope : -4.100000 correlation (R): 0.100434
Correlation of 0.1 indicates that there is no correlation between
changes in SW and changes in SST.
My conclusions from my analysis : OLW increases fairly accurately with
changes in SST, at about 4 W/m^2/C, which would be expected from a
system without any short-term feedback. Other than that, everything is
very noisy, and no other conclusions should be drawn.
If Lindzen did indeed base his data on the Edition 3 (rev 1) ERBE data
set, then he should at least show the correlation numbers of the
separate SW <-> SST and OLW <-> SST numbers. I suspect that we will
then see the same low SW correlation and strong OLW correlation that I
found. Concequently, this means that feedback mechanisms seem not
present for the short terms (months) time segments that were present
in the analysis.
That's my 2 cts.
P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
Bill Ward
> On Oct 10, 12:01 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> ......
[Rob]
>> > \I double checked some of the graphs (SW and OLW), and found that at
>> > least the ones that he printed in the paper are from the ERBE edition
>> > 2 data set. Not from the edition 3 data set that he claims they are
>> > based on. The edition 3 data set is the altitude-adjusted set, and
>> > should be used for climate analysis.
[Bill]
>> Perhaps he used the wrong graphs (it happens), but I doubt he'd base
>> the analysis on the uncorrected data. That's kind of the point of the
>> paper, to answer one of the criticisms of his earlier work, to wit:
>>
>> "... this result was internally inconsistent since the persistence of
>> the imbalance over a decade implied a positive feedback. A subsequent
>> correction to the satellite data eliminated much of the decadal
>> variation in the radiative balance." (from page 1)
>>
>> So it seems he was quite aware of the shortfalls in the original,
>> uncorrected dataset.
>
> Yes, he is aware of the Edition 3 set, but I'm not sure he used it. Two
> reasons for being sceptical about this :
>
> (1) He used the Edition 2 set in a paper that he wrote earlier this year
> :
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-
feedback
> Which was promply followed by a blog, pointing out that he used the old
> Edition 2 data :
> http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback
Followed by this comment to WUWT at the same link:
<begin excerpt>
UPDATE3: I received this email today (4/10) from Dr. Lindzen. My sincere
thanks for his response.
Dear Anthony,
The paper was sent out for comments, and the comments (even those from
“realclimate”) are appreciated. In fact, the reduction of the difference
in OLR between the 80’s and 90’s due to orbital decay seems to me to be
largely correct. However, the reduction in Wong, Wielicki et al (2006)
of the difference in the spikes of OLR between observations and models
cannot be attributed to orbital decay, and seem to me to be
questionable. Nevertheless, the differences that remain still imply
negative feedbacks. We are proceeding to redo the analysis of satellite
data in order to better understand what went into these analyses. The
matter of net differences between the 80’s and 90’s is an interesting
question. Given enough time, the radiative balance is reestablished and
the anomalies can be wiped out. The time it takes for this to happen
depends on climate sensitivity with adjustments occurring more rapidly
when sensitivity is less. However, for the spikes, the time scales are
short enough to preclude adjustment except for very low sensitivity.
That said, it has become standard in climate science that data in
contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to
alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and
the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the
‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.
Best wishes,
Dick
<end excerpt>
Note that he explicitly comments that he plans to redo the analysis, and
months later releases the revised article we're talking about. It seems
unlikely he would try to put something so obvious over on anyone,
considering the long standing intense efforts to discredit him.
>
> Now if that mistake was pointed out so quickly, couldn't he have
> double-checked that his graphs were correct for the real paper to
> Geophysical Reasearch Letters ?
>
> (2) The data points from his figure 2 (especially the +0.6 C/+5 W/m^2
> point) may be there in the Edition 2 data set, but I sure can't find
> them in the Edition 3 data set. (see my analysis below).
>
>
> ......
>> > The models that he
>> > used are not intended for the type of feedback analysis that he wants
>> > to do. Also, I don't really care much about the models that he
>> > brought into this paper.
>>
>> Neither do I. Do you have a favorite you can recommend?
>
> Here are two on his choice of models :
> http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-
choi.html
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_thread/
thread/796e8951bc6a5b92?pli=1
So many models, so few Earths. Which model is right?
>> > The important finding that he reports is about a (read 'one')
>> > short-term feedback mechanism. That's more than enough to deal with
>> > in one paper AFAIK. Climate sensitivity analysis and feedback
>> > mechanisms are difficult enough as is.
>>
>> Remember short-term negative feedbacks have lasting effects.
>>
>>
> That depends on how strong other feedback mechanisms are. Also, please
> understand one thing : If there is no feedback at all on the short
> (months) term that Lindzen analysed, then we SHOULD see a slope of 4
> (W/m^2 per C), simply because of the Plank function : a 1 C warmer
> surface radiates 4 W/m^2 extra.
I think you meant to say the Stephan-Boltzmann relation:
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2>
Planck is the spectrum guy.
> Incidentally, he found approximately a slope of 4 (W/m^2/C) so that
> indicates no short-term feedback.
That is a feedback, due to the nonlinearity.
> .....
>> > I got the ERBE edition 3 numbers (monthly for the tropics). I would
>> > like to get the SST numbers, but I can't find that. Only individual
>> > ocean section numbers.
>> > I'll look a bit deeper.
>> > Any way, I'd like to do my own data analysis first before I bother
>> > him with questions about his.
>
> OK. I did my analysis. Here we go :
> I picked up the ERBE Edition 3 (rev 1) data set for the tropics, for the
> monthly, as Lindzen used. Here it is, in understandable (and parsable)
> form :
> http://earth-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbeweb/Edition3_Rev1/
Edition3_Rev1_wfov_sf_monthly_tropics
>
> I can't find the SST data, so as a start, I entered the 9 segments from
> Lindzen's graph manually. With delta-SST for each time segment (red and
> blue).
Did you allow for transcription error in digitizing the graph?
I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to defend a guy who's spent most of his
life at MIT teaching the subject. That's not an appeal to authority,
just recognition that he knows more about it than I do. If you really
think your analysis shows significant errors in his work, I'm sure he'd
appreciate hearing about them. His work looks OK to me, and fits in with
my personal observations.
But it seems you've confirmed at least the "no positive feedback" portion
of his work, which invalidates all the doom predicting models. That's
fairly significant, I'd say.
> P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
> difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. This one
opened OK.
Rob
On Oct 14, 9:55 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
.....
> > set, then he should at least show the correlation numbers of the
> > separate SW <-> SST and OLW <-> SST numbers. I suspect that we will then
> > see the same low SW correlation and strong OLW correlation that I found.
> > Concequently, this means that feedback mechanisms seem not present for
> > the short terms (months) time segments that were present in the
> > analysis.
>
> > That's my 2 cts.
>
> I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to defend a guy who's spent most of his
> life at MIT teaching the subject. That's not an appeal to authority,
> just recognition that he knows more about it than I do. If you really
> think your analysis shows significant errors in his work, I'm sure he'd
> appreciate hearing about them.
I think there are suspicious inexplicable details in his paper, but
after doing my 'poor-man's' analysis above, I can actually confirm
much of what he reports :
Overall, there is a ~4 W/m^2/K signal in the ERBE data, and it is
almost exclusively from OLW. That means that if SST go up 1 K, that
OLW goes up 4 W/m^2 and visa versa.
There is virtually no correlation between delta-SST and delta-SW.
So far so good.
Now only the conclusions differ.
See below.
> His work looks OK to me, and fits in with my personal observations.
>
> But it seems you've confirmed at least the "no positive feedback" portion
> of his work, which invalidates all the doom predicting models. That's
> fairly significant, I'd say.
>
Yes and no.
Indeed we found no significant short-term feedback (neither positive
nor negative) :
ERBE data shows that if SST goes up 1 K, that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2. SW
radiation is not affected.
Radiation theory tells that when there is NO feedback mechanism in
place, that if SST goes up 1 K that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2 and SW is not
affected much.
So, that means that ERBE data is consistent with an Earth that shows
no significant feedback mechanism for the short (months) term. That
means feedback factor 0.
So the paper shows that there is no measurable feedback factor.
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 Ward
[Google Groups apparently corrupted the post, so I'm hand editing it]
[Rob]
I think there are suspicious inexplicable details in his paper, but
after doing my 'poor-man's' analysis above, I can actually confirm
much of what he reports :
Overall, there is a ~4 W/m^2/K signal in the ERBE data, and it is
almost exclusively from OLW. That means that if SST go up 1 K, that
OLW goes up 4 W/m^2 and visa versa.
There is virtually no correlation between delta-SST and delta-SW.
So far so good.
