 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Lindzen and climate feedback... |
|
Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rob Dekker... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
interesting.
First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
Letters.
What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
recognizable climate feedback. I don't know if you understand how important
this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are completely
wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point, then
you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
First I thought ot was the data.
So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
behold :
I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate feedback
response ?
When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
conclusions from.
With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback recognizable.
Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data analysis results,
but he claimed negative feedback !
So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid it
very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
the entire outcome of the paper.
I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
system.
That was the second blunt mistake.
By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
thread.
No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
over it.
I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
was false !!!
I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with him
for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed up
in this thread he never sent me an answer.
So I'm pissed.
You bet I am.
I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
MSNBC or so.
And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic' scientists
are in disagreement.
But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
Thanks for reading this.
Rob
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Falcon... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
[/quote]
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many other
more alarming examples of climate science these days, is falsifiable. The
problem we face more and more as the debate becomes more vociferous is a
stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise reputable climate scientists
(like Keith Briffa and others) to present their work in the same fashion -
complete with reasoning, raw data and the methods on which it is based. This
effectively prevents their work from being tested as easily or rigorously.
(See McIntyre re: Briffa & Yamal etc).
I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility of 'sceptical'
scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's comments, rather
than harmed by them.
[quote]P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
[/quote]
Good man: take a house point.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
[quote]Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009. When Bill Ward originally
presented this paper to me, I found it very interesting.
First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
Letters.
What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody
finally found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually
shows recognizable climate feedback. I don't know if you understand how
important this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy
and our observation time is still so short (only a few decades of
accurate data) that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of
planet Earth to external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are
completely wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of
feedback, so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the
result of that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to
this point, then you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went
through.
So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
First I thought ot was the data.
So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a
small program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did.
Lo and behold :
I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate
feedback response ?
When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The
LW response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
conclusions from.
With simple blackbody response, I knew there was NO feedback
recognizable. Still, Lindzen has the same data as me, and the same data
analysis results, but he claimed negative feedback !
So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning. It took me a while, but
eventually I found it : In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in.
Out of nowhere ! He hid it very well and gives NO explanation for this
subtraction.
[/quote]
I believe Rob misunderstands the implications of that subtraction. It
appears to me that Lindzen is trying to separate and compare the emitted
(LWIR) and reflected (SW) components of the feedback. The emitted LWIR
is subject to the T^4 law, the reflected SW is not. The 4W/m^2/K
compensates for that.
See paragraph[13] in the paper:
<begin quote>
When considering LW and SW fluxes separately, F is replaced by
FLW + FSW.
In the observed ΔOLR/ΔT, the nonfeedback change of 4 Wm–2 K–1 is
included. Also ΔSWR/ΔT needs to be balanced with ΔOLR/ΔT. From the
consideration, FLW = –ΔOLR/ΔT + 4 and FSW = –ΔSWR/ΔΤ – 4.
In the case of no SW feedback (FSW = 0),
ΔOLR/ΔT less than 4 W m–2 K–1 represents positive feedback;
ΔOLR/ΔT more than 4 W m–2 K–1 represents negative feedback;
ΔOLR/ΔT less than 0 W m–2 K–1 represents infinite feedback,
which is physically unreal.
<end quote>
At any rate, even assuming for the sake of argument the subtraction is
not correct, it applies only to the separation of SW and LW influences,
and does not affect the overall conclusion that the data rules out
positive feedback in the climate system. That falsifies the models which
assume WV causes a 6x gain or so in the CO2 "climate sensitivity".
The basic method of applying an input to a system (in this case, allowing
nature to apply the stimulus in the form of SST changes) and observing
the behavior of the output (changes in ERBE radiation) is commonly used
in analyzing black box problems. It has the advantages of being simple,
direct, and convincing. Even if, as Rob believes, there were a
tangential error in the separation of LW and SW effects, it wouldn't
change the conclusion.
