 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Lindzen and climate feedback... |
|
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Unumnunum... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:23:45 -0500, Unumnunum <noneof at (no spam) yourbusiness.com
wrote:
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.
And that lame retort has something to do with AGW?
[/quote]
"Does that mean you are one of them, or just a nut?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
[/quote]
Bill, this keeps getting better and better.
The question for Lindzen seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an
official scientific publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did open
up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the truth about
the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his short-wave
feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K without
explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from the models
(because as presented the show infinite positive feedback), and "proves"
that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several blog
sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper" which
"finally settles the climate hyseria".
One of these is Chip Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on
Senator's Inhofe's anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's
response to my finding (above) was published by another blogger, referring
to an explanation in the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me also
to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got an
answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
He promised to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a
copy of that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning.
The only thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K
"zero-feedback response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to
hide for his result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an
incorrect short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4
W/m^2/K is now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that
"that one can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we then
go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi (2009) is
not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics (see note 3)".
When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he becomes increasingly
vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote himself about an increase in
the altitude of the tropopause with increased SST, then tries a circular
argument by referring to the model results, and finally mentions "complex
but specific interactions" and that "details of this matter will be
presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is not
an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K under the
rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative feedback and
models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with such
a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in an
official scientific publication so as to protect his own already falsified
theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame.
We have not seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get
some more people involved.
Rob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:42 am |
|
|
|
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-
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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do..
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
[/quote]
If Lindzen turns out to be in error it'll hardly be surprising as
almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
debunk AGW.
In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
debate
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
[/quote]
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
[quote]He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
[/quote]
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]If Lindzen turns out to be in error it'll hardly be surprising as
almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
debunk AGW.
In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
debate
Bret Cahill
Hi Bret,
Yes. I understand that very clearly and thank you for the head's up.
Good thing is that my conversation with Lindzen is respectful at this time, as you see from his main response :
"....I have great respect for people outside this field who bother to seriously examine matters", and "we will address your
questions explicitly as soon as we can."
Also, I do not want to actually rub anyone's mistakes in anyone's face, but I cannot deny my findings either.
[/quote]
You're generally respectful.
[quote]Fortunately, as I posted in a side thread, I am getting support from some professionals now.
[/quote]
Someone needs to rank the biggest first order feedbacks, positive and
negative, and then get more ambitious and do the more complicated
multiple [spaghetti] loops that have less and less of an effect.
AGW is probably decided by one or two major loops.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:nbOdnSVFRP5x8W3XnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
[/quote]
Sure is, but me as a complete outsider do not want to do this alone.
Luckily, my comments are having some effect.
Via a blog post from Lubos Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr. Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this went live yesterday :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Dr. Spencer :
"It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate
sensitivity). I've been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of
the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their
analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of
the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results."
In summary : Lindzen gets very different results than Lindzen and Choi.
Results that are much more in line with what I described :
(1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback
(2) The AMIP models that Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE data
(3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate sensitivity questionable.
Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that.
Also, how about you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's claim of negative feedback based on ERBE
data is refuted ?
Rob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:94bfc746-d1ac-42bc-af29-9860cadbd688 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
.....
[quote]
If Lindzen turns out to be in error it'll hardly be surprising as
almost all scientists now more or less agree on AGW. Dekker won't be
getting on the short list for a Nobel award.
On the other hand if Lindzen is correct then he'll certainly get a
Nobel award and billions from the carbon energy industry to help them
debunk AGW.
In short Dekker's reputation won't change much either way with this
debate
Bret Cahill
[/quote]
Hi Bret,
Yes. I understand that very clearly and thank you for the head's up.
Good thing is that my conversation with Lindzen is respectful at this time, as you see from his main response :
"....I have great respect for people outside this field who bother to seriously examine matters", and "we will address your
questions explicitly as soon as we can."
Also, I do not want to actually rub anyone's mistakes in anyone's face, but I cannot deny my findings either.
Fortunately, as I posted in a side thread, I am getting support from some professionals now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:48:28 -0600, Bill Ward
<bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
[/quote]
We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
Slurs and insinuations only. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:31:55 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:nbOdnSVFRP5x8W3XnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper,
Lindzen "explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4
W/m^2/K without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4
W/m^2/K from the models (because as presented the show infinite
positive feedback), and "proves" that thus models do not match with
reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's
Inhofe's anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to
my finding (above) was published by another blogger, referring to an
explanation in the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred
me also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold,
got an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything.