Now only the conclusions differ.
See below.
[Bill]
> His work looks OK to me, and fits in with my personal observations.
>
> But it seems you've confirmed at least the "no positive feedback"
portion
> of his work, which invalidates all the doom predicting models. =A0That's
> fairly significant, I'd say.
>
Yes and no.
Indeed we found no significant short-term feedback (neither positive
nor negative) :
ERBE data shows that if SST goes up 1 K, that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2. SW
radiation is not affected.
Radiation theory tells that when there is NO feedback mechanism in
place, that if SST goes up 1 K that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2 and SW is not
affected much.
So, that means that ERBE data is consistent with an Earth that shows
no significant feedback mechanism for the short (months) term. That
means feedback factor 0.
So the paper shows that there is no measurable feedback factor.
[Bill]
Actually, you believe your analysis of his paper shows that. Lindzen and
the reviewers apparently believe his analysis of the same data shows
negative feedback. You need to compare notes and see why there's
disagreement. Why don't you write up your analysis and conclusions, then
email Lindzen for his comments? That's the usual way to solve
differences.
********************
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.
Assuming for the sake of argument that your analysis is correct, and
there is no feedback, does that change your opinion of the models, which
require considerable positive WV feedback to be scary enough to be
effective?
*******************
> > P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
> > difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
>
> The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. =A0This one
> opened OK.
[Bill]
This one didn't. Beats me why.
******************
Rob
> differences.
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.
---
>
> ********************
>
> Still,Lindzenreports 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. PerhapsLindzen'sanalysis was able to
> reduce the noise further than yours.
I don't think the problems are with the data.
It's in the reasoning.
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that your analysis is correct, and
> there is no feedback, does that change your opinion of the models, which
> require considerable positive WV feedback to be scary enough to be
> effective?
Lindzen only showed that there is no measurable feedback in the short
term, and even that comes with a wide margin of error (due to the
variability of short-term radiation balance).
The feedback in the models is long-term :
Thinks like upper-troposphere water vaper increase and cirrus clouds
and albedo changes due to ice cap melting and methane release from
melting permafrost do not change rapidly.
>
> *******************
>
> > > P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
> > > difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
>
> > The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. =A0This one
> > opened OK.
>
> [Bill]
> This one didn't. Beats me why.
Sorry about the Google Groups bugs. Which NNTP service are you using ?
>
> ******************
Bill Ward
[This also has the GG bug, and is again hand edited]
[Rob]
> ERBE data shows that if SST goes up 1 K, that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2. SW
> radiation is not affected.
> Radiation theory tells that when there is NO feedback mechanism in
> place, that if SST goes up 1 K that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2 and SW is not
> affected much.
>
> So, that means that ERBE data is consistent with an Earth that shows no
> significant feedback mechanism for the short (months) term. That means
> feedback factor 0.
> So the paper shows that there is no measurable feedback factor.
>
> [Bill]
> Actually, you believe your analysis of his paper shows that. Lindzen
and
> the reviewers apparently believe his analysis of the same data shows
> negative feedback. You need to compare notes and see why there's
> disagreement. Why don't you write up your analysis and conclusions,
> then email Lindzen for his comments? That's the usual way to solve
> differences.
[Rob]
---
---
[Bill]
That should be interesting. Keep us posted on the response.
> ********************
>
> 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.
> Assuming for the sake of argument that your analysis is correct, and
> there is no feedback, does that change your opinion of the models, which
> require considerable positive WV feedback to be scary enough to be
> effective?
[Rob]
Lindzen only showed that there is no measurable feedback in the short
term, and even that comes with a wide margin of error (due to the
variability of short-term radiation balance).
The feedback in the models is long-term : Thinks like upper-troposphere
water vaper increase and cirrus clouds and albedo changes due to ice cap
melting and methane release from melting permafrost do not change rapidly.
[Bill]
If you mean by "long-term" feedback, that with an integral term,
remember, it changes sign at the frequency where the delay T is a half
cycle. Short term negative feedback has a long term stabilizing effect.
Delayed feedback can cause oscillation. Non-linear feedback can cause
chaos.
I suspect the deep ocean currents act like a feedback network of delay
lines and are causing a lot of the unpredicted climate swings.
> *******************
>
> > > P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
> > > difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
>
> > The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. =A0This one
> > opened OK.
>
> [Bill]
> This one didn't. Beats me why.
Sorry about the Google Groups bugs. Which NNTP service are you using ?
[Bill]
Giganews, with pan as the newsreader.
> ******************
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Sorry about the Google Groups bugs. Which NNTP service are you using ?
>>
>> [Bill]
>>
>> Giganews, with pan as the newsreader.
>>
>> > ******************
>
> If you can find an option for
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> set it to
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: text/plain
>
> That's all.
Thanks for the tip, Peter, but I don't see that phrase in any of the pan
preference areas. Any clues on where to look?
Rob Dekker
I will. I asked for my response to be forwarded to the authors and the
reviewers.
I knew there was something wrong with this paper. I thought it was the ERBE
data analysis.
But even though it was a good excercise to re-do the data analysis, I feel
that I wasted time, since the fundamental errors in reasoning in the paper
were staring me right in the face : Lindzen is seriously confusing forcing
and feedback. Absense of short-wave response to sea temp increase implies
absense of feedback (and not a facor -1 as he reasons).
He apparently managed to even confuse his paper reviewer's with this, so I
don't feel too bad now.
I also posted the same response on several blogs. If I'm wrong, then I would
love to see a correction of my reasoning. If I'm right, then I'd love to
hear that too. Either way, let the truth prevail....
>> ********************
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>> Assuming for the sake of argument that your analysis is correct, and
>> there is no feedback, does that change your opinion of the models, which
>> require considerable positive WV feedback to be scary enough to be
>> effective?
>
> [Rob]
> Lindzen only showed that there is no measurable feedback in the short
> term, and even that comes with a wide margin of error (due to the
> variability of short-term radiation balance).
>
> The feedback in the models is long-term : Thinks like upper-troposphere
> water vaper increase and cirrus clouds and albedo changes due to ice cap
> melting and methane release from melting permafrost do not change rapidly.
>
> [Bill]
> If you mean by "long-term" feedback, that with an integral term,
> remember, it changes sign at the frequency where the delay T is a half
> cycle.
Not sure what you mean with that.
It's been 20 years since I had a course in what was then called "modern
control systems", and I just remember the basics.
Care to refresh my memory ?
> Short term negative feedback has a long term stabilizing effect.
> Delayed feedback can cause oscillation.
If I remember correctly, only delayed negative feedback can cause
oscillation.
Delayed positive feedback simply causes a delay in amplified response.
> Non-linear feedback can cause
> chaos.
>
> I suspect the deep ocean currents act like a feedback network of delay
> lines and are causing a lot of the unpredicted climate swings.
>
>> *******************
>>
>> > > P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes replies
>> > > difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right now.
>>
>> > The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. =A0This one
>> > opened OK.
>>
>> [Bill]
>> This one didn't. Beats me why.
>
> Sorry about the Google Groups bugs. Which NNTP service are you using ?
>
> [Bill]
>
> Giganews, with pan as the newsreader.
I'll check that out.
Google Groups sucks. Their use interface is confusing and error-prone (I
once lost 30 minutes of typing, simply by accidentally clicking away) and
their posting 'tree' epresentation is appauling. And indeed any response to
a Google post is difficult (the > response does not come up.). I am really
ready to switch to something better. Just not used to the new 'facts' that I
now have to pay for something so basic as NNTP. It's been free for the 26
years that I have been using it.
>
>> ******************
Bill Ward
Here's a classic:
<http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-4.pdf#page=1>
See page 9 "Frequency Compensation Hints".
Most of the compensation is done internally in modern opamps, but the
principles are the same. App notes are usually a good source of
practical knowledge.
>
>> Short term negative feedback has a long term stabilizing effect.
>> Delayed feedback can cause oscillation.
>
> If I remember correctly, only delayed negative feedback can cause
> oscillation.
The reason it can cause oscillation is that the delay shifts the phase.
At the frequency where the phase shift is 180 degrees, the feedback is
effectively positive. If the loop gain at that frequency is between 0 and
1, the system rings with an exponentially decaying output. If the loop
gain is exactly one, the system oscillates with a sine wave. (HP analog
signal generators used negative feedback involving a tungsten filament to
hold the gain at one.) If the gain is greater than one, the oscillation
amplitude increases exponentially until it's limited by non-linearities.
> Delayed positive feedback simply causes a delay in amplified response.
That depends on the loop gain.
>
>> Non-linear feedback can cause
>> chaos.