[quote]That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake
like that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it
changes the entire outcome of the paper.
I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
system.
That was the second blunt mistake.
By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in
this thread.
No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics
drooling over it.
I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and
interviews and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the
paper that I knew was false !!!
I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with
him for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version'
discussed up in this thread he never sent me an answer.
So I'm pissed.
You bet I am.
I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud
on MSNBC or so.
And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
Luckily, I may not have to do much more. My posts were picked up by Motl
(blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and
now the last remaining 'skeptic' scientists are in disagreement.
But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
Thanks for reading this.
Rob
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unumnunum... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Falcon wrote:
[quote]Rob Dekker wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many other
more alarming examples of climate science these days, is falsifiable. The
problem we face more and more as the debate becomes more vociferous is a
stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise reputable climate scientists
(like Keith Briffa and others) to present their work in the same fashion -
complete with reasoning, raw data and the methods on which it is based. This
effectively prevents their work from being tested as easily or rigorously.
(See McIntyre re: Briffa & Yamal etc).
I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility of 'sceptical'
scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's comments, rather
than harmed by them.
[/quote]
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
[quote]P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
Good man: take a house point.
[/quote]
There was a time when it was reasonably safe to post under your own
name. In this era of proliferating net-kooks it is more likely that
some nutjob will snoop out your location and wind up on your doorstep
with a pistol, why take the risk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob at (no spam) verific.com> wrote:
[quote]Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[/quote]
Ok.
[quote]When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
interesting.
First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
Letters.
[/quote]
So what, literally millions of papers are peer
reviewed, and 90 percent are worthless.
[quote]What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
recognizable climate feedback.
[/quote]
What? For warming or cooling?
[quote]I don't know if you understand how important
this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
[/quote]
CO2 is external? Since hydrocarbon life
has been here, CO2 has played second fiddle to
water vapor.
[quote]Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are completely
wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
[/quote]
Depends on what "way off" means. Models
which project in one direction, like the Hansen
up, up, up are clearly wrong, possibly precisely
because they focus too much on CO2 levels.
[quote]It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point, then
you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
[/quote]
I tried, but found too much speculation and
a bias, especially on your part.
[quote]So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
First I thought ot was the data.
[/quote]
I can buy that, many people can see a problem
before they know what it is.
[quote]So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
behold :
[/quote]
Then the first thing you should have done is
showed it to him, tell him you where you were going
to publish it, and even publishing it here documents
what you do.
[quote]I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate feedback
response ?
[/quote]
But that wasn't the result you wanted, huh?
[quote]When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
conclusions from.
[/quote]
So what, SW absorption varies a lot, else there
would be no ice ages.
[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 !
[/quote]
I don't understand, how could it be the same,
surely you would not accept negative feedback,
even if it bit you.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Sometimes the minus symbol is hard to see
on a computer screen, that is why I often write "minus".
[quote]That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
the entire outcome of the paper.
[/quote]
Then you must not read many reviewed papers,
I see glaring mistakes of all kinds all the time.
[quote]I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
system.
That was the second blunt mistake.
[/quote]
I would say infinite positive feedback would
be wrong as hell, at least until we fry.
[quote]By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
[/quote]
That is where I became concerned with your
approach to the study of the document.
[quote]I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
thread.
No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
[/quote]
You mean not identified, or just not voicing an opinion?
[quote]By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
over it.
[/quote]
I don't know why, or what that means, I see no
possible reason to be a skeptic other than to seek
truth in science.
[quote]I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
[/quote]
Do many people actually read a blog, after all,
there are many blogs and only so many people that
might know about a particular one or happen to find
it on a search engine.
[quote]Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
was false !!!
[/quote]
You "assumed" was false, or "you decided" was false.
[quote]I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with him
for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed up
in this thread he never sent me an answer.
[/quote]
I thought you had already done that.
I am getting deja vu here for some reason.
[quote]So I'm pissed.
You bet I am.
