 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Lindzen and climate feedback... |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bill Ward... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:07:59 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:VtadnSd5ZsKwWH_XnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
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?"?
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.
[/quote]
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must generate
for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the models to
correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that would be a
very basic requirement for any climate model.
[quote]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]
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does. If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
[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.
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.
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.
Correct. He should subtract it from measured OLW radiation flux (note:
only OLW, because SST changes directly affect OLW by open loop gain).
He does that correctly (below), but then adds it again :
That's all cool, and although somewhat confusing, the formula is now
consistent : if delta-OLR/delta-SST is 4 W/m^2/K and
delta-SW/delta-SST is 0, then the overall factor F would be 4 + 0 -4 =
0, which is exactly right for no feedback, as he states himself in the
sentence : "In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0), DOLR/DSST less
than 4 W m!2 K!1 represents positive feedback; DOLR/DSST more than 4 W
m!2K!1 represents negative feedback"
But where he goes wring is that he then adds that 4 W/m^2/K to the F
of SW. That is completely out of the blue, and makes everything wrong.
I think he's adding G back in because the SW is reflected, not emitted
from the sea surface (or clouds). Stephan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.
Correct. Stephan Boltzmann does not apply to SW. So there should be NO
adjustement to delta SW/deltaSST. FSW = deltaSW/deltaSST. Nothing added,
nothing subtracted.
Ultra-violet does not change with sea surface temperatures either. Nor
does the radiation from my terminal, or many other processes on the
planet.
That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he found
no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his formula. In
his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly added 4 to it.
[/quote]
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
[quote]LW and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's
explaining the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
Yes. Separation is fine. As long as the open loop gain (1/G) is
subtracted once, from only deltaOLW measurements. And NOT added again !!
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.
And thus there was certainly nothing to add either.
That was only in the attempt to separate the two feedback mechanisms,
which have different open loop gains.
Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains), and
how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1 feedback factor?
[/quote]
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is meaningless.
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are
sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not
specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR
feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any
OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of
a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased
water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and
a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced
upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001].
With respect to SW feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW
feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds
[Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether this is the case in
nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
[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.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
energy.html[/quote]
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen. Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
[quote]No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
[/quote]
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote] I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does.
[/quote]
That's not a scientific answer; it's a cop out.
[quote]If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
[/quote]
Not if you assume as Lindzen does that the majority of climate
scientists have the independent critical thinking ability of fundies
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:yemdneTM4utIfXXXnZ2dnUVZ_oyhnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:07:59 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:VtadnSd5ZsKwWH_XnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
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?"?
Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models
correctly. He is using them backward (what would be the forcing needed
to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward (what
would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is comparing
apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
[/quote]
What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience in
this field, so why don't you ask him ?
Why don't you ask him how he could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a
publication that has his name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go
out with my name on it.
[quote]
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must generate
for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the models to
correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that would be a
very basic requirement for any climate model.
[/quote]
Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
[quote]
If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though the
user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does.
[/quote]
I agree. He has too much experience in this field.
Why do you think he let such a big mistake go through ?
[quote]If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
[/quote]
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do not
try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not change
because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) :
[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.
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.
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.
Correct. He should subtract it from measured OLW radiation flux (note:
only OLW, because SST changes directly affect OLW by open loop gain).
He does that correctly (below), but then adds it again :
That's all cool, and although somewhat confusing, the formula is now
consistent : if delta-OLR/delta-SST is 4 W/m^2/K and
delta-SW/delta-SST is 0, then the overall factor F would be 4 + 0 -4 =
0, which is exactly right for no feedback, as he states himself in the
sentence : "In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0), DOLR/DSST less
than 4 W m!2 K!1 represents positive feedback; DOLR/DSST more than 4 W
m!2K!1 represents negative feedback"
But where he goes wring is that he then adds that 4 W/m^2/K to the F
of SW. That is completely out of the blue, and makes everything wrong.
I think he's adding G back in because the SW is reflected, not emitted
from the sea surface (or clouds). Stephan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.
Correct. Stephan Boltzmann does not apply to SW. So there should be NO
adjustement to delta SW/deltaSST. FSW = deltaSW/deltaSST. Nothing added,
nothing subtracted.
Ultra-violet does not change with sea surface temperatures either. Nor
does the radiation from my terminal, or many other processes on the
planet.
That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he found
no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his formula. In
his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly added 4 to it.