>>
>> I suspect the deep ocean currents act like a feedback network of delay
>> lines and are causing a lot of the unpredicted climate swings.
>>
>>> *******************
>>>
>>> > > P.S. Sorry for posting via Google groups. I know this makes
>>> > > replies difficult, but it's the only way to get my post out right
>>> > > now.
>>>
>>> > The bug only affects certain posts, apparently at random. =A0This
>>> > one opened OK.
>>>
>>> [Bill]
>>> This one didn't. Beats me why.
>>
>> Sorry about the Google Groups bugs. Which NNTP service are you using ?
>>
>> [Bill]
>>
>> Giganews, with pan as the newsreader.
>
> I'll check that out.
> Google Groups sucks. Their use interface is confusing and error-prone (I
> once lost 30 minutes of typing, simply by accidentally clicking away)
> and their posting 'tree' epresentation is appauling. And indeed any
> response to a Google post is difficult (the > response does not come
> up.). I am really ready to switch to something better. Just not used to
> the new 'facts' that I now have to pay for something so basic as NNTP.
> It's been free for the 26 years that I have been using it.
>
>
>>> ******************
This post worked fine. Go figure.
Bill Ward
> No, sorry. I never used pan, but maybe the option is like "(Don't)
> Respond with the same encoding like sender" or similar?
>
> The "Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" option always comes
> from the sender and is not generated later in *your* newsreader. It
> means, that the receiver should get a _printable_ version free of
> _quotation marks_ from the sender.
> This is common use in e-mail, but not in Usenet.
>
> Almost all newsreaders however use the quotation marks to generate a
> correct quoted reply.
> Google is not a newsreader, it's a NNTP web portal and I don't know if
> there are any options at all.
> But if someone begins with quotation marks at first, Google will surely
> requote them through the whole following thread.
>
> That's the whole crux.
OK, thanks Peter. It's indeed found in the header, and is set to text/
plain in this post, which is readable. I'll check the next bunged post
and see if it's quoted-printable.
Rob Dekker
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:nutid5lv09n22ince...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> with the same encoding like sender" or similar?
>
> The "Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" option always comes from
> the
> sender and is not generated later in *your* newsreader.
> It means, that the receiver should get a _printable_ version free of
> _quotation marks_ from the sender.
> This is common use in e-mail, but not in Usenet.
>
> Almost all newsreaders however use the quotation marks to generate a
> correct
> quoted reply.
> Google is not a newsreader, it's a NNTP web portal and I don't know if
> there
> are any options at all.
> But if someone begins with quotation marks at first, Google will surely
> requote them through the whole following thread.
>
> That's the whole crux.
Thanks Peter, But I don't understand yet.
I'm working via a normal NNTP server now, but if you look the trail that we
worked on, Bill posted 10/14/2009, 9:55am, with a message that shows this in
the header :
...
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
..
I replied to that at 10/15/2009 (5:45pm), with Google Groups. The header of
that post shows this :
...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
..
So it seems that Google Groups changed the Content-Transfer-Encoding (I
guess).
In Bill's reply to that, he did not get any >'s to my text.
Do you know what Bill or me could have done differently so he could get >'s
in front of my text ?
Thanks
Rob
Rob Dekker
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
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 ?
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 ? 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 ?
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.
Now, how can it be that the 0 W/m^2/C left scale lines up with -1 feedback
factor on the right scale ?
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.
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
?
Rob
Bill Ward
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Rob Dekker
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.
>
>> 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 ?
>> 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.
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.
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.
The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and in the
formula.
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.
Rob
Bill Ward
You must have missed the above. It directly answers your question, which
you appear to ignore below.
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.
Rob Dekker
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
physically unreal.
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.
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 [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.
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
and LW).
Now look at formula 2, and think what it would take to get NO feedback in
the system.
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
negative feedback"
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 [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].
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.
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.
Rob
Bill Ward
If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?
I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding the
difference between a open loop gain and a feedback. The G factor of 4
is the open loop gain. The feedback is related to the observed
difference from that factor. His analysis looks consistent to me.
If the outgoing radiation is greater than calculated using the open loop
value, that represents negative feedback. If the outgoing radiation is
less than that calculated from the open loop value, it shows positive
feedback.
That's open loop gain, not feedback.
> 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.
He's not "correcting" F, he's deriving it by subtracting the open loop
gain G.
> 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
> negative feedback"
>
> 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.
I think he's adding G back in because the SW is reflected, not emitted
from the sea surface (or clouds). Stephan-Boltzmann doesn't apply. LW
and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's explaining
the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
Easy now. The SW was not radiated from the sea surface, so there is no
T^4 term to subtract. That was only in the attempt to separate the two
feedback mechanisms, which have different open loop gains.
>
>
>>> 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.
It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your comments.
Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I can.
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:VtadnSd5ZsKwWH_X...@giganews.com...
Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models correctly.
He is using them backward (what would be the forcing needed to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward (what
would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is comparing apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even
though the user manual says I can.
Correct. The key is in 'less than calculated by open loop value'. That means less than 4 W/m^2/K.
Lindzen describes it pretty well himself (even though he did not use this crucial factor in the 'models')
I'm really not sure how else to explain that a negative delta OLR/delta SST slope means infinite positive feedback, which is (again)
physically unreal.
Correct. He should subtract it from measured OLW radiation flux (note: only OLW, because SST changes directly affect OLW by open
loop gain).
He does that correctly (below), but then adds it again :
>> 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
>> negative feedback"
>>
>> 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.
>
> I think he's adding G back in because the SW is reflected, not emitted
> from the sea surface (or clouds). Stephan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.
Correct. Stephan Boltzmann does not apply to SW. So there should be NO adjustement to delta SW/deltaSST. FSW = deltaSW/deltaSST.
Nothing added, nothing subtracted.
Ultra-violet does not change with sea surface temperatures either. Nor does the radiation from my terminal, or many other processes
on the planet.
That means that all these processes have an F that is 0.
Since he found no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his formula. In his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he
incorrectly added 4 to it.
> LW and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's explaining
> the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
Yes. Separation is fine. As long as the open loop gain (1/G) is subtracted once, from only deltaOLW measurements.
And NOT added again !!
And thus there was certainly nothing to add either.
> That was only in the attempt to separate the two
> feedback mechanisms, which have different open loop gains.
Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains), and how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1
feedback factor ?
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your comments.
> Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I can.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-energy.html
No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
>
>
Bill Ward
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must generate
for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the models to
correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that would be a
very basic requirement for any climate model.
> If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
> should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though the
> user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does. If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is meaningless.
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are
sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not
specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR
feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any
OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of
a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased
water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and
a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced
upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001].
With respect to SW feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW
feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds
[Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether this is the case in
nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen. Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
> No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
Bret Cahill
> how to use a model as well as either of us does.
That's not a scientific answer; it's a cop out.
> If he were out of line,
> I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
Not if you assume as Lindzen does that the majority of climate
scientists have the independent critical thinking ability of fundies
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience in
this field, so why don't you ask him ?
Why don't you ask him how he could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a
publication that has his name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go
out with my name on it.
>
> Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must generate
> for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the models to
> correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that would be a
> very basic requirement for any climate model.
Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
>
>> If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
>> should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though the
>> user manual says I can.
>
> Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
> how to use a model as well as either of us does.
I agree. He has too much experience in this field.
Why do you think he let such a big mistake go through ?
> If he were out of line,
> I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do not
try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not change
because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) :
Rob Dekker
Here is the remainder of my comments.
I also pruned down this post a bit, for readability.
Rob
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:xJSdna5udqvu3HTX...@giganews.com...
.....
(freely translated from Dutch) : From Jules Deelder.
But since you mention this, bloggers (quotes higher up in this thread) were
quick to point out his misuse of models in this case.
>>
>>>>> Lindzen is aware that the negative slope he puts on the models plots
>>>>> is physically unreal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
....
>>>> If the outgoing radiation is greater than calculated using the open
>>>> loop value, that represents negative feedback. If the outgoing
>>>> radiation is less than that calculated from the open loop value, it
>>>> shows positive feedback.
>>>
>>> Correct. The key is in 'less than calculated by open loop value'. That
>>> means less than 4 W/m^2/K. Lindzen describes it pretty well himself
>>> (even though he did not use this crucial factor in the 'models') I'm
>>> really not sure how else to explain that a negative delta OLR/delta SST
>>> slope means infinite positive feedback, which is (again) physically
>>> unreal.
>>>
......
...
>>> That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he found
>>> no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his formula. In
>>> his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly added 4 to it.
>>
>> I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
OK. Let's do the math again :
What is F (SW) when delta SW/delta SST is 0 ?