Always remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than
you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy
of that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen
on request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The
only thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K
"zero-feedback response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he
needs to hide for his result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it
into an incorrect short-wave feedback formula. But in the long
version, the 4 W/m^2/K is now hidden in a different way : In text in
the beginning that "that one can use zero for the tropics with little
error" and "This will be explained in the additional comments at the
end of this paper". When we then go to the additional comments at the
end of this paper, he states this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the
model results, and finally mentions "complex but specific
interactions" and that "details of this matter will be presented in a
separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a
pig. By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that
this is not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4
W/m^2/K under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of
negative feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure
data in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own
already falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
people involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating
between open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the
conclusions. But we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
Sure is, but me as a complete outsider do not want to do this alone.
Luckily, my comments are having some effect. Via a blog post from Lubos
Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr.
Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this
went live yesterday :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-
choi-2009-feedback-study/
Dr. Spencer :
"It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in
the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I've
been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not
completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I
get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and
(3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really
does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis
(as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very
different results."
In summary : Lindzen [BW: Spencer?] gets very different results than
Lindzen and Choi.[/quote]
[quote]Results that are much more in line with what I described :
(1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback (2) The AMIP models that
Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE
data (3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate
sensitivity questionable.
Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that. Also, how about
you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's
claim of negative feedback based on ERBE data is refuted ?
[/quote]
Not at all. I think both you and Spencer misunderstand what he's doing.
You're apparently looking at the analysis as comparing two datasets - the
SST, and the ERBE radiation.
I look at it as comparing a number of input events - heating or cooling
of the SST past a minimum threshold difference - then determining the
output response of the system (ERBE) to those events. That's a common
method in system analysis, simple, direct, and convincing.
Spencer (and you) didn't replicate Lindzen's method and came to different
conclusions, probably because your methods were not as effective in
reducing the noise.
It's somewhat telling that some folks get all wrapped around the axle
trying to distinguish "feedback" from "forcing". It's like the old
saying that there are only 10 types of people in the world - those who
understand binary and those who don't.
If you deal much with recovering signals from noise, you soon learn that
if it's not signal, it's noise. If it's "forcing", it's noise.
The angst over the difference between feedbacks of zero and one is also a
giveaway. A "feedback" of zero means it's an open loop. You can get a
"gain" of one from an opamp circuit, but all the feedback is internal to
the circuit. It's often called a "follower". Feedback systems always
require an amplifier that modulates an external source of energy, whether
it's sunlight or FET channel current.
I can't get very excited about any of it, because Lindzen's approach
clearly rules out positive feedback from WV. The IPCC climate models are
proven to have overestimated the WV feedback, and that's all I'm really
interested in. Someone else can argue about how many zero feedbacks can
dance on the head of a forcing.
It would be interesting to get someone skilled in systems analysis to
look at the issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unumnunum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:48:28 -0600, Bill Ward
bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
Slurs and insinuations only.
[/quote]
Haw haw, that was a brainless slur wasn't it. No reference to actual
remarks. Once again Not-so-good guy begs for attention. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:31:55 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob at (no spam) verific.com> wrote:
[quote]
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:nbOdnSVFRP5x8W3XnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
Sure is, but me as a complete outsider do not want to do this alone.
[/quote]
Why not, is it truth in science you seek, personal
accomplishment, or just agenda promotion?
[quote]Luckily, my comments are having some effect.
[/quote]
Lucky for whom? You made insinuations
without the science, people don't like to waste time
responding to ordinary bad mouthing.
[quote]Via a blog post from Lubos Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr. Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
[/quote]
When will this discussion return to climate science?
[quote]Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this went live yesterday :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Dr. Spencer :
"It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate
sensitivity). I've been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of
the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their
analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of
the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results."
In summary : Lindzen gets very different results than Lindzen and Choi.
Results that are much more in line with what I described :
[/quote]
Did you type the wrong name there?
[quote](1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback
(2) The AMIP models that Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE data
(3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate sensitivity questionable.
Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that.
Also, how about you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's claim of negative feedback based on ERBE
data is refuted ?
Rob
[/quote]
Why the fixation on feedback now, did getting
the CO2 effect on temperature fail to make very
much of an impression. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:31:52 -0600, Bill Ward
<bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:31:55 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:nbOdnSVFRP5x8W3XnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper,
Lindzen "explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4
W/m^2/K without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4
W/m^2/K from the models (because as presented the show infinite
positive feedback), and "proves" that thus models do not match with
reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's
Inhofe's anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to
my finding (above) was published by another blogger, referring to an
explanation in the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred
me also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold,
got an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything.