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
LW and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's
explaining the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
Yes. Separation is fine. As long as the open loop gain (1/G) is
subtracted once, from only deltaOLW measurements. And NOT added again !!
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.
And thus there was certainly nothing to add either.
That was only in the attempt to separate the two feedback mechanisms,
which have different open loop gains.
Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains), and
how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1 feedback factor?
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is meaningless.
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are
sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not
specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR
feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any
OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of
a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased
water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and
a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced
upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001].
With respect to SW feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW
feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds
[Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether this is the case in
nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and
in the formula.
And explained in the text.
In science, it is not possible to correct a mistake in a formula with
text.
Why he did this ?
His findings actually show feedback factor 0, which is much lower
than IPCC's factor 3, albeit that his analysis covered a few months
only, and IPCC's factor 3 is estimated to show up only after many
decades of consistent forcing.
I have my thoughts why he inserted this crucial 4 W/m^2/K "mistake",
but I won't go into that now.
All I can say is that he had me fooled for a while, and apparently
also his paper's reviewers.
Congratulations, if true. But I wouldn't break out the champagne
just yet. You seem to be assuming Lindzen works under the same
mindset as Hansen, Briffa and Jones, et. al.
I do not know these other guys.
I only know that this paper from Lindzen and Choi contains a
monumental mistake which nulifies it's conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your comments.
Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I can.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
energy.html
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen. Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sorry Bill, that one went out too fast.
Here is the remainder of my comments.
I also pruned down this post a bit, for readability.
Rob
"Rob Dekker" <rob at (no spam) verific.com> wrote in message
news:xJSdna5udqvu3HTXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
.....
[quote]
If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?
Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models
correctly. He is using them backward (what would be the forcing needed
to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward (what
would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is comparing
apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
[/quote]
What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience in
this field, so why don't you ask him ?
Why don't you ask him how he could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a
publication that has his name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go
out with my name on it.
[quote]
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must generate
for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the models to
correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that would be a
very basic requirement for any climate model.
[/quote]
Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
[quote]
If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though the
user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does.
[/quote]
I agree. He has too much experience in this field.
Why do you think he let such a big mistake go through ?
[quote]
If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
[/quote]
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do not
try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not change
because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) : From Jules Deelder.
But since you mention this, bloggers (quotes higher up in this thread) were
quick to point out his misuse of models in this case.
[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.
.....
If the outgoing radiation is greater than calculated using the open
loop value, that represents negative feedback. If the outgoing
radiation is less than that calculated from the open loop value, it
shows positive feedback.
Correct. The key is in 'less than calculated by open loop value'. That
means less than 4 W/m^2/K. Lindzen describes it pretty well himself
(even though he did not use this crucial factor in the 'models') I'm
really not sure how else to explain that a negative delta OLR/delta SST
slope means infinite positive feedback, which is (again) physically
unreal.
.......[/quote]
....
[quote]That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he found
no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his formula. In
his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly added 4 to it.
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
[/quote]
OK. Let's do the math again :
What is F (SW) when delta SW/delta SST is 0 ?
And what is F (LW) when delta LW/delta SST is 4 W/m^2 ?
What is then the sum of these two ?
What is then the feedback factor ?
[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?
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is meaningless.
[/quote]
'Meaningless' is not a quantity.
You mean if the gain is zero (no effect) the feedback factor is zero. Right
?
[quote]
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are
sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not
specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR
feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any
OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of
a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased
water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and
a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced
upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001].
With respect to SW feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW
feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds
[Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether this is the case in
nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
[/quote]
Even if you do not want to "identify the mechanism" then ERBE data shows a 4
W/m^2/K radiation dependence on SST changes.
That implies 0 feedback factor, since 4 W/m^2/K needs to be subtracted
(Stephan Boltzmann equation).
But the truth is that ERBE data CAN distinguish the mechanism (at least it
can distinguish between LW and SW).
ERBE shows that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2/K and SW stays unchanged.
That implies 0 feedback factor for OLW (subtract 4 W/m^2/K Stephan Boltzmann
LW), and 0 feedback factor for SW.
Bill, ERBE data is very clear : NO feedback !
With his proza, Lindzen is dodging the issue, and I am dissapointed that a
man with your intelligence refuses to see that (or admit that).
[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.
.....
Congratulations, if true. But I wouldn't break out the champagne
just yet. You seem to be assuming Lindzen works under the same
mindset as Hansen, Briffa and Jones, et. al.