And what is F (LW) when delta LW/delta SST is 4 W/m^2 ?
What is then the sum of these two ?
What is then the feedback factor ?
>>
....
>>> Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains), and
>>> how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1 feedback factor?
>>
>> If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is meaningless.
'Meaningless' is not a quantity.
You mean if the gain is zero (no effect) the feedback factor is zero. Right
?
>>
>> It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
>>
>> " [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are
>> sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not
>> specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR
>> feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any
>> OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of
>> a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased
>> water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and
>> a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced
>> upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001].
>> With respect to SW feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW
>> feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds
>> [Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether this is the case in
>> nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations."
>>
>> IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
>> mechanism is not determined by this method.
Even if you do not want to "identify the mechanism" then ERBE data shows a 4
W/m^2/K radiation dependence on SST changes.
That implies 0 feedback factor, since 4 W/m^2/K needs to be subtracted
(Stephan Boltzmann equation).
But the truth is that ERBE data CAN distinguish the mechanism (at least it
can distinguish between LW and SW).
ERBE shows that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2/K and SW stays unchanged.
That implies 0 feedback factor for OLW (subtract 4 W/m^2/K Stephan Boltzmann
LW), and 0 feedback factor for SW.
Bill, ERBE data is very clear : NO feedback !
With his proza, Lindzen is dodging the issue, and I am dissapointed that a
man with your intelligence refuses to see that (or admit that).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
....
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your comments.
>>>> Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I can.
>>>
>>> So far, only one blogger responded :
>>> http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
>> energy.html
>>
>> Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen.
"Dear Rob, I actually fully agree with your statement about the right value
of the feedback extracted from the graphs, and I have said something similar
to Richard in the past, when he sent the article to me.
......
I also agree with your simple fix - the fix is that that the feedback that
Richard should have determined from the measurements is zero rather than -1
at the given place. "
That is agreeing with Lindzen ?
Bill, what's going on with you ?
Are you having some kind of connection with Lindzen ?
>> Didn't RealClimate have
>> any comment?
Why are you so interested in that ?
Why would RealClimate, or anyone else for that matter, make any difference ?
What's wrong is wrong, what right is right.
I know science, and I know that there is no way in the world that anyone can
deduce a feedback factor -1 if the observations are in line with Stephan
Boltzmann equation.
I tried to explain that to you in many different ways, but if you prefer to
stick with Lindzen's explanation than so be it. To speak like my friend
Jules Deelder : "the location of the island of Madagascar will not change".
>>
>>> No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
>>
>> My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
>> respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
This paper is simply incorrect.
>
>
Bill Ward
I would hope so.
>>> If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
>>> should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
>>> the user manual says I can.
>>
>> Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
>> how to use a model as well as either of us does.
>
> I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
> let such a big mistake go through ?
It appears to me he's simply using the models to predict the OLR and SW
given the observed SST data, then comparing that estimate to the observed
ERBE data. It doesn't change the conclusion that there is no positive
feedback, it just shows the consistent error across the models because
they all assume positive WV feedback. What do you think is wrong with
that? I still don't understand exactly what "mistake" you think he
made. Can you be a little more specific?
>> If he were out of line,
>> I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
>
> "If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
> not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
> change because of it."
>
> (freely translated from Dutch) :
It must have lost something. I don't see how it pertains to this
situation.
Bill Ward
> Sorry Bill, that one went out too fast. Here is the remainder of my
> comments. I also pruned down this post a bit, for readability.
>
> Rob
>
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:xJSdna5udqvu3HTX...@giganews.com...
> .....
>>>>>
>>>>> If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
>>>>> reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?
>>>>
>>>> Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models
>>>> correctly. He is using them backward (what would be the forcing
>>>> needed to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward
>>>> (what would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is
>>>> comparing apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
>>>
>>> Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
>>> constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
>>> backwards"?
>>
>>
> What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience
> in this field, so why don't you ask him ? Why don't you ask him how he
> could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a publication that has his
> name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go out with my name on it.
I already answered this in the earlier post. I'll continue commenting on
the added parts below.
>>
>>> Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must
>>> generate for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the
>>> models to correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me
>>> that would be a very basic requirement for any climate model.
>
> Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
>
>
>>>> If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
>>>> should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
>>>> the user manual says I can.
>>>
>>> Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen
>>> understands how to use a model as well as either of us does.
>>
>>
> I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
> let such a big mistake go through ?
>
>
>>> If he were out of line,
>>> I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
>>
>>
> "If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
> not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
> change because of it."
>
> (freely translated from Dutch) : From Jules Deelder.
>
> But since you mention this, bloggers (quotes higher up in this thread)
> were quick to point out his misuse of models in this case.
I haven't seen the blogs, other than the one you just posted.
That sum would be the net feedback F, which he explains is -dFlux/dSST in
paragraph [12], and comes up with an example value of -1.1. In [13] he
attempts to explain how to separate the LW and SW components.
I'll agree it's not as clear as it should be, but since it doesn't affect
the conclusion that the ERBE and SST data show no evidence of net
positive feedback, I can't get too exercised about it. The key, I
believe, is the sentence,"Also, dSWR/dSST needs to be balanced with dOLR/
dSST." I'll defer to Lindzen to explain it better.
>>>> Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains),
>>>> and how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1 feedback
>>>> factor?
>>>
>>> If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is
>>> meaningless.
>
> 'Meaningless' is not a quantity.
> You mean if the gain is zero (no effect) the feedback factor is zero.
> Right ?
No, it means feedback is not defined because zero gain means it's not a
closed loop system. By definition, you can't have feedback in an open
loop system. It's like asking how long the fourth side of a triangle is.
>
>
>>> It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
>>>
>>> " [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are sufficient to
>>> determine feedback factors, this data do not specifically identify
>>> mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR feedback from ERBE might represent the
>>> absence of any OLR feedback; it might also result from the
>>> cancellation of a possible positive water vapor feedback due to
>>> increased water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005]
>>> and a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced upper
>>> level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001]. With respect to SW
>>> feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW feedbacks are largely
>>> associated with the behavior of low level clouds [Bony et al., 2006,
>>> and references therein]. Whether this is the case in nature cannot be
>>> determined from ERBE TOA observations."
>>>
>>> IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
>>> mechanism is not determined by this method.
>
>
> Even if you do not want to "identify the mechanism" then ERBE data shows
> a 4 W/m^2/K radiation dependence on SST changes. That implies 0 feedback
> factor, since 4 W/m^2/K needs to be subtracted (Stephan Boltzmann
> equation).
>
> But the truth is that ERBE data CAN distinguish the mechanism (at least
> it can distinguish between LW and SW).
> ERBE shows that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2/K and SW stays unchanged. That
> implies 0 feedback factor for OLW (subtract 4 W/m^2/K Stephan Boltzmann
> LW), and 0 feedback factor for SW.
You have a math discrepancy there. He finds 4.5W/m^2/K, not 4, yielding
an F of -1.1. Read [12] again. All of the regressions in table 1 with a
threshold of greater than .1 show a slope of more than 4.
> Bill, ERBE data is very clear : NO feedback ! With his proza, Lindzen is
> dodging the issue, and I am dissapointed that a man with your
> intelligence refuses to see that (or admit that).
Sometimes a half watt makes a difference.
Nope, I just read the blog, and hadn't seen the comments yet.
>>> Didn't RealClimate have
>>> any comment?
>
> Why are you so interested in that ?
> Why would RealClimate, or anyone else for that matter, make any
> difference ? What's wrong is wrong, what right is right.
Just curious. If there were any flaw in the modeling, I'd expect them to
be all over it.
> I know science, and I know that there is no way in the world that anyone
> can deduce a feedback factor -1 if the observations are in line with
> Stephan Boltzmann equation.
I think that depends on what you consider feedback, and what you consider
loop gain. I would consider the t^4 relation at a given point to be loop
gain due to the non-linearity slope. SST has nothing to do with the t^4,
that's built into the equation. There is a tiny term because of the
shift in operating point, but not significant in this context.
> I tried to explain that to you in many different ways, but if you prefer
> to stick with Lindzen's explanation than so be it. To speak like my
> friend Jules Deelder : "the location of the island of Madagascar will
> not change".
And if there's no positive feedback, there's no positive feedback.
Arguing about it doesn't change the fact.
>>>> No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
>>>
>>> My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
>>> respond.
>
> I'm looking forward to his response.
> And to the response from the reviewers.
>
> This paper is simply incorrect.
We'll see.
Bret Cahill
> >>> should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
> >>> the user manual says I can.
>
> >> Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
> >> how to use a model as well as either of us does.