[/quote]
Sounds reasonable, but that is how things go
sometimes, want to hear how I got screwed on my
stealth patent?
[quote]I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
MSNBC or so.
[/quote]
If you know for certain your facts are right,
and you could get in the door, why not?
[quote]And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
[/quote]
Getting on MSNBC with facts would have
been much better.
[quote]Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic' scientists
are in disagreement.
[/quote]
I kinda doubt if they are the last skeptic scientists,
that is a funny statement, every year there is not a year
warmer than 1998, there will be more skeptic scientists
that feel a need to speak the truth more than the greed
for a job and salary.
[quote]But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
[/quote]
If it is wrong, I hope you can prove it,
but no need to make the kind of statements
you were making, maybe if there is a problem,
it could have been an honest mistake, which
would not deserve the things you said.
[quote]Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
[/quote]
We'll see, no big deal, chances are he is right
more than he is wrong.
[quote]Thanks for reading this.
Rob
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
[/quote]
I always used my real name, or rather
life-long nick name until the foul mouthed
nutcases got completely out of hand in this
newsgroup (alt.global-warming).
I don't have a problem with four letter
words except in mixed company, and maybe
a lady will read the group some day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:43:07 -0600, Unumnunum <noneof at (no spam) yourbusiness.com>
wrote:
[quote]Falcon wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many other
more alarming examples of climate science these days, is falsifiable. The
problem we face more and more as the debate becomes more vociferous is a
stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise reputable climate scientists
(like Keith Briffa and others) to present their work in the same fashion -
complete with reasoning, raw data and the methods on which it is based. This
effectively prevents their work from being tested as easily or rigorously.
(See McIntyre re: Briffa & Yamal etc).
I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility of 'sceptical'
scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's comments, rather
than harmed by them.
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
Good man: take a house point.
There was a time when it was reasonably safe to post under your own
name. In this era of proliferating net-kooks it is more likely that
some nutjob will snoop out your location and wind up on your doorstep
with a pistol, why take the risk.
[/quote]
Not if he knows what is on the other side
of the door. :-)
No, in my case, it is just all the liberal
influenced foul language, nothing else. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Falcon... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Unumnunum wrote:
[quote]Falcon wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many
other more alarming examples of climate science these days, is
falsifiable. The problem we face more and more as the debate becomes
more vociferous is a stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise
reputable climate scientists (like Keith Briffa and others) to present
their work in the same fashion - complete with reasoning, raw data and
the methods on which it is based. This effectively prevents their work
from being tested as easily or rigorously. (See McIntyre re: Briffa &
Yamal etc). I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility
of 'sceptical' scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's
comments, rather than harmed by them.
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
[/quote]
That short paragraph illustrates what is wrong with so many discussions of
the climate change issue. I didn't imply that anyone had deliberately
falsified an analysis. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone has.
The basis of all good science is that it has to be 'falsifiable'. In other
words the paper must contain sufficient information to enable other
scientists to replicate the project and either agree with a paper's
conclusions or raise concerns about it. Replicating the work and if
necessary checking the results using alternative sources of data is an
essential part of the scientific method. I've seen no evidence to suggest
that Lindzen has obfuscated anything, as Spencer was able to follow his
reasoning examine the data and methods used and to find what he believes to
be errors in it, which led to him raising his concerns. Nor is it the case
that Lindzen has failed to respond to Spencer's concerns. They were only
raised a few days ago in his blog. It often takes a considerable amount of
time to consider concerns and objections to papers before either agreeing
with them or making further attempts to justify your own reasoning. Often
this can mean reworking a paper that took months to produce, before
resubmitting a peer-reviewed response.
I believe that even if Lindzen eventually accepts that some of the
fundamental aspects of the paper were in error, that doesn't fatally
undermine his credibility. Nor should it. Any honest scientist will tell you
that no one ever gets it 100% right all of the time. That's what the
scientific method is all about. It's also worth remembering that Lindzen an
Spencer have collaborated closely in the past and no doubt will do so in the
future.