I do not know these other guys.
I only know that this paper from Lindzen and Choi contains a
monumental mistake which nulifies it's conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your comments.
Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I can.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
energy.html
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen.
[/quote]
"Dear Rob, I actually fully agree with your statement about the right value
of the feedback extracted from the graphs, and I have said something similar
to Richard in the past, when he sent the article to me.
.......
I also agree with your simple fix - the fix is that that the feedback that
Richard should have determined from the measurements is zero rather than -1
at the given place. "
That is agreeing with Lindzen ?
Bill, what's going on with you ?
Are you having some kind of connection with Lindzen ?
[quote]Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
[/quote]
Why are you so interested in that ?
Why would RealClimate, or anyone else for that matter, make any difference ?
What's wrong is wrong, what right is right.
I know science, and I know that there is no way in the world that anyone can
deduce a feedback factor -1 if the observations are in line with Stephan
Boltzmann equation.
I tried to explain that to you in many different ways, but if you prefer to
stick with Lindzen's explanation than so be it. To speak like my friend
Jules Deelder : "the location of the island of Madagascar will not change".
[quote]
No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
[/quote]
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
This paper is simply incorrect.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:16:50 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:yemdneTM4utIfXXXnZ2dnUVZ_oyhnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:07:59 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:VtadnSd5ZsKwWH_XnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
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?"?
Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models
correctly. He is using them backward (what would be the forcing needed
to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward (what
would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is comparing
apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience
in this field, so why don't you ask him ? Why don't you ask him how he
could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a publication that has his
name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go out with my name on it.
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must
generate for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the
models to correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me that
would be a very basic requirement for any climate model.
Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
[/quote]
I would hope so.
[quote]If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
the user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does.
I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
let such a big mistake go through ?
[/quote]
It appears to me he's simply using the models to predict the OLR and SW
given the observed SST data, then comparing that estimate to the observed
ERBE data. It doesn't change the conclusion that there is no positive
feedback, it just shows the consistent error across the models because
they all assume positive WV feedback. What do you think is wrong with
that? I still don't understand exactly what "mistake" you think he
made. Can you be a little more specific?
[quote]If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
change because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) :
[/quote]
It must have lost something. I don't see how it pertains to this
situation.
[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.
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.
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.
Correct. He should subtract it from measured OLW radiation flux (note:
only OLW, because SST changes directly affect OLW by open loop gain).
He does that correctly (below), but then adds it again :
That's all cool, and although somewhat confusing, the formula is now
consistent : if delta-OLR/delta-SST is 4 W/m^2/K and
delta-SW/delta-SST is 0, then the overall factor F would be 4 + 0 -4
= 0, which is exactly right for no feedback, as he states himself in
the sentence : "In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0), DOLR/DSST
less than 4 W m!2 K!1 represents positive feedback; DOLR/DSST more
than 4 W m!2K!1 represents negative feedback"
But where he goes wring is that he then adds that 4 W/m^2/K to the F
of SW. That is completely out of the blue, and makes everything
wrong.
I think he's adding G back in because the SW is reflected, not
emitted from the sea surface (or clouds). Stephan-Boltzmann doesn't
apply.
Correct. Stephan Boltzmann does not apply to SW. So there should be NO
adjustement to delta SW/deltaSST. FSW = deltaSW/deltaSST. Nothing
added, nothing subtracted.
Ultra-violet does not change with sea surface temperatures either. Nor
does the radiation from my terminal, or many other processes on the
planet.
That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he
found no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his
formula. In his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly added
4 to it.
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
LW and SW response involve different mechanisms. In [13], he's
explaining the way he separates the LW and SW effects.
Yes. Separation is fine. As long as the open loop gain (1/G) is
subtracted once, from only deltaOLW measurements. And NOT added again
!!
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.
And thus there was certainly nothing to add either.
That was only in the attempt to separate the two feedback mechanisms,
which have different open loop gains.
Can you explain what you mean with that (different open loop gains),
and how NO change in measured SW radiation can lead to a -1 feedback
factor?
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is
meaningless.
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are sufficient to
determine feedback factors, this data do not specifically identify
mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR feedback from ERBE might represent the
absence of any OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation
of a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased water
vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and a possible
negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced upper level cirrus
clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001]. With respect to SW feedbacks, it is
currently claimed that model SW feedbacks are largely associated with
the behavior of low level clouds [Bony et al., 2006, and references
therein]. Whether this is the case in nature cannot be determined from
ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and
in the formula.
