Lindzen and climate feedback...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Lindzen and climate feedback...

Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Lindzen and climate feedback...

Author

Message

Bill Ward...

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:23 pm

Guest

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:49:51 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

[quote:6b53cc7f26]Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) 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.
[/quote:6b53cc7f26]
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...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:50 am

Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote:5c84bdffc9]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:

[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]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
"forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface temperatures.
That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor scale in figure 3 in
his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave) graph is off-set by 4
W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback factor) should move up by
4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback
factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper would
need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data essentially is in
line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE data shows that there
is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for short-term (months) sea
surface temperature changes.

---

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

[/quote:5c84bdffc9]
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....

[quote:5c84bdffc9]********************

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.
[/quote:5c84bdffc9]
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 ?

[quote:5c84bdffc9]Short term negative feedback has a long term stabilizing effect.
Delayed feedback can cause oscillation.
[/quote:5c84bdffc9]
If I remember correctly, only delayed negative feedback can cause
oscillation.
Delayed positive feedback simply causes a delay in amplified response.

[quote:5c84bdffc9]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.
[/quote:5c84bdffc9]
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.

[quote:5c84bdffc9]
******************[/quote:5c84bdffc9]

Peter Muehlbauer...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:02 am

Guest

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

[quote:415458e0ad]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:49:51 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) 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?
[/quote:415458e0ad]
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.

Leonard Pulver Sr....

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:51 am

Guest

Rob Dekker wrote
[quote:37ce9635b4]
If I remember correctly, only delayed negative feedback can cause
oscillation.
Delayed positive feedback simply causes a delay in amplified response.

[/quote:37ce9635b4]
I smoke. And years ago Prof. Lindzen said that smoking was fine.

I don't know if Prof. Lindzen smokes now (I'm willing to bet that he doesn't),
but if I held him down and forced him to smoke? He would probably sue me for
hurting him with tobacco, not for holding him down forcing him to smoke.

He's a hypocrite.

Bill Ward...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:14 am

Guest

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:04 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

[quote:f9d3b358d7]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:

[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]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
"forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface
temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor
scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave)
graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback
factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left
scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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 ?
[/quote:f9d3b358d7]
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.

[quote:f9d3b358d7]
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.
[/quote:f9d3b358d7]
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.

[quote:f9d3b358d7]Delayed positive feedback simply causes a delay in amplified response.
[/quote:f9d3b358d7]
That depends on the loop gain.
[quote:f9d3b358d7]
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.

******************
[/quote:f9d3b358d7]
This post worked fine. Go figure.

Bill Ward...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:23 am

Guest

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:02:54 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

[quote:ceb5447ab8]Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:49:51 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) 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?

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.
[/quote:ceb5447ab8]
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.

Peter Muehlbauer...

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:15 pm

Guest

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

[quote:68e8a80daa]On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:02:54 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:49:51 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) 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?

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.
[/quote:68e8a80daa]
No problem ;-)

Oh btw, you have e-mail.

Rob Dekker...

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:48 am

Guest

"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT at (no spam) AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:nutid5lv09n22inceuk1tieq5cai5l2ip1 at (no spam) nntp.frankenexpress.de...
[quote:640d60717b]Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:49:51 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Bill Ward <bward at (no spam) 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?

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.
[/quote:640d60717b]
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...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:33 am

Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
....
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
"forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface temperatures.
That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor scale in figure 3 in
his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave) graph is off-set by 4
W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback factor) should move up by
4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback
factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper would
need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data essentially is in
line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE data shows that there
is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for short-term (months) sea
surface temperature changes.

---

[Bill]
That should be interesting. Keep us posted on the response.
[/quote]
Got a reply today that my letter is in the hands of the editors.

[quote]
********************

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.

[/quote]
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...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:32 am

Guest

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
"forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface
temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor
scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave)
graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback
factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left
scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]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
?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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 ?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
See paragraph [18] on page 5.

