Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View So .. How do you explain this. THIS IS BIG!!
5 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2009 - 9:47PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,594

www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GR...


 Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi; GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628, 2009


Peer reviewd article folks ... so I don't have to put up with nonsense that this is just opinion spewed on a blog.


OK .. the premise .. CO2 models of Global Warming ALL predict that a rise in CO2 will result in an increase in temperature with a resulting decrease in radiation of heat to space in the short run, with a return to equillibrium in time.  The corner stone of the AGW theory is "positive feedback", as it is well documented and accepted that CO2 in and of itself is not capable of increasing global temperatures as depicted in the equation


DT0=G0*DQ; [where D denotes delta]  When pluging a doubling of CO2 into the equation you get:


(DQ & 3.7 W m!2), DT0 is [b]'0.925 K (= 0.25 ( 3.7). Hence .. a doubling of CO2 will equate to an increase in temperature of 0.925K with no feedbacks at all.


THUS ..  Principle in the CO2 theory is a positive feedback to attain a climate sensitivity of 1.4-4.5K resulting from a doubling of CO2.


However, this hot off the press paper actually PROVES that the models make the wrong assumptions regarding feedback mechansims!!!  Forcing an increase in SST in 11 of the IPCC's models results in a trend that is actually opposite of the real data gained from ERBE.  The models predict a decrease of outgoing radiation as a result of CO2, whereas the data show an actual INCREASE in outgoing radiation.  THUS .. the cornerstone of the AGW theory is destroyed. .. and .. This implies a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK system as opposed to a positive feedback system!


From the article; "All models agree as to positive feedback, and all models disagree very sharply with the observations


Hence .. the models, .. as many of us have insisted, ARE WRONG in the way they apply physics and assumptions!! .. and consequently are bunk with regards to making any prediction regarding the cause of the recent run up in global warming!


From a physics perspective, given that equillibrium will be reached regarding heat in vs heat out, the implication regarding the increased global temperature is more squarley centered on the "energy in" side of the equation in the form of eithe released heat from the ocean or increased "solar energy in" as a function of both TSI, cloud cover, and impacts on the upper atmosphere.


The final climate sensitivity of the study shows a 0.5K sensitivity to doubling CO2.  While the study is for the topics, Lindzen notes that adjustments for higher lats gives a climate sensitivity of only 0.66K.


So .. how do wave away this finding??

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 9:59AM #2
eadler
Posts: 4,449

This paper has not been out for very long, so the publication system in science has not been able to digest it and replies have not been published yet.



Here is a quote from the abstract of this paper:



"It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the
increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes
implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.
This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.
Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from
ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision."



The models that are mentioned are not the GCM's which couple the atmosphere to the ocean, have as inputs radiational forcing factors, and use the results to compute the SST. The models that Lindzen has studied calculate the land temperatures based on SST's which are known from the past. I don't see this as big or as proving anything about climate sensitivity calculations by the real models which are used. Here is one climate scientists reaction to this paper.


 



julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -choi.html



 



The paper claims that the feedback of the real climate system, as indicated by analysis of ERBE data and SST, differ substantially from the feedback of all models, as indicated by the model radiation budget and SST. Details of radiation and feedbacks are not really my thing, so I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but one thing really jumped out at me (once I had noticed it).

The real climate data is, of course, derived from a fully coupled system where the SST and atmosphere evolve simultaneously.

However, the model simulations they chose to use were those from the AMIP project, which is a comparison of atmospheric models forced by historical SSTs.

Now, I don't know exactly what effect this will have, but it is easy to see that it might be different. In the model case, a change in SST is being directly imposed as a forcing at the lower boundary. However, in the natural case, the change in SST is part of the natural variability of the system (and may even be considered a response to a spot of natural variability in the atmosphere).




Annan's  post points to another paper which uses ERBE to estimate the climate sensitivity without reference to models and gets a range of values in line with what is expected.



ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... 611.1&ct=1



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 10:06AM #3
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,767
Over here this rearguard defence looks archaic!
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 10:24AM #4
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Researching reactions to this paper still further, it appears that the data used by Lindzen did not include an important correction due to the long term loss in altitude of the satellite making the measurements that Lindzen used. Using this correction changes everything and invalidates the crux of Lindzen's paper.


chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lin...


"In short, Lindzen’s analysis is based on outdated data that has been revised since 2002, and these revisions are not exactly recent, so he should have been aware of them. Using the more recent data would not allow him to make his argument as presented as WUWT. It would be nice to see an update at WUWT reflecting these changes."


In Chris Colose's blog, it is seen that when the corrected data is used, the discrepancy disappears.


Lindzen may whine about the corrections, but the facts are the facts.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 11:16AM #5
Bodean
Posts: 9,594

Oct 31, 2009 -- 9:59AM, eadler wrote:


However, in the natural case, the change in SST is part of the natural variability of the system (and may even be considered a response to a spot of natural variability in the atmosphere).




Annan's  post points to another paper which uses ERBE to estimate the climate sensitivity without reference to models and gets a range of values in line with what is expected.



ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... 611.1&ct=1



 





eadler ... the physics involved with the warming of the ocean, and hence the SST would imply that the overwhelming majority of warming is due to solar influences.  Solar heats the ocean down to about 100 M.  Atmospheric interaction with the ocean surface heats only the top centimeter or so.  The differences in density and heat capacity push the equation so far towards the ocean having a greater effect on atmosphere than the opposite, makes the proposed interaction of the atmosphere on the ocean almost negligeable.  Thus, it is reasonable to assume that changes in energy input from the combination of factors involving the actual amount of solar energy reaching the surface would cause the SST to be a forcing of heat to the atmosphere, as solar has a smaller direct effect on the lower troposphere temperature.