And explained in the text.
In science, it is not possible to correct a mistake in a formula
with text.
Why he did this ?
His findings actually show feedback factor 0, which is much lower
than IPCC's factor 3, albeit that his analysis covered a few
months only, and IPCC's factor 3 is estimated to show up only
after many decades of consistent forcing.
I have my thoughts why he inserted this crucial 4 W/m^2/K
"mistake", but I won't go into that now.
All I can say is that he had me fooled for a while, and apparently
also his paper's reviewers.
Congratulations, if true. But I wouldn't break out the champagne
just yet. You seem to be assuming Lindzen works under the same
mindset as Hansen, Briffa and Jones, et. al.
I do not know these other guys.
I only know that this paper from Lindzen and Choi contains a
monumental mistake which nulifies it's conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your
comments. Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I
can.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
energy.html
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen. Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:05:05 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]Sorry Bill, that one went out too fast. Here is the remainder of my
comments. I also pruned down this post a bit, for readability.
Rob
"Rob Dekker" <rob at (no spam) verific.com> wrote in message
news:xJSdna5udqvu3HTXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
.....
If you knew, then why did you ask, "How can the models predict a
reduction in outbound data when SST goes up?"?
Because it shows very clearly that Lindzen is not using the models
correctly. He is using them backward (what would be the forcing
needed to result in the SST temps), while ERBE data measures forward
(what would be the radiation measured if SST changes). So he is
comparing apples with oranges in his Figure 2.
Models project the behavior of the modeled system under given
constraints, in this case observed SST. How would you "use them
backwards"?
What an odd question to ask me. Lindzen has some 40 years of experience
in this field, so why don't you ask him ? Why don't you ask him how he
could have allowed such an obvious mistake in a publication that has his
name on it ? I would not have allowed this to go out with my name on it.
[/quote]
I already answered this in the earlier post. I'll continue commenting on
the added parts below.
[quote]
Radiation to space is simply one of the variables the model must
generate for its projection. Are you saying you wouldn't expect the
models to correctly predict the OLW given the SST? It seems to me
that would be a very basic requirement for any climate model.
Sure is. The Stephan Bolzmann equation is built in to all models.
If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
the user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen
understands how to use a model as well as either of us does.
I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
let such a big mistake go through ?
If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
change because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) : From Jules Deelder.
But since you mention this, bloggers (quotes higher up in this thread)
were quick to point out his misuse of models in this case.
[/quote]
I haven't seen the blogs, other than the one you just posted.
[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.
....
If the outgoing radiation is greater than calculated using the open
loop value, that represents negative feedback. If the outgoing
radiation is less than that calculated from the open loop value, it
shows positive feedback.
Correct. The key is in 'less than calculated by open loop value'.
That means less than 4 W/m^2/K. Lindzen describes it pretty well
himself (even though he did not use this crucial factor in the
'models') I'm really not sure how else to explain that a negative
delta OLR/delta SST slope means infinite positive feedback, which is
(again) physically unreal.
......
...
That means that all these processes have an F that is 0. Since he
found no significant change in SW, FSW must be 0. It's not in his
formula. In his formula, it is 4 W/m^2/K, because he incorrectly
added 4 to it.
I think that's in the context of comparing the SW and LW effects.
OK. Let's do the math again :
What is F (SW) when delta SW/delta SST is 0 ? And what is F (LW) when
delta LW/delta SST is 4 W/m^2 ? What is then the sum of these two ?
What is then the feedback factor ?
[/quote]
That sum would be the net feedback F, which he explains is -dFlux/dSST in
paragraph [12], and comes up with an example value of -1.1. In [13] he
attempts to explain how to separate the LW and SW components.
I'll agree it's not as clear as it should be, but since it doesn't affect
the conclusion that the ERBE and SST data show no evidence of net
positive feedback, I can't get too exercised about it. The key, I
believe, is the sentence,"Also, dSWR/dSST needs to be balanced with dOLR/
dSST." I'll defer to Lindzen to explain it better.
[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?
If the gain is zero (no effect), then the feedback factor is
meaningless.
'Meaningless' is not a quantity.
You mean if the gain is zero (no effect) the feedback factor is zero.
Right ?