>
> > I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
> > let such a big mistake go through ?
>
> It appears to me he's simply using the models to predict the OLR and SW
> given the observed SST data, then comparing that estimate to the observed
> ERBE data. It doesn't change the conclusion that there is no positive
> feedback, it just shows the consistent error across the models because
> they all assume positive WV feedback. What do you think is wrong with
> that? I still don't understand exactly what "mistake" you think he
> made. Can you be a little more specific?
>
> >> If he were out of line,
> >> I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
>
> > "If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
> > not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
> > change because of it."
>
> > (freely translated from Dutch) :
>
> It must have lost something. I don't see how it pertains to this
> situation.
I'd check out them Bohdee plots again.
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
....
>>>> My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
>>>> respond.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to his response.
>> And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-heading-down-way-down-richard-lindzen/comment-page-1/#comment-3094
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Rob
Bret Cahill
> >>>> respond.
>
> >> I'm looking forward to his response.
> >> And to the response from the reviewers.
>
>
> This is what Lindzen says about my post :
>
> "The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
> feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
> See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
> the true believers. That's life."
>
> It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
> else he would have to change his conclusions).
> His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
> correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
> anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
> Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
>
> Now let's see where this goes.
Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
Bret Cahill
I M @ good guy
The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
Does that mean you are one of them, or just a nut?
Unumnunum
Lame old not-good guy begging someone, anyone, to pay attention to him.
Bret Cahill
> >wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
> >suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
> >contradict the prevailing opinion.
>
> >What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
> >"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
>
> >If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
> >have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
> >engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
> The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists
Not that it means much as far as science is concerned but a lot of
right wing fundies are "true believers" of AGW.
> trying
> to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
"Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that
white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes
CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent
Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more
than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Bill Ward
Thanks for the update.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
And that lame retort has something to do with AGW?
I M @ good guy
You keep bringing up names I never heard before,
but then, I have been listening to the news on radio
and watching it on TV every day since the 1930s,
and hadn't heard of Global Warming until somebody
crossposted this group to alt.energy about 3 or 4
years ago.
It is a money wasting - non-issue.
Unumnunum
Rob Dekker
Bill, this keeps getting better and better.
The question for Lindzen seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an
official scientific publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did open
up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the truth about
the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his short-wave
feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K without
explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from the models
(because as presented the show infinite positive feedback), and "proves"
that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several blog
sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper" which
"finally settles the climate hyseria".
One of these is Chip Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on
Senator's Inhofe's anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's
response to my finding (above) was published by another blogger, referring
to an explanation in the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me also
to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got an
answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
He promised to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a
copy of that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning.
The only thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K
"zero-feedback response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to
hide for his result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an
incorrect short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4
W/m^2/K is now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that
"that one can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we then
go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi (2009) is
not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics (see note 3)".
When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he becomes increasingly
vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote himself about an increase in
the altitude of the tropopause with increased SST, then tries a circular
argument by referring to the model results, and finally mentions "complex
but specific interactions" and that "details of this matter will be
presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is not
an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K under the
rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative feedback and
models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with such
a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in an
official scientific publication so as to protect his own already falsified
theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame.
We have not seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get
some more people involved.
Rob
Bill Ward
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
Bret Cahill
If Lindzen turns out to be in error it'll hardly be surprising as
almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
debunk AGW.
In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
debate
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:nbOdnSVFRP5x8W3X...@giganews.com...
Sure is, but me as a complete outsider do not want to do this alone.
Luckily, my comments are having some effect.
Via a blog post from Lubos Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr. Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this went live yesterday :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Dr. Spencer :
"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."
In summary : Lindzen gets very different results than Lindzen and Choi.
Results that are much more in line with what I described :
(1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback
(2) The AMIP models that Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE data
(3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate sensitivity questionable.
Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that.
Also, how about you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's claim of negative feedback based on ERBE
data is refuted ?
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:94bfc746-d1ac-42bc...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
....
>
> If Lindzen turns out to be in error it'll hardly be surprising as
> almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
> getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
>
> On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
> Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
> debunk AGW.
>
> In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
> debate
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Hi Bret,
Yes. I understand that very clearly and thank you for the head's up.
Good thing is that my conversation with Lindzen is respectful at this time, as you see from his main response :
"....I have great respect for people outside this field who bother to seriously examine matters", and "we will address your
questions explicitly as soon as we can."
Also, I do not want to actually rub anyone's mistakes in anyone's face, but I cannot deny my findings either.
Fortunately, as I posted in a side thread, I am getting support from some professionals now.
Bill Ward
> In summary : Lindzen [BW: Spencer?] gets very different results than
Lindzen and Choi.
> Results that are much more in line with what I described :
>
> (1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback (2) The AMIP models that
> Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE
> data (3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate
> sensitivity questionable.
>
> Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that. Also, how about
> you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's
> claim of negative feedback based on ERBE data is refuted ?
Not at all. I think both you and Spencer misunderstand what he's doing.
You're apparently looking at the analysis as comparing two datasets - the
SST, and the ERBE radiation.
I look at it as comparing a number of input events - heating or cooling
of the SST past a minimum threshold difference - then determining the
output response of the system (ERBE) to those events. That's a common
method in system analysis, simple, direct, and convincing.
Spencer (and you) didn't replicate Lindzen's method and came to different
conclusions, probably because your methods were not as effective in
reducing the noise.
It's somewhat telling that some folks get all wrapped around the axle
trying to distinguish "feedback" from "forcing". It's like the old
saying that there are only 10 types of people in the world - those who
understand binary and those who don't.
If you deal much with recovering signals from noise, you soon learn that
if it's not signal, it's noise. If it's "forcing", it's noise.
The angst over the difference between feedbacks of zero and one is also a
giveaway. A "feedback" of zero means it's an open loop. You can get a
"gain" of one from an opamp circuit, but all the feedback is internal to
the circuit. It's often called a "follower". Feedback systems always
require an amplifier that modulates an external source of energy, whether
it's sunlight or FET channel current.
I can't get very excited about any of it, because Lindzen's approach
clearly rules out positive feedback from WV. The IPCC climate models are
proven to have overestimated the WV feedback, and that's all I'm really
interested in. Someone else can argue about how many zero feedbacks can
dance on the head of a forcing.
It would be interesting to get someone skilled in systems analysis to
look at the issue.
I M @ good guy
We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
Slurs and insinuations only.
Unumnunum
Haw haw, that was a brainless slur wasn't it. No reference to actual
remarks. Once again Not-so-good guy begs for attention.
Bret Cahill
> > almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
> > getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
>
> > On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
> > Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
> > debunk AGW.
>
> > In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
> > debate
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Hi Bret,
>
> Yes. I understand that very clearly and thank you for the head's up.
>
> Good thing is that my conversation with Lindzen is respectful at this time, as you see from his main response :
>
> "....I have great respect for people outside this field who bother to seriously examine matters", and "we will address your
> questions explicitly as soon as we can."
>
> Also, I do not want to actually rub anyone's mistakes in anyone's face, but I cannot deny my findings either.
You're generally respectful.
> Fortunately, as I posted in a side thread, I am getting support from some professionals now.
Someone needs to rank the biggest first order feedbacks, positive and
negative, and then get more ambitious and do the more complicated
multiple [spaghetti] loops that have less and less of an effect.
AGW is probably decided by one or two major loops.
Bret Cahill
I M @ good guy
Why not, is it truth in science you seek, personal
accomplishment, or just agenda promotion?
>Luckily, my comments are having some effect.
Lucky for whom? You made insinuations
without the science, people don't like to waste time
responding to ordinary bad mouthing.
>Via a blog post from Lubos Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
>
>http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
>
>So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr. Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
When will this discussion return to climate science?
>Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this went live yesterday :
>
>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
>
>Dr. Spencer :
>"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."
>In summary : Lindzen gets very different results than Lindzen and Choi.
>Results that are much more in line with what I described :
Did you type the wrong name there?
>(1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback
>(2) The AMIP models that Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE data
>(3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate sensitivity questionable.
>
>Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that.
>Also, how about you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's claim of negative feedback based on ERBE
>data is refuted ?
>
>Rob
Why the fixation on feedback now, did getting
the CO2 effect on temperature fail to make very
much of an impression.
I M @ good guy
Do you mean I have 10 ears?
And 1010 toes?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
No reference to actual remarks?
What is it you didn't understand, "above paragraphs"?
A couple of the "above paragraphs" quoted for
the twisted brains who only see left;
" I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data
in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory."
"If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect."
And then Dekker displays meanness and an agenda
to further discredit a person who apparently tried to
explain some climate science with;
"And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
people involved."