[quote]Now, how can it be that the 0 W/m^2/C left scale lines up with -1
feedback factor on the right scale ?
[/quote]
Because he explicitly separated the T^4 effect as an internal gain, not a
feedback. See paragraphs [11] and [12].

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

[quote]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 ?
[/quote]
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...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:32 am

Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
"forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface
temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor
scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave)
graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback
factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left
scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

He took that into account on page 4 paragraph [11]. I'd quote it, but
it's pdf. He takes the actual inverse derivative of the Planck function
at 255k and arrives at 0.925K dT/dQ, close enough to your 1K.
[/quote]
Exactly. He is correct there. For the non-feedback case, Earth radiates 4
W/m^2 per K extra.

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
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 ?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
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).

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
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...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:53 am

Guest

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in
surface temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback
factor scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW
(short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0
W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be the positive feedback they all assume. Remember the ERBE
is looking down. Models assume the high tropospheric WV increases with
SST, so they reduce the outgoing LWIR accordingly.
[/quote]
You must have missed the above. It directly answers your question, which
you appear to ignore below.

[quote]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 ?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
I don't think so. Read paragraph 12.

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

[quote]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.
[/quote]
See above for the difference between open loop gain and feedback, and the
necessity for the sign change. It looks consistent to me.
[quote]
The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and in
the formula.
[/quote]
And explained in the text.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:00 am

Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:2aCdnXhW9o4RcHzXnZ2dnUVZ_gVi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in
surface temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback
factor scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW
(short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0
W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must have missed the above. It directly answers your question, which
you appear to ignore below.
[/quote]
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]

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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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].
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
The sign change is OK. Subtracting an arbitrary 4 W/m^2/K from SW is not.
That's called fraud.

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

And explained in the text.
[/quote]
In science, it is not possible to correct a mistake in a formula with text.

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
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...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:13 am

Guest

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:00:09 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:2aCdnXhW9o4RcHzXnZ2dnUVZ_gVi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in
surface temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback
factor scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW
(short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0
W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his
paper would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the
ERBE data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at
least for short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try Bill.
I look 'below' and I see Lindzen's text which I quoted to you myself
that answers the question.
[/quote]
If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?

[quote]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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
That's open loop gain, not feedback.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
He's not "correcting" F, he's deriving it by subtracting the open loop
gain G.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.

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 sign change is OK. Subtracting an arbitrary 4 W/m^2/K from SW is
not. That's called fraud.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]

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.
[/quote]
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...

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:07 pm

Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:VtadnSd5ZsKwWH_XnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:00:09 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:2aCdnXhW9o4RcHzXnZ2dnUVZ_gVi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:h46dner6FJS55n3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:33:25 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:q-SdneQgKcR3VkXXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:13:45 -0700, Rob wrote:
...
[Rob]
OK. I wrote a letter to Geophysical Research Letters, which reads
essentially like this :

---

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

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

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

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

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the
radiative "forcing" (such as from CO2) with natural changes in
surface temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback
factor scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW
(short-wave) graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right
scale (feedback factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0
W/m^2/K on the left scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his
paper would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the
ERBE data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at
least for short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

---

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

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

********************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try Bill.
I look 'below' and I see Lindzen's text which I quoted to you myself
that answers the question.

If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.

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.

[/quote]
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 :

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]LW and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's explaining
the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
[/quote]
Yes. Separation is fine. As long as the open loop gain (1/G) is subtracted once, from only deltaOLW measurements.
And NOT added again !!

[quote]
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.

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 sign change is OK. Subtracting an arbitrary 4 W/m^2/K from SW is
not. That's called fraud.

Easy now. The SW was not radiated from the sea surface, so there is no
T^4 term to subtract.
[/quote]
And thus there was certainly nothing to add either.

[quote]That was only in the attempt to separate the two
feedback mechanisms, which have different open loop gains.
[/quote]
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 ?

[quote]

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.
[/quote]
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...

[quote]
[/quote]

Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:44 am Science Forum Index