[/quote]
No, it means feedback is not defined because zero gain means it's not a
closed loop system. By definition, you can't have feedback in an open
loop system. It's like asking how long the fourth side of a triangle is.
[quote]
It's not crucial, as he specifically says:
" [18] Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are sufficient to
determine feedback factors, this data do not specifically identify
mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR feedback from ERBE might represent the
absence of any OLR feedback; it might also result from the
cancellation of a possible positive water vapor feedback due to
increased water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005]
and a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced upper
level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001]. With respect to SW
feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW feedbacks are largely
associated with the behavior of low level clouds [Bony et al., 2006,
and references therein]. Whether this is the case in nature cannot be
determined from ERBE TOA observations."
IOW, It's the overall feedback that's shown to be negative. The exact
mechanism is not determined by this method.
Even if you do not want to "identify the mechanism" then ERBE data shows
a 4 W/m^2/K radiation dependence on SST changes. That implies 0 feedback
factor, since 4 W/m^2/K needs to be subtracted (Stephan Boltzmann
equation).
But the truth is that ERBE data CAN distinguish the mechanism (at least
it can distinguish between LW and SW).
ERBE shows that OLW goes up 4 W/m^2/K and SW stays unchanged. That
implies 0 feedback factor for OLW (subtract 4 W/m^2/K Stephan Boltzmann
LW), and 0 feedback factor for SW.
[/quote]
You have a math discrepancy there. He finds 4.5W/m^2/K, not 4, yielding
an F of -1.1. Read [12] again. All of the regressions in table 1 with a
threshold of greater than .1 show a slope of more than 4.
[quote]Bill, ERBE data is very clear : NO feedback ! With his proza, Lindzen is
dodging the issue, and I am dissapointed that a man with your
intelligence refuses to see that (or admit that).
[/quote]
Sometimes a half watt makes a difference.
[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.
....
Congratulations, if true. But I wouldn't break out the champagne
just yet. You seem to be assuming Lindzen works under the same
mindset as Hansen, Briffa and Jones, et. al.
I do not know these other guys.
I only know that this paper from Lindzen and Choi contains a
monumental mistake which nulifies it's conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see what the response will be to your
comments. Hopefully he'll be able to explain it more clearly than I
can.
So far, only one blogger responded :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-
energy.html
Interesting. He seems to agree with Lindzen.
"Dear Rob, I actually fully agree with your statement about the right
value of the feedback extracted from the graphs, and I have said
something similar to Richard in the past, when he sent the article to
me. ......
I also agree with your simple fix - the fix is that that the feedback
that Richard should have determined from the measurements is zero rather
than -1 at the given place. "
That is agreeing with Lindzen ?
Bill, what's going on with you ?
Are you having some kind of connection with Lindzen ?
[/quote]
Nope, I just read the blog, and hadn't seen the comments yet.
[quote]Didn't RealClimate have
any comment?
Why are you so interested in that ?
Why would RealClimate, or anyone else for that matter, make any
difference ? What's wrong is wrong, what right is right.
[/quote]
Just curious. If there were any flaw in the modeling, I'd expect them to
be all over it.
[quote]I know science, and I know that there is no way in the world that anyone
can deduce a feedback factor -1 if the observations are in line with
Stephan Boltzmann equation.
[/quote]
I think that depends on what you consider feedback, and what you consider
loop gain. I would consider the t^4 relation at a given point to be loop
gain due to the non-linearity slope. SST has nothing to do with the t^4,
that's built into the equation. There is a tiny term because of the
shift in operating point, but not significant in this context.
[quote]I tried to explain that to you in many different ways, but if you prefer
to stick with Lindzen's explanation than so be it. To speak like my
friend Jules Deelder : "the location of the island of Madagascar will
not change".
[/quote]
And if there's no positive feedback, there's no positive feedback.
Arguing about it doesn't change the fact.
[quote]No response from Geophysical Research Letters... Yet...
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
This paper is simply incorrect.
[/quote]
We'll see. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]If I have an electric drill, and I hold it by the drill head, then I
should not complain if I can't drill any holes with it, even though
the user manual says I can.
Better stick to a brace and bit, then. I'll assume Lindzen understands
how to use a model as well as either of us does.
I agree. He has too much experience in this field. Why do you think he
let such a big mistake go through ?
It appears to me he's simply using the models to predict the OLR and SW
given the observed SST data, then comparing that estimate to the observed
ERBE data. It doesn't change the conclusion that there is no positive
feedback, it just shows the consistent error across the models because
they all assume positive WV feedback. What do you think is wrong with
that? I still don't understand exactly what "mistake" you think he
made. Can you be a little more specific?