What does that mean? Who else will he try to
get involved, the watermelon shirts?
I can understand you not using your real name,
I don't want to be associated with these leftist agenda
people, the only thing I can say for long winded Dekker
is that he doesn't use four letter words in mixed company
like some of the foul balls posting here.
I would have hoped that a discussion of a paper
prominent enough to be mentioned would have been
cordial and with permission to use the email or public
words of the author who was good enough to try to
explain.
I hope that is not the reason the bulk of the
school and lab employees writing about the AGW
myth seem to hide.
Unumnunum
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:52:11 -0600, Unumnunum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
>>> serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
>>> remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
>>>
>>> Slurs and insinuations only.
>> Haw haw, that was a brainless slur wasn't it. No reference to actual
>> remarks. Once again Not-so-good guy begs for attention.
>
> No reference to actual remarks?
>
> What is it you didn't understand, "above paragraphs"?
Everything seemed fine to me. You're just whining.
> A couple of the "above paragraphs" quoted for
> the twisted brains who only see left;
>
> " I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
> with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data
> in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
> falsified theory."
That's not a slur, it is a polite remark. And backed up with detailed
fact, not innuendo or insinuations.
>
> "If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
> By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
> not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
> under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
> feedback and models being incorrect."
>
> And then Dekker displays meanness and an agenda
> to further discredit a person who apparently tried to
> explain some climate science with;
Seemed like a correct statement. If Lindzen did deliberately
try to cover up an error in order to support a predetermined
conclusion then he deserves any amount of criticism he receives.
> "And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
> seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
> people involved."
>
> What does that mean? Who else will he try to
> get involved, the watermelon shirts?
Already explained that didn't he. Completely appropriate.
> I can understand you not using your real name,
> I don't want to be associated with these leftist agenda
> people, the only thing I can say for long winded Dekker
> is that he doesn't use four letter words in mixed company
> like some of the foul balls posting here.
He told it like it is. You don't like the outcome so you make
a personal attack.
> I would have hoped that a discussion of a paper
> prominent enough to be mentioned would have been
> cordial and with permission to use the email or public
> words of the author who was good enough to try to
> explain.
It was in line with the discussion. How about the stolen copyrighted
material posted by the denialists here every day? Don't see you
complaining about that.
>
> I hope that is not the reason the bulk of the
> school and lab employees writing about the AGW
> myth seem to hide.
A demented old geezer with nothing to do but post mindless drivel
to the internet shouldn't complain about what other people do with
their time.
Rob Dekker
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
interesting.
First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
Letters.
What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
recognizable climate feedback. I don't know if you understand how important
this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are completely
wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point, then
you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
First I thought ot was the data.
So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
behold :
I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate feedback
response ?
When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
conclusions from.
With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback recognizable.
Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis results,
but he claimed negative feedback !
So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid it
very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
the entire outcome of the paper.
I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
system.
That was the second blunt mistake.
By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
thread.
No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
over it.
I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
was false !!!
I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with him
for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed up
in this thread he never sent me an answer.
So I'm pissed.
You bet I am.
I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
MSNBC or so.
And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic' scientists
are in disagreement.
But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
Thanks for reading this.
Rob
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
Falcon
Rob Dekker wrote:
> Dear I M @ good guy
>
>
> This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
> Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many other
more alarming examples of climate science these days, is falsifiable. The
problem we face more and more as the debate becomes more vociferous is a
stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise reputable climate scientists
(like Keith Briffa and others) to present their work in the same fashion -
complete with reasoning, raw data and the methods on which it is based. This
effectively prevents their work from being tested as easily or rigorously.
(See McIntyre re: Briffa & Yamal etc).
I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility of 'sceptical'
scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's comments, rather
than harmed by them.
> P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
Good man: take a house point.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Bret Cahill
> Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis results,
> but he claimed negative feedback !
>
> So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
> It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
> In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid it
> very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
>
> That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
> that.
Maybe he was trolling, making sure everyone was being alert.
Bret Cahill
"Be alert. America needs more lerts."
Bill Ward
I believe Rob misunderstands the implications of that subtraction. It
appears to me that Lindzen is trying to separate and compare the emitted
(LWIR) and reflected (SW) components of the feedback. The emitted LWIR
is subject to the T^4 law, the reflected SW is not. The 4W/m^2/K
compensates for that.
See paragraph[13] in the paper:
<begin quote>
When considering LW and SW fluxes separately, F is replaced by
FLW + FSW.
In the observed ΔOLR/ΔT, the nonfeedback change of 4 Wm–2 K–1 is
included. Also ΔSWR/ΔT needs to be balanced with ΔOLR/ΔT. From the
consideration, FLW = –ΔOLR/ΔT + 4 and FSW = –ΔSWR/ΔΤ – 4.
In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0),
ΔOLR/ΔT less than 4 W m–2 K–1 represents positive feedback;
ΔOLR/ΔT more than 4 W m–2 K–1 represents negative feedback;
ΔOLR/ΔT less than 0 W m–2 K–1 represents infinite feedback,
which is physically unreal.
<end quote>
At any rate, even assuming for the sake of argument the subtraction is
not correct, it applies only to the separation of SW and LW influences,
and does not affect the overall conclusion that the data rules out
positive feedback in the climate system. That falsifies the models which
assume WV causes a 6x gain or so in the CO2 "climate sensitivity".
The basic method of applying an input to a system (in this case, allowing
nature to apply the stimulus in the form of SST changes) and observing
the behavior of the output (changes in ERBE radiation) is commonly used
in analyzing black box problems. It has the advantages of being simple,
direct, and convincing. Even if, as Rob believes, there were a
tangential error in the separation of LW and SW effects, it wouldn't
change the conclusion.
Unumnunum
> Rob Dekker wrote:
>
>> Dear I M @ good guy
>>
>>
>> This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
> [...]
>> Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
>
> What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many other
> more alarming examples of climate science these days, is falsifiable. The
> problem we face more and more as the debate becomes more vociferous is a
> stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise reputable climate scientists
> (like Keith Briffa and others) to present their work in the same fashion -
> complete with reasoning, raw data and the methods on which it is based. This
> effectively prevents their work from being tested as easily or rigorously.
> (See McIntyre re: Briffa & Yamal etc).
>
> I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility of 'sceptical'
> scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's comments, rather
> than harmed by them.
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
>> P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
>
> Good man: take a house point.
There was a time when it was reasonably safe to post under your own
name. In this era of proliferating net-kooks it is more likely that
some nutjob will snoop out your location and wind up on your doorstep
with a pistol, why take the risk.
I M @ good guy
>Dear I M @ good guy
>
>This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
Ok.
>When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
>interesting.
>First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
>Letters.
So what, literally millions of papers are peer
reviewed, and 90 percent are worthless.
>What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
>found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
>recognizable climate feedback.
What? For warming or cooling?
>I don't know if you understand how important
>this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
>observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
>that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
>external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
CO2 is external? Since hydrocarbon life
has been here, CO2 has played second fiddle to
water vapor.
>Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are completely
>wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
Depends on what "way off" means. Models
which project in one direction, like the Hansen
up, up, up are clearly wrong, possibly precisely
because they focus too much on CO2 levels.
>It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
>so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
>that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point, then
>you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
I tried, but found too much speculation and
a bias, especially on your part.
>So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
>First I thought ot was the data.
I can buy that, many people can see a problem
before they know what it is.
>So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
>program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
>behold :
Then the first thing you should have done is
showed it to him, tell him you where you were going
to publish it, and even publishing it here documents
what you do.
>I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
>intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate feedback
>response ?
But that wasn't the result you wanted, huh?
>When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
>response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
>response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
>conclusions from.
So what, SW absorption varies a lot, else there
would be no ice ages.
>With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback recognizable.
>Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis results,
>but he claimed negative feedback !
I don't understand, how could it be the same,
surely you would not accept negative feedback,
even if it bit you.
>So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
>It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
>In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid it
>very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
Sometimes the minus symbol is hard to see
on a computer screen, that is why I often write "minus".
>That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
>that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
>the entire outcome of the paper.
Then you must not read many reviewed papers,
I see glaring mistakes of all kinds all the time.
>I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
>problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
>infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
>system.
>That was the second blunt mistake.
I would say infinite positive feedback would
be wrong as hell, at least until we fry.
>By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
That is where I became concerned with your
approach to the study of the document.
>I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
>thread.
>No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
You mean not identified, or just not voicing an opinion?
>By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
>over it.
I don't know why, or what that means, I see no
possible reason to be a skeptic other than to seek
truth in science.