You will also notice that Spencer doesn't claim to have 'refuted' Lindzen's
work, or to have 'debunked' anything (and I'm not suggesting here that you
have), nor has he called Lindzen's credibility into question. Intemperate
language isn't the stuff of real scientific research. With respect, in my
experience people who habitually use words like that or imply that this or
that piece of research results in irreparable damage to a scientist's
credibility is usually someone who simply hasn't fully understood the nature
of the uncertainties inherent in all scientific research.
[quote]P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
Good man: take a house point.
There was a time when it was reasonably safe to post under your own
name. In this era of proliferating net-kooks it is more likely that
some nutjob will snoop out your location and wind up on your doorstep
with a pistol, why take the risk.
[/quote]
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:08:27 -0000, "Falcon" <falcon at (no spam) invalid.net> wrote:
[quote]
Unumnunum wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many
other more alarming examples of climate science these days, is
falsifiable. The problem we face more and more as the debate becomes
more vociferous is a stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise
reputable climate scientists (like Keith Briffa and others) to present
their work in the same fashion - complete with reasoning, raw data and
the methods on which it is based. This effectively prevents their work
from being tested as easily or rigorously. (See McIntyre re: Briffa &
Yamal etc). I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility
of 'sceptical' scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's
comments, rather than harmed by them.
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
That short paragraph illustrates what is wrong with so many discussions of
the climate change issue. I didn't imply that anyone had deliberately
falsified an analysis. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone has.
The basis of all good science is that it has to be 'falsifiable'. In other
words the paper must contain sufficient information to enable other
scientists to replicate the project and either agree with a paper's
conclusions or raise concerns about it. Replicating the work and if
necessary checking the results using alternative sources of data is an
essential part of the scientific method. I've seen no evidence to suggest
that Lindzen has obfuscated anything, as Spencer was able to follow his
reasoning examine the data and methods used and to find what he believes to
be errors in it, which led to him raising his concerns. Nor is it the case
that Lindzen has failed to respond to Spencer's concerns. They were only
raised a few days ago in his blog. It often takes a considerable amount of
time to consider concerns and objections to papers before either agreeing
with them or making further attempts to justify your own reasoning. Often
this can mean reworking a paper that took months to produce, before
resubmitting a peer-reviewed response.
I believe that even if Lindzen eventually accepts that some of the
fundamental aspects of the paper were in error, that doesn't fatally
undermine his credibility. Nor should it. Any honest scientist will tell you
that no one ever gets it 100% right all of the time. That's what the
scientific method is all about. It's also worth remembering that Lindzen an
Spencer have collaborated closely in the past and no doubt will do so in the
future.
You will also notice that Spencer doesn't claim to have 'refuted' Lindzen's
work, or to have 'debunked' anything (and I'm not suggesting here that you
have), nor has he called Lindzen's credibility into question. Intemperate
language isn't the stuff of real scientific research. With respect, in my
experience people who habitually use words like that or imply that this or
that piece of research results in irreparable damage to a scientist's
credibility is usually someone who simply hasn't fully understood the nature
of the uncertainties inherent in all scientific research.
[/quote]
Good post, that was my point. The entire paper
was not debunked, the author was not discredited, an
error is impossible to prove to be an intentional falsehood,
and anybody that does not take the high road in something
like this only hurts himself.
Even if I was absolutely certain that an author
intentionally included a falsehood in an extensive
paper, I would not dare do anything but point out
the error.
I don't understand any inclination to discredit
an author, or to debunk a paper.
Peer reviewers point out errors and perhaps
suggest "corrections", which may actually get the
paper published.
I have tried to follow the thread, but got lost,
even though clouds reduce black sky radiation at
night, they can reduce incoming energy much more
in daytime, I have to think that has to be a huge
negative in whatever climate modelers consider
to be what warms the surface.