Always remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than
you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy
of that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen
on request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The
only thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K
"zero-feedback response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he
needs to hide for his result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it
into an incorrect short-wave feedback formula. But in the long
version, the 4 W/m^2/K is now hidden in a different way : In text in
the beginning that "that one can use zero for the tropics with little
error" and "This will be explained in the additional comments at the
end of this paper". When we then go to the additional comments at the
end of this paper, he states this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the
model results, and finally mentions "complex but specific
interactions" and that "details of this matter will be presented in a
separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a
pig. By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that
this is not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4
W/m^2/K under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of
negative feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure
data in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own
already falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
people involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating
between open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the
conclusions. But we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
Sure is, but me as a complete outsider do not want to do this alone.
Luckily, my comments are having some effect. Via a blog post from Lubos
Motl the first responses to my comments are coming in :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html
So now it looks I'm getting some support from an unexpected source : Dr.
Roy Spencer, who normally agrees with Lindzen.
Spencer did his own analysis of the ERBE data, and his posting on this
went live yesterday :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-
choi-2009-feedback-study/
Dr. Spencer :
"It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in
the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I've
been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not
completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I
get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and
(3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really
does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis
(as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very
different results."
In summary : Lindzen [BW: Spencer?] gets very different results than
Lindzen and Choi.
Results that are much more in line with what I described :
(1) The ERBE data shows no significant feedback (2) The AMIP models that
Lindzen used (Graph C above) are not suitable for comparison with ERBE
data (3) The short term analysis done makes conclusions on climate
sensitivity questionable.
Now I wonder how Lindzen is going to respond to that. Also, how about
you Bill ? Is this enough evidence for you to understand that Lindzen's
claim of negative feedback based on ERBE data is refuted ?
Not at all. I think both you and Spencer misunderstand what he's doing.
You're apparently looking at the analysis as comparing two datasets - the
SST, and the ERBE radiation.
I look at it as comparing a number of input events - heating or cooling
of the SST past a minimum threshold difference - then determining the
output response of the system (ERBE) to those events. That's a common
method in system analysis, simple, direct, and convincing.
Spencer (and you) didn't replicate Lindzen's method and came to different
conclusions, probably because your methods were not as effective in
reducing the noise.
It's somewhat telling that some folks get all wrapped around the axle
trying to distinguish "feedback" from "forcing". It's like the old
saying that there are only 10 types of people in the world - those who
understand binary and those who don't.
[/quote]
Do you mean I have 10 ears?
And 1010 toes? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:52:11 -0600, Unumnunum <noneof at (no spam) yourbusiness.com>
wrote:
[quote]I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:48:28 -0600, Bill Ward
bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:42:52 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:AIadnZvkMpPC6HfXnZ2dnUVZ_gdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:56 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
"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
Thanks for the update.
Bill, this keeps getting better and better. The question for Lindzen
seems to be : How do you hide 4 W/m^2/K in an official scientific
publication and get away with it ?
Not sure about the second part of that question yet, but I think I did
open up a dirty can of worms here by seriously trying to uncover the
truth about the first part.
As I explained before, in the Geophysical Research Letter paper, Lindzen
"explained" his negative feedback finding with an error in his
short-wave feedback parameter calculation, where he subtracted 4 W/m^2/K
without explanation. He also seems to subtract the same 4 W/m^2/K from
the models (because as presented the show infinite positive feedback),
and "proves" that thus models do not match with reality.
I pointed out these mistakes in my letter to GRL as well as on several
blog sites where Lindzen's findings were hailed as a "landmark paper"
which "finally settles the climate hyseria". One of these is Chip
Knappenberger's blog (who is also often mentioned on Senator's Inhofe's
anti AGW web site) on this paper, where Lindzen's response to my finding
(above) was published by another blogger, referring to an explanation in
the 'long' version of the paper.
I also obtained an email from a climate scientist who apparently was a
reviewer of the GRL paper.
He so far did not want to comment on my findings, but first referred me
also to Lindzen.
So I finally wrote a letter to Lindzen directly, and lo and behold, got
an answer withing 30 minutes from Richard Lindzen himself.
Well, there you go. He doesn't sound like he's hiding anything. Always
remember the possibility he actually knows more about it than you or I do.
He promised
to look through my comments in more detail, but first sent me a copy of
that "long" version.