>I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
Do many people actually read a blog, after all,
there are many blogs and only so many people that
might know about a particular one or happen to find
it on a search engine.
>Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
>and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
>was false !!!
You "assumed" was false, or "you decided" was false.
>I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with him
>for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed up
>in this thread he never sent me an answer.
I thought you had already done that.
I am getting deja vu here for some reason.
>So I'm pissed.
>You bet I am.
Sounds reasonable, but that is how things go
sometimes, want to hear how I got screwed on my
stealth patent?
>I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
>MSNBC or so.
If you know for certain your facts are right,
and you could get in the door, why not?
>And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
Getting on MSNBC with facts would have
been much better.
>Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
>My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
>wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic' scientists
>are in disagreement.
I kinda doubt if they are the last skeptic scientists,
that is a funny statement, every year there is not a year
warmer than 1998, there will be more skeptic scientists
that feel a need to speak the truth more than the greed
for a job and salary.
>But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
If it is wrong, I hope you can prove it,
but no need to make the kind of statements
you were making, maybe if there is a problem,
it could have been an honest mistake, which
would not deserve the things you said.
>Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
We'll see, no big deal, chances are he is right
more than he is wrong.
>Thanks for reading this.
>
>Rob
>
>P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
I always used my real name, or rather
life-long nick name until the foul mouthed
nutcases got completely out of hand in this
newsgroup (alt.global-warming).
I don't have a problem with four letter
words except in mixed company, and maybe
a lady will read the group some day.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Not if he knows what is on the other side
of the door. :-)
No, in my case, it is just all the liberal
influenced foul language, nothing else.
Falcon
Unumnunum wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
>> Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>>> Dear I M @ good guy
>>>
>>>
>>> This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
>> [...]
>>> Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
>>
>> What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many
>> other more alarming examples of climate science these days, is
>> falsifiable. The problem we face more and more as the debate becomes
>> more vociferous is a stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise
>> reputable climate scientists (like Keith Briffa and others) to present
>> their work in the same fashion - complete with reasoning, raw data and
>> the methods on which it is based. This effectively prevents their work
>> from being tested as easily or rigorously. (See McIntyre re: Briffa &
>> Yamal etc). I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility
>> of 'sceptical' scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's
>> comments, rather than harmed by them.
>
> I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
> falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
> to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
> does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
> previous work where he did not.
That short paragraph illustrates what is wrong with so many discussions of
the climate change issue. I didn't imply that anyone had deliberately
falsified an analysis. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone has.
The basis of all good science is that it has to be 'falsifiable'. In other
words the paper must contain sufficient information to enable other
scientists to replicate the project and either agree with a paper's
conclusions or raise concerns about it. Replicating the work and if
necessary checking the results using alternative sources of data is an
essential part of the scientific method. I've seen no evidence to suggest
that Lindzen has obfuscated anything, as Spencer was able to follow his
reasoning examine the data and methods used and to find what he believes to
be errors in it, which led to him raising his concerns. Nor is it the case
that Lindzen has failed to respond to Spencer's concerns. They were only
raised a few days ago in his blog. It often takes a considerable amount of
time to consider concerns and objections to papers before either agreeing
with them or making further attempts to justify your own reasoning. Often
this can mean reworking a paper that took months to produce, before
resubmitting a peer-reviewed response.
I believe that even if Lindzen eventually accepts that some of the
fundamental aspects of the paper were in error, that doesn't fatally
undermine his credibility. Nor should it. Any honest scientist will tell you
that no one ever gets it 100% right all of the time. That's what the
scientific method is all about. It's also worth remembering that Lindzen an
Spencer have collaborated closely in the past and no doubt will do so in the
future.
You will also notice that Spencer doesn't claim to have 'refuted' Lindzen's
work, or to have 'debunked' anything (and I'm not suggesting here that you
have), nor has he called Lindzen's credibility into question. Intemperate
language isn't the stuff of real scientific research. With respect, in my
experience people who habitually use words like that or imply that this or
that piece of research results in irreparable damage to a scientist's
credibility is usually someone who simply hasn't fully understood the nature
of the uncertainties inherent in all scientific research.
>>> P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
>>
>> Good man: take a house point.
>
> There was a time when it was reasonably safe to post under your own
> name. In this era of proliferating net-kooks it is more likely that
> some nutjob will snoop out your location and wind up on your doorstep
> with a pistol, why take the risk.
--
I M @ good guy
Good post, that was my point. The entire paper
was not debunked, the author was not discredited, an
error is impossible to prove to be an intentional falsehood,
and anybody that does not take the high road in something
like this only hurts himself.
Even if I was absolutely certain that an author
intentionally included a falsehood in an extensive
paper, I would not dare do anything but point out
the error.
I don't understand any inclination to discredit
an author, or to debunk a paper.
Peer reviewers point out errors and perhaps
suggest "corrections", which may actually get the
paper published.
I have tried to follow the thread, but got lost,
even though clouds reduce black sky radiation at
night, they can reduce incoming energy much more
in daytime, I have to think that has to be a huge
negative in whatever climate modelers consider
to be what warms the surface.
In electronic circuits, feedback has circuitry
that supplies power to feedback to amplify it,
else it does nothing much.
This is why I don't pay much attention to
some of the claims of runaway possibilities.
Unumnunum
Well it may be that Lindzen didn't deliberately falsify his analysis,
but from what I've read in this thread there is evidence to suggest it
even though you may not have seen it. And when I say "falsify" here I
mean in the sense of speaking a deliberate falsehood, not introducing
material that can be independently verified.
> The basis of all good science is that it has to be 'falsifiable'. In other
> words the paper must contain sufficient information to enable other
> scientists to replicate the project and either agree with a paper's
> conclusions or raise concerns about it. Replicating the work and if
> necessary checking the results using alternative sources of data is an
Thanks for the lecture, but this is very common knowledge.
> essential part of the scientific method. I've seen no evidence to suggest
> that Lindzen has obfuscated anything, as Spencer was able to follow his
> reasoning examine the data and methods used and to find what he believes to
> be errors in it, which led to him raising his concerns. Nor is it the case
This was explained earlier in the thread. A numeric term was mysteriously
introduced which seems to have no justification. I've seen this kind of
thing in many other situations where someone is attempting to reach
conclusions that don't work without a little "help".
> that Lindzen has failed to respond to Spencer's concerns. They were only
> raised a few days ago in his blog. It often takes a considerable amount of
> time to consider concerns and objections to papers before either agreeing
> with them or making further attempts to justify your own reasoning. Often
> this can mean reworking a paper that took months to produce, before
> resubmitting a peer-reviewed response.
I have no problem with speculative physics and flights of imaginative
thinking. The problem comes when a person presents his findings as fact
and doesn't wait for the peer reviews to come in before declaring success.
Lindzen has a long history of showboating and a habit of associating
with questionable characters. Did you know he was a keynote speaker at
the recent Heartland Institute conference? Even now we see his years-old
op-ed article in the WSJ being cited as justification for all manner
of AGW denial.
> I believe that even if Lindzen eventually accepts that some of the
> fundamental aspects of the paper were in error, that doesn't fatally
> undermine his credibility. Nor should it. Any honest scientist will tell you
> that no one ever gets it 100% right all of the time. That's what the
> scientific method is all about. It's also worth remembering that Lindzen an
> Spencer have collaborated closely in the past and no doubt will do so in the
> future.
I don't care what kind of buddies Lindzen and Spencer are, but if you
publish a paper and you made a dumb mistake your credibility is damaged.
If you went so far as to fudge the numbers in order to bolster a position
you've tried to support unsuccessfully for years it would look very bad
indeed. Not saying this is definitely the case, but if it were I have
zero sympathy for it.
> You will also notice that Spencer doesn't claim to have 'refuted' Lindzen's
> work, or to have 'debunked' anything (and I'm not suggesting here that you
> have), nor has he called Lindzen's credibility into question. Intemperate
> language isn't the stuff of real scientific research. With respect, in my
> experience people who habitually use words like that or imply that this or
> that piece of research results in irreparable damage to a scientist's
> credibility is usually someone who simply hasn't fully understood the nature
> of the uncertainties inherent in all scientific research.
I accept your point, but by the same token, having your work challenged
does not enhance your credibility merely because you wrote a paper that
included your chain of reasoning and is therefore "falsifiable". I am all
in favor of new thinking, creative ways of looking at things, and the
development of innovative theories but Lindzen always seems to "discover"
the same predictable kind of thing. It smells.
Rob Dekker
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:pr66f5tgf7jl9v5j8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>
>>Dear I M @ good guy
>>
>>This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
>
> Ok.
>
>>When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
>>interesting.