In electronic circuits, feedback has circuitry
that supplies power to feedback to amplify it,
else it does nothing much.
This is why I don't pay much attention to
some of the claims of runaway possibilities. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unumnunum... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Falcon wrote:
[quote]Unumnunum wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
[...]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
What we have is a scientific paper from two men which, unlike so many
other more alarming examples of climate science these days, is
falsifiable. The problem we face more and more as the debate becomes
more vociferous is a stubborn reluctance on the part of otherwise
reputable climate scientists (like Keith Briffa and others) to present
their work in the same fashion - complete with reasoning, raw data and
the methods on which it is based. This effectively prevents their work
from being tested as easily or rigorously. (See McIntyre re: Briffa &
Yamal etc). I would argue that Lindzen's credibility and the credibility
of 'sceptical' scientists in general is therefore enhanced by Spencer's
comments, rather than harmed by them.
I don't see how deliberately falsifying an analysis, obfuscating the
falsification, trumpeting the results, and refusing to respond honestly
to the criticisms can enhance Lindzen's credibility in any way. Spencer
does appear to be acting in good faith on this occasion but I've seen
previous work where he did not.
That short paragraph illustrates what is wrong with so many discussions of
the climate change issue. I didn't imply that anyone had deliberately
falsified an analysis. I see no evidence to suggest that anyone has.
[/quote]
Well it may be that Lindzen didn't deliberately falsify his analysis,
but from what I've read in this thread there is evidence to suggest it
even though you may not have seen it. And when I say "falsify" here I
mean in the sense of speaking a deliberate falsehood, not introducing
material that can be independently verified.
[quote]The basis of all good science is that it has to be 'falsifiable'. In other
words the paper must contain sufficient information to enable other
scientists to replicate the project and either agree with a paper's
conclusions or raise concerns about it. Replicating the work and if
necessary checking the results using alternative sources of data is an
[/quote]
Thanks for the lecture, but this is very common knowledge.
[quote]essential part of the scientific method. I've seen no evidence to suggest
that Lindzen has obfuscated anything, as Spencer was able to follow his
reasoning examine the data and methods used and to find what he believes to
be errors in it, which led to him raising his concerns. Nor is it the case
[/quote]
This was explained earlier in the thread. A numeric term was mysteriously
introduced which seems to have no justification. I've seen this kind of
thing in many other situations where someone is attempting to reach
conclusions that don't work without a little "help".
[quote]that Lindzen has failed to respond to Spencer's concerns. They were only
raised a few days ago in his blog. It often takes a considerable amount of
time to consider concerns and objections to papers before either agreeing
with them or making further attempts to justify your own reasoning. Often
this can mean reworking a paper that took months to produce, before
resubmitting a peer-reviewed response.
[/quote]
I have no problem with speculative physics and flights of imaginative
thinking. The problem comes when a person presents his findings as fact
and doesn't wait for the peer reviews to come in before declaring success.
Lindzen has a long history of showboating and a habit of associating
with questionable characters. Did you know he was a keynote speaker at
the recent Heartland Institute conference? Even now we see his years-old
op-ed article in the WSJ being cited as justification for all manner
of AGW denial.
[quote]I believe that even if Lindzen eventually accepts that some of the
fundamental aspects of the paper were in error, that doesn't fatally
undermine his credibility. Nor should it. Any honest scientist will tell you
that no one ever gets it 100% right all of the time. That's what the
scientific method is all about. It's also worth remembering that Lindzen an
Spencer have collaborated closely in the past and no doubt will do so in the
future.
[/quote]
I don't care what kind of buddies Lindzen and Spencer are, but if you
publish a paper and you made a dumb mistake your credibility is damaged.
If you went so far as to fudge the numbers in order to bolster a position
you've tried to support unsuccessfully for years it would look very bad
indeed. Not saying this is definitely the case, but if it were I have
zero sympathy for it.