If he were out of line,
I'm sure the modelers would have jumped all over it.
"If someone argues that Madagascar is an island in the Atlantic, then do
not try to point out the mistake. The location of the island does not
change because of it."
(freely translated from Dutch) :
It must have lost something. I don't see how it pertains to this
situation.
[/quote]
I'd check out them Bohdee plots again.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-h...
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
[/quote]
Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:-7-dnTIaSZhc_3TXnZ2dnUVZ_qZi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
.....
[quote]My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
[/quote]
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-heading-down-way-down-richard-lindzen/comment-page-1/#comment-3094
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Rob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
[/quote]
[quote] The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists
[/quote]
Not that it means much as far as science is concerned but a lot of
right wing fundies are "true believers" of AGW.
[quote]trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
[/quote]
"Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that
white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes
CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent
Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more
than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote:
[quote]My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-h...
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
Bret Cahill
[/quote]
The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
Does that mean you are one of them, or just a nut? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unumnunum... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote:
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-h...
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
Bret Cahill
The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
Does that mean you are one of them, or just a nut?
[/quote]
Lame old not-good guy begging someone, anyone, to pay attention to him. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:-7-dnTIaSZhc_3TXnZ2dnUVZ_qZi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com... ....
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let
him respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-
heading-down-way-down-richard-lindzen/comment-page-1/#comment-3094
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster
states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero feedback
outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck
(Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth. See note at
end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial
claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for the true believers. That's
life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is
something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or else he would
have to change his conclusions). His comment on the zero feedback
outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan
Boltzmann equation derivative is correct, but the difference (of the
derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so.
So that does not change anything. He knows that, so I taste an
unwillingness from him to address the issue. Or else he simply did not
understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Rob
[/quote]
Thanks for the update. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:23:45 -0500, Unumnunum <noneof at (no spam) yourbusiness.com>
wrote:
[quote]I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote:
My guess is that they will forward your comment to Lindzen and let him
respond.
I'm looking forward to his response.
And to the response from the reviewers.
Bill, we have a response from Lindzen on one of my blog posts :http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/climate-sensitivity-estimates-h...
This is what Lindzen says about my post :
"The GRL paper does have an error though not exactly what the poster states. The issue is explained in the longer version. The zero
feedback outgoing radiation for the tropics is not the same as the Planck (Stefan-Boltzmann) response for an average over the earth.
See note at end of the longer piece for an explanation. However, as usual, a trivial claim will serve to 'discredit' the work for
the true believers. That's life."
It's pretty vague in what the error is in the GRL paper. I suspect it is something irrelevant and certainly not what I found (or
else he would have to change his conclusions).
His comment on the zero feedback outgoing radiation in the tropics not being the same as the Stefan Boltzmann equation derivative is
correct, but the difference (of the derivative) between tropics and average Earth is only a percent or so. So that does not change
anything. He knows that, so I taste an unwillingness from him to address the issue.
Or else he simply did not understand what I was saying. So I posted a reply on the blog site.
Now let's see where this goes.
Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
Bret Cahill
The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
Does that mean you are one of them, or just a nut?
Lame old not-good guy begging someone, anyone, to pay attention to him.
[/quote]
And that lame retort has something to do with AGW? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:37:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote:
[quote]Lindzen is in some video where he takes pains to at least look like he
wasn't vilifying the scientists who think AGW is an issue. Â He
suggests something to the effect that they were all afraid to
contradict the prevailing opinion.
What Lindzen "merely" omits is any discussion of all the creationists,
"market" economists and other winger dingers weighing in AGW.
If Lindzen would distance himself from the wack jobs and those who
have a clear conflict of interest like that Australian mining
engineer, then more might bother to look at his work.
     The only whack jobs are the leftist atheists
Not that it means much as far as science is concerned but a lot of
right wing fundies are "true believers" of AGW.
trying
to force the religion of nothingness on the populace.
"Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that
white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes
CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent
Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more
than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
[/quote]
You keep bringing up names I never heard before,
but then, I have been listening to the news on radio
and watching it on TV every day since the 1930s,
and hadn't heard of Global Warming until somebody
crossposted this group to alt.energy about 3 or 4
years ago.
It is a money wasting - non-issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:24 am
|
|