>>First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
>>Letters.
>
>
> So what, literally millions of papers are peer
> reviewed, and 90 percent are worthless.
>
Correction : YOU consider them worthless.
>
>>What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
>>found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
>>recognizable climate feedback.
>
> What? For warming or cooling?
>
I have to confess something : I AM A SKEPTIC.
I am skeptical of all things that make no sense.
I am skeptical of models that predict something that is verifiably false.
I am skeptical of every opinion that is not based on evidence.
So there you have it.
So I honestly did not care if the feedback was positive or negative when
Bill directed me to this publication.
Just ANY evidence of ANY feedback would do it for me.
>
>>I don't know if you understand how important
>>this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
>>observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
>>that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
>>external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
>
>
> CO2 is external? Since hydrocarbon life
> has been here, CO2 has played second fiddle to
> water vapor.
>
That statement is irrelevant unless you show some evidence that it affects
feedback.
>
>>Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are
>>completely
>>wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
>
>
> Depends on what "way off" means.
Way off means that observations clearly show that the models are incorrect.
> Models
> which project in one direction, like the Hansen
> up, up, up are clearly wrong,
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
> possibly precisely
> because they focus too much on CO2 levels.
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
>
>
>>It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
>>so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
>>that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point,
>>then
>>you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
>
>
> I tried, but found too much speculation and
> a bias, especially on your part.
>
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
>
>>So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
>>First I thought ot was the data.
>
>
> I can buy that, many people can see a problem
> before they know what it is.
>
Thanks.
>
>>So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
>>program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
>>behold :
>
>
> Then the first thing you should have done is
> showed it to him, tell him you where you were going
> to publish it, and even publishing it here documents
> what you do.
>
Why ?
I just replicated his data analysis at that point. That's all.
>
>>I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
>>intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate
>>feedback
>>response ?
>
> But that wasn't the result you wanted, huh?
>
Excuse me ?
What I want is irrelevant.
What matters is what ERBE could tell us about reality.
>
>>When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
>>response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
>>response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
>>conclusions from.
>
>
> So what, SW absorption varies a lot,
Yes it does. And ?
> else there
> would be no ice ages.
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence.
>
>
>>With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback recognizable.
>>Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis
>>results,
>>but he claimed negative feedback !
>
>
> I don't understand, how could it be the same,
You are surely joking mr. good guy.
In science, once the data is in and the analysis is done, the conclusions
should always be consistent.
After all, conclusions are simply a scientific summary of data analysis.
So they HAVE TO BE the same, no matter who draws them.
> surely you would not accept negative feedback,
> even if it bit you.
It would be nice if you would apologize for this insulting remark.
>
>
>>So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
>>It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
>>In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid
>>it
>>very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
>
>
> Sometimes the minus symbol is hard to see
> on a computer screen, that is why I often write "minus".
>
OK. Let me explain more clearly for you and anyone else with their head
stuck in their ass :
Lindzen SUBTRACTED 4 W/m^2/K from the climate feedback formula without
giving any explanation whatoever. He then used that as proof that the Earth
shows negative feedback, publishes it in an official scientific magazine,
trompeted it on national television as proof that Global Warming does not
exist and let the idiot that presented it say that "this is the end of the
scam".
Well. Yes. It is.
The end of the scam of denialist' lies.
Can the real world please do without you guys' rediculous dogmatic beliefs ?
>
>>That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
>>that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
>>the entire outcome of the paper.
>
>
> Then you must not read many reviewed papers,
You would be surprised.
> I see glaring mistakes of all kinds all the time.
>
Which literature are you reading ?
>
>>I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
>>problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
>>infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
>>system.
>>That was the second blunt mistake.
>
>
> I would say infinite positive feedback would
> be wrong as hell, at least until we fry.
>
Yes it is.
And any sophomore physics student would be able to spot that there was
something very much wrong with Lindzen's model plots.
>
>>By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
>
>
> That is where I became concerned with your
> approach to the study of the document.
>
Which other approach would you have recommended ?
>
>>I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
>>thread.
>>No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
>
>
> You mean not identified, or just not voicing an opinion?
>
No comment.
>
>>By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
>>over it.
>
>
> I don't know why, or what that means,
You don't know what I mean ? You are not paying attention...
This paper was trompeted as the end of Global Warming :
"In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal,.." San
Fransisco Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
"Lindzen and Choi's findings should come as a solace to those folks who are
alarmed about future climate and as a bulwark to those folks fighting to
limit Congresses negative impact on U.S. energy supplies and our economy."
Chip Knappenberger, blogger referred by Senator Inhofe's web site.
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
"Professor Lindzen's landmark paper
demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt
that the "global warming" scare is over."
Lord Monckton in a presentation to senator Kerry :
http://www.archive.org/stream/SenatorKerryMisfiresAboutGlobalWarming/sen_kerry_misfires_djvu.txt
and on Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLUEMWicyo&feature=related
presented by Monckton, who then challenged Al Gore for a national debate.
Based on fraudulent science ?
What the .... is wrong with these guys ?
> I see no
> possible reason to be a skeptic other than to seek
> truth in science.
>
And so do I.
>
>>I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
>
>
> Do many people actually read a blog, after all,
> there are many blogs and only so many people that
> might know about a particular one or happen to find
> it on a search engine.
>
>
>>Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
>>and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
>>was false !!!
>
>
> You "assumed" was false, or "you decided" was false.
>
I KNEW is was false.
Why else do you think I would stick my head into this waspnest of critical
and denier blog sites.
>
>>I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with
>>him
>>for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed
>>up
>>in this thread he never sent me an answer.
>
>
> I thought you had already done that.
>
Richard Lindzen sure has received my comments via Geaophysical Research
Letters.
So, yes I think I did.
>
> I am getting deja vu here for some reason.
>
??
>
>>So I'm pissed.
>>You bet I am.
>
>
> Sounds reasonable, but that is how things go
> sometimes, want to hear how I got screwed on my
> stealth patent?
>
Not really.
>
>>I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
>>MSNBC or so.
>
>
> If you know for certain your facts are right,
> and you could get in the door, why not?
>
>
>>And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
>
>
> Getting on MSNBC with facts would have
> been much better.
>
I thought about that for a while. Decided not to go forward with that.
It's enough that he gets put back in place in the scientific and in the blog
community.
No need to hang him in front of national TV.
He does have a very substantial and abmirable scientific career.
He had his 5 minutes of fame with this paper, and now it's time to retire.
But I would like him to admit his mistakes in this paper though...
>
>>Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
>>My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
>>wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic'
>>scientists
>>are in disagreement.
>
>
> I kinda doubt if they are the last skeptic scientists,
You are right. I take that statement back.
I think it's time to redefine the term 'skeptic'.
It should apply to anyone being skeptical of scientific fraud.
And luckily most scientists are honest and skeptical.
> that is a funny statement, every year there is not a year
> warmer than 1998, there will be more skeptic scientists
> that feel a need to speak the truth more than the greed
> for a job and salary.
>
Just let science do it's work.
There are tens of thousands of honest, hardworking scientists that just want
to find out how the complex system called Earth's climate is really working.
Let them do their job, and let us work together on finding out if there is
indeed a problem or not with greenhouse gas emissions.
So far, it looks like there may indeed be a big problem (IPCC conclusion).
So let's work together to find solutions.
Or, if you prefer, find scientific evidence that the problem is not that
big.
Just don't, EVER, EVER falsify your paper to pretend that.
>
>>But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
>
>
> If it is wrong, I hope you can prove it,
How do you prove that 4 + 4 = 8 and not 4 ?
I've given all the proof in this thread that Lindzen used the wrong formula.
> but no need to make the kind of statements
> you were making, maybe if there is a problem,
> it could have been an honest mistake, which
> would not deserve the things you said.
>
An honest mistake ? A highschool student could not make this mistake.
Also, do you see HOW he hid the 'minus' 4 W/m^2/K ?
It took me a week to find it.
This guy is a genius in disguising his fraud.
>
>>Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
>
>
> We'll see, no big deal, chances are he is right
> more than he is wrong.
>
He is wrong, and I showed it.
Not sure if that matters at all.
He probably has many influential friends, and probably has his next DOE
energy grant lined up for his next fraudulous paper.
I just have to go back to work monday morning...
>
>>Thanks for reading this.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>>P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
>
>
> I always used my real name, or rather
> life-long nick name until the foul mouthed
> nutcases got completely out of hand in this
> newsgroup (alt.global-warming).
>
> I don't have a problem with four letter
> words except in mixed company, and maybe
> a lady will read the group some day.
>
Good thinking.
>
>
>
>
>