[quote]You will also notice that Spencer doesn't claim to have 'refuted' Lindzen's
work, or to have 'debunked' anything (and I'm not suggesting here that you
have), nor has he called Lindzen's credibility into question. Intemperate
language isn't the stuff of real scientific research. With respect, in my
experience people who habitually use words like that or imply that this or
that piece of research results in irreparable damage to a scientist's
credibility is usually someone who simply hasn't fully understood the nature
of the uncertainties inherent in all scientific research.
[/quote]
I accept your point, but by the same token, having your work challenged
does not enhance your credibility merely because you wrote a paper that
included your chain of reasoning and is therefore "falsifiable". I am all
in favor of new thinking, creative ways of looking at things, and the
development of innovative theories but Lindzen always seems to "discover"
the same predictable kind of thing. It smells. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:pr66f5tgf7jl9v5j89kvhconvgon38helo at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob at (no spam) verific.com> wrote:
Dear I M at (no spam) good guy
This thread discusses Lindzen and Choi 2009.
Ok.
When Bill Ward originally presented this paper to me, I found it very
interesting.
First of all, it was peer-reviewed and accepted by Geophysical Research
Letters.
So what, literally millions of papers are peer
reviewed, and 90 percent are worthless.
[/quote]
Correction : YOU consider them worthless.
[quote]
What was particularly interesting was that it seemed that somebody finally
found proof (or at least evidence) that Earth climate actually shows
recognizable climate feedback.
What? For warming or cooling?
[/quote]
I have to confess something : I AM A SKEPTIC.
I am skeptical of all things that make no sense.
I am skeptical of models that predict something that is verifiably false.
I am skeptical of every opinion that is not based on evidence.
So there you have it.
So I honestly did not care if the feedback was positive or negative when
Bill directed me to this publication.
Just ANY evidence of ANY feedback would do it for me.
[quote]
I don't know if you understand how important
this is, but Earth's weather systems are so extremely noisy and our
observation time is still so short (only a few decades of accurate data)
that it is not at all easy to recognize any response of planet Earth to
external forcing (like CO2 forcing).
CO2 is external? Since hydrocarbon life
has been here, CO2 has played second fiddle to
water vapor.
[/quote]
That statement is irrelevant unless you show some evidence that it affects
feedback.
[quote]
Besides that, the paper also showed very clearly that models are
completely
wrong. Not by some statistical margin, but way off.
Depends on what "way off" means.
[/quote]
Way off means that observations clearly show that the models are incorrect.
[quote]Models
which project in one direction, like the Hansen
up, up, up are clearly wrong,
[/quote]
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
[quote]possibly precisely
because they focus too much on CO2 levels.
[/quote]
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
[quote]
It seemed odd that nobody else had found such a clear pattern of feedback,
so I investigated the details of the paper. This thread is the result of
that, and if you follow it all the way from the top down to this point,
then
you know all the lines of thought that Bill and me went through.
I tried, but found too much speculation and
a bias, especially on your part.
[/quote]
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence that they are.
[quote]
So I knew there was something fishy, but could not put my fingers on it.
First I thought ot was the data.
I can buy that, many people can see a problem
before they know what it is.
[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]
So I downloaded the ERBE monthly radiation numbers and even wrote a small
program that does the correlation analysis that Lindzen also did. Lo and
behold :
Then the first thing you should have done is
showed it to him, tell him you where you were going
to publish it, and even publishing it here documents
what you do.
[/quote]
Why ?
I just replicated his data analysis at that point. That's all.
[quote]
I got approximately the same numbers and correlations that he got. I was
intrigued ! Was I looking at the first evidence of Earth's climate
feedback
response ?
But that wasn't the result you wanted, huh?
[/quote]
Excuse me ?
What I want is irrelevant.
What matters is what ERBE could tell us about reality.
[quote]
When I separated LW and SW data, I quickly realized that I was not. The LW
response was 4 W/m^2/K, which is simply Stefan Boltzmann (black-body)
response, and SW data was way too poorly correlated (noise) to draw any
conclusions from.