I just finished reading the long version (it's available from Lindzen on
request if you want it), and found that he changed reasoning. The only
thing I had to do was follow the trail of the 4 W/m^2/K "zero-feedback
response" that Stefan Boltzmann predicts, which he needs to hide for his
result to match.In the GRL paper, he shoved it into an incorrect
short-wave feedback formula. But in the long version, the 4 W/m^2/K is
now hidden in a different way : In text in the beginning that "that one
can use zero for the tropics with little error" and "This will be
explained in the additional comments at the end of this paper". When we
then go to the additional comments at the end of this paper, he states
this :
"..the zero-feedback Planck response 4 W/m^2/K by Lindzen and Choi
(2009) is not actually necessary for our measurements from the Tropics
(see note 3)". When we then go to note 3 (about a paragraph long) he
becomes increasingly vague : he refers to a 1988 paper that he wrote
himself about an increase in the altitude of the tropopause with
increased SST, then tries a circular argument by referring to the model
results, and finally mentions "complex but specific interactions" and
that "details of this matter will be presented in a separate paper".
If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect.
I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing, with
such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data in
an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory.
And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not seen
the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more people
involved.
Go for it. I still think it's simply his way of differentiating between
open loop gain and feedback, which has no effect on the conclusions. But
we'll see. Debate is a good thing.
We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
Slurs and insinuations only.
Haw haw, that was a brainless slur wasn't it. No reference to actual
remarks. Once again Not-so-good guy begs for attention.
[/quote]
No reference to actual remarks?
What is it you didn't understand, "above paragraphs"?
A couple of the "above paragraphs" quoted for
the twisted brains who only see left;
" I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data
in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory."
"If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect."
And then Dekker displays meanness and an agenda
to further discredit a person who apparently tried to
explain some climate science with;
"And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
people involved."
What does that mean? Who else will he try to
get involved, the watermelon shirts?
I can understand you not using your real name,
I don't want to be associated with these leftist agenda
people, the only thing I can say for long winded Dekker
is that he doesn't use four letter words in mixed company
like some of the foul balls posting here.
I would have hoped that a discussion of a paper
prominent enough to be mentioned would have been
cordial and with permission to use the email or public
words of the author who was good enough to try to
explain.
I hope that is not the reason the bulk of the
school and lab employees writing about the AGW
myth seem to hide. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unumnunum... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:52:11 -0600, Unumnunum <noneof at (no spam) yourbusiness.com
wrote:
We perhaps should thank Dekker for giving other
serious scientists a reason not to be forthcoming with
remarks like he wrote in the above paragraphs.
Slurs and insinuations only.
Haw haw, that was a brainless slur wasn't it. No reference to actual
remarks. Once again Not-so-good guy begs for attention.
No reference to actual remarks?
What is it you didn't understand, "above paragraphs"?
[/quote]
Everything seemed fine to me. You're just whining.
[quote]A couple of the "above paragraphs" quoted for
the twisted brains who only see left;
" I find this stunning and shocking for a scientist of his standing,
with such a long track record in climate science, trying to obscure data
in an official scientific publication so as to protect his own already
falsified theory."
[/quote]
That's not a slur, it is a polite remark. And backed up with detailed
fact, not innuendo or insinuations.
[quote]
"If it looks like a pig and smells like a pig, then it's probably a pig.
By changing his argument and reasoning, it's very clear now that this is
not an accidental mistake. He is deliberately trying to shuv 4 W/m^2/K
under the rug, so that he can maintain his original claims of negative
feedback and models being incorrect."
And then Dekker displays meanness and an agenda
to further discredit a person who apparently tried to
explain some climate science with;
[/quote]
Seemed like a correct statement. If Lindzen did deliberately
try to cover up an error in order to support a predetermined
conclusion then he deserves any amount of criticism he receives.
[quote]"And this work is paid for by a DOE grant. It's a shame. We have not
seen the last of this. I'm going to dig a bit harder and get some more
people involved."
What does that mean? Who else will he try to
get involved, the watermelon shirts?
[/quote]
Already explained that didn't he. Completely appropriate.
[quote]I can understand you not using your real name,
I don't want to be associated with these leftist agenda
people, the only thing I can say for long winded Dekker
is that he doesn't use four letter words in mixed company
like some of the foul balls posting here.
[/quote]
He told it like it is. You don't like the outcome so you make
a personal attack.
[quote]I would have hoped that a discussion of a paper
prominent enough to be mentioned would have been
cordial and with permission to use the email or public
words of the author who was good enough to try to
explain.
[/quote]
It was in line with the discussion. How about the stolen copyrighted
material posted by the denialists here every day? Don't see you
complaining about that.
[quote]
I hope that is not the reason the bulk of the
school and lab employees writing about the AGW
myth seem to hide.
[/quote]
A demented old geezer with nothing to do but post mindless drivel
to the internet shouldn't complain about what other people do with
their time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback recognizable.
Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis results,
but he claimed negative feedback !
So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid it
very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
that.
[/quote]
Maybe he was trolling, making sure everyone was being alert.
Bret Cahill
"Be alert. America needs more lerts." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:07 pm
|
|