So what, SW absorption varies a lot,
[/quote]
Yes it does. And ?
[quote]else there
would be no ice ages.
[/quote]
That statement is irrelevant until you show evidence.
[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 !
I don't understand, how could it be the same,
[/quote]
You are surely joking mr. good guy.
In science, once the data is in and the analysis is done, the conclusions
should always be consistent.
After all, conclusions are simply a scientific summary of data analysis.
So they HAVE TO BE the same, no matter who draws them.
[quote]surely you would not accept negative feedback,
even if it bit you.
[/quote]
It would be nice if you would apologize for this insulting remark.
[quote]
So it had to be a flaw in his reasoning.
It took me a while, but eventually I found it :
In his formula for FSW, he put - 4 (W/m^2/K) in. Out of nowhere ! He hid
it
very well and gives NO explanation for this subtraction.
Sometimes the minus symbol is hard to see
on a computer screen, that is why I often write "minus".
[/quote]
OK. Let me explain more clearly for you and anyone else with their head
stuck in their ass :
Lindzen SUBTRACTED 4 W/m^2/K from the climate feedback formula without
giving any explanation whatoever. He then used that as proof that the Earth
shows negative feedback, publishes it in an official scientific magazine,
trompeted it on national television as proof that Global Warming does not
exist and let the idiot that presented it say that "this is the end of the
scam".
Well. Yes. It is.
The end of the scam of denialist' lies.
Can the real world please do without you guys' rediculous dogmatic beliefs ?
[quote]
That was quite shocking. I've never seen any scientist make a mistake like
that. So blunt and out of the blue. And oh so important, since it changes
the entire outcome of the paper.
Then you must not read many reviewed papers,
[/quote]
You would be surprised.
[quote]I see glaring mistakes of all kinds all the time.
[/quote]
Which literature are you reading ?
[quote]
I should have looked at the model scatter plots much earlier, since the
problems with that picture were much more obvious : The models showed
infinite positive response, which means they seem to predict an instable
system.
That was the second blunt mistake.
I would say infinite positive feedback would
be wrong as hell, at least until we fry.
[/quote]
Yes it is.
And any sophomore physics student would be able to spot that there was
something very much wrong with Lindzen's model plots.
[quote]
By then, it became obvious that this paper was falsified.
That is where I became concerned with your
approach to the study of the document.
[/quote]
Which other approach would you have recommended ?
[quote]
I send a letter to GRL with my findings. It's posted in higher up in this
thread.
No response, apart from one reviewer who wished to remain silent.
You mean not identified, or just not voicing an opinion?
[/quote]
No comment.
[quote]
By that time, Lindzen and Choi was all over the web with skeptics drooling
over it.
I don't know why, or what that means,
[/quote]
You don't know what I mean ? You are not paying attention...
This paper was trompeted as the end of Global Warming :
"In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal,.." San
Fransisco Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
"Lindzen and Choi's findings should come as a solace to those folks who are
alarmed about future climate and as a bulwark to those folks fighting to
limit Congresses negative impact on U.S. energy supplies and our economy."
Chip Knappenberger, blogger referred by Senator Inhofe's web site.
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
"Professor Lindzen's landmark paper
demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt
that the "global warming" scare is over."
Lord Monckton in a presentation to senator Kerry :
http://www.archive.org/stream/SenatorKerryMisfiresAboutGlobalWarming/sen_kerry_misfires_djvu.txt
and on Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLUEMWicyo&feature=related
presented by Monckton, who then challenged Al Gore for a national debate.
Based on fraudulent science ?
What the .... is wrong with these guys ?
[quote]I see no
possible reason to be a skeptic other than to seek
truth in science.
[/quote]
And so do I.
[quote]
I started posting my findings on some of these blogs.
Do many people actually read a blog, after all,
there are many blogs and only so many people that
might know about a particular one or happen to find
it on a search engine.
Then Lindzen went to the bigger media : newspaper articles and interviews
and even appearence on Fox News, with the results of the paper that I knew
was false !!!
You "assumed" was false, or "you decided" was false.
[/quote]
I KNEW is was false.
Why else do you think I would stick my head into this waspnest of critical
and denier blog sites.
[quote]
I finally send my findings to Lindzen, and got a good conversation with
him
for one day (6 emails or so) but apart from the 'long version' discussed
up
in this thread he never sent me an answer.
I thought you had already done that.
[/quote]
Richard Lindzen sure has received my comments via Geaophysical Research
Letters.
So, yes I think I did.
[quote]
I am getting deja vu here for some reason.
[/quote]
??
[quote]
So I'm pissed.
You bet I am.
Sounds reasonable, but that is how things go
sometimes, want to hear how I got screwed on my
stealth patent?
[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]
I was at the point of taking this guy on confronting him his his fraud on
MSNBC or so.
If you know for certain your facts are right,
and you could get in the door, why not?
And this is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
Getting on MSNBC with facts would have
been much better.
[/quote]
I thought about that for a while. Decided not to go forward with that.
It's enough that he gets put back in place in the scientific and in the blog
community.
No need to hang him in front of national TV.
He does have a very substantial and abmirable scientific career.
He had his 5 minutes of fame with this paper, and now it's time to retire.
But I would like him to admit his mistakes in this paper though...
[quote]
Luckily, I may not have to do much more.
My posts were picked up by Motl (blogger) forwarded to Spencer, Spencer
wrote a rebuttal to Lindzen, and now the last remaining 'skeptic'
scientists
are in disagreement.
I kinda doubt if they are the last skeptic scientists,
[/quote]
You are right. I take that statement back.
I think it's time to redefine the term 'skeptic'.
It should apply to anyone being skeptical of scientific fraud.
And luckily most scientists are honest and skeptical.
[quote]that is a funny statement, every year there is not a year
warmer than 1998, there will be more skeptic scientists
that feel a need to speak the truth more than the greed
for a job and salary.
[/quote]
Just let science do it's work.
There are tens of thousands of honest, hardworking scientists that just want
to find out how the complex system called Earth's climate is really working.
Let them do their job, and let us work together on finding out if there is
indeed a problem or not with greenhouse gas emissions.
So far, it looks like there may indeed be a big problem (IPCC conclusion).
So let's work together to find solutions.
Or, if you prefer, find scientific evidence that the problem is not that
big.
Just don't, EVER, EVER falsify your paper to pretend that.
[quote]
But I know which one is right. Or let me say, I know which one is wrong.
If it is wrong, I hope you can prove it,
[/quote]
How do you prove that 4 + 4 = 8 and not 4 ?
I've given all the proof in this thread that Lindzen used the wrong formula.
[quote]but no need to make the kind of statements
you were making, maybe if there is a problem,
it could have been an honest mistake, which
would not deserve the things you said.
[/quote]
An honest mistake ? A highschool student could not make this mistake.
Also, do you see HOW he hid the 'minus' 4 W/m^2/K ?
It took me a week to find it.
This guy is a genius in disguising his fraud.
[quote]
Lindzen has lost his last credibility, and life goes on...
We'll see, no big deal, chances are he is right
more than he is wrong.
[/quote]
He is wrong, and I showed it.
Not sure if that matters at all.
He probably has many influential friends, and probably has his next DOE
energy grant lined up for his next fraudulous paper.
I just have to go back to work monday morning...
[quote]
Thanks for reading this.
Rob
P.S. Unlike you, I'm using my real name.
I always used my real name, or rather
life-long nick name until the foul mouthed
nutcases got completely out of hand in this
newsgroup (alt.global-warming).
I don't have a problem with four letter
words except in mixed company, and maybe
a lady will read the group some day.
[/quote]
Good thinking.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:46 pm
|
|