The importance of SST on atmospheric temperature is readily seen in any temperature metric, regardless of how poor it is.  All of the global temp metrics, GISS included follow the SST to a tee.  The physics of exchange of heat betweeen atmosphere and ocean does not support a position that the atmosphere could have such short term effects on SST, but does indeed support the opposite.


Thus .. I'd have to disagree with Casper Annan.  He is operating from the wrong perspective.  As consequence, he treats SST as a "response" to the atmosphere, as opposed to a response to solar energy which then serves as a "forcing" to the atmosphere.  This perspective is just wrong.  Even on land we find that the heat radiation from land is what warms the atmosphere around it, with rapid cooling at night.  Granted, the Greenhouse Gases, primarily water vapor, have the abilityt to "hold" some of this heat for a period of time, but the flux of water vapor makes it impossible to apply this affect on a constant.  In fact, the work of LIndzen as well as Spencer is slowly proving this to be true.  Where AGW supporters allege that water vapor/clouds/precipitation respond in a "positive feedback" manner, the work of Lindzen and Spencer are showing that the DATA prove otherwise, that in fact, the water vapor/cloud/precipitation systems actually work as negative feedbacks.


Consequently, the background forcingn of a doubling of CO2, 0.9K, is adjusted down to 0.66K, as opposed to adjusting it up as the models do, resulting in climate sensitivity of 1.4-4.5K.


To be honest with you, I do not expect any fair commentary or debate about this paper comming from the likes of Casper, [who is a member of the hockey team], or from any of the other vested interests on the AGW side. ..... I simply do not believe that the AGW advocates are interested in real science, but instead, they are interested in proving their pet projects are true ... even if this does involve shoddy science and flat out fraud.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 11:25AM #6
Bodean
Posts: 9,594

Oct 31, 2009 -- 10:24AM, eadler wrote:


Researching reactions to this paper still further, it appears that the data used by Lindzen did not include an important correction due to the long term loss in altitude of the satellite making the measurements that Lindzen used. Using this correction changes everything and invalidates the crux of Lindzen's paper.


chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lin...


"In short, Lindzen’s analysis is based on outdated data that has been revised since 2002, and these revisions are not exactly recent, so he should have been aware of them. Using the more recent data would not allow him to make his argument as presented as WUWT. It would be nice to see an update at WUWT reflecting these changes."


In Chris Colose's blog, it is seen that when the corrected data is used, the discrepancy disappears.


Lindzen may whine about the corrections, but the facts are the facts.


 




eadler .... this is exactly what I mean by I do not expect fair and objective debate!!  IF your blogger would have read the paper, he would have noticed ...


"Note that this data were recently altitudecorrected and are acknowledged to be stable long-term climate dataset based on broadband flux measurements [Wong et al., 2006].


You'll note .. Chris lies.  Lindzen used the data corrected as of 2006!! Thus .. I don't know what Chris did ... but I find it curious that in fact, LINDZEN did use the corrected data, and it was this data set that produced his results!!


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 11:48AM #7
eadler
Posts: 4,449

I must admit to some confusion about the timing involved.


Prior to publication of the paper, Lindzen made a blog post on the same subject, which did not include the atltitude correction. This was on 3/30/2009. The point was made at that time, on RealClimate and Chris Colose's blog that the altitude correction was not used in the blogpost.


 


I find it puzzling that the graph of long wave radiation out put versus model for both the WUWT  blogpost and the paper by Lindzen, published August 2009, seem to be identical  despite the correction. The difference noted in Chris Colose's blog between the corrected data and the uncorrected data is much bigger.


I don't accept your judgement about who is mistaken, or rather a liar.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2009 - 1:23PM #8
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Doing some further research, I have found a discussion group where this paper is being dissected scientifically.


groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/7...


Reading the whole discussion carefully while referring to  the papers and references would take days. It appears that there is a lot of fudging in the data to select the points for analysis. The final post, as of today, by Rob Dekker dated 10/24 3:00 AM, points to some shennanigans and disagreement between text and equations in Lindzen's paper in which he arbitrarily removes 4W/M2 from an equation to obtain a negative feedback.


We need to wait for developments and reviews of his paper before claiming it is something big. That something may be a mistake.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2009 - 10:27AM #9
Bodean
Posts: 9,594

Oct 31, 2009 -- 1:23PM, eadler wrote:


Doing some further research, I have found a discussion group where this paper is being dissected scientifically.


groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/7...


Reading the whole discussion carefully while referring to  the papers and references would take days. It appears that there is a lot of fudging in the data to select the points for analysis. The final post, as of today, by Rob Dekker dated 10/24 3:00 AM, points to some shennanigans and disagreement between text and equations in Lindzen's paper in which he arbitrarily removes 4W/M2 from an equation to obtain a negative feedback.


We need to wait for developments and reviews of his paper before claiming it is something big. That something may be a mistake.


 


 


 




Point well taken.  As you know, I'm all for "waiting" for further developments before making any conclusions.


I've never been an advocate of jump to conclusion.  I'm sure in the comming months, much discussion will ensue.  It's just a SHAME that the two sides do not come together to do the discussing ... instead, they hole up in their little groups and make empty accusations towards each other!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2009 - 3:04PM #10
eadler
Posts: 4,449

It is pretty clear that Lindzen and Choi has turned out to be a dud.


 


julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/roy-s...


"Roy Spencer debunks LIndzen and Choi


Roy Spencer has weighed in here (thanks tb) with some analysis of the Lindzen and Choi study that I briefly covered before. It seems that RS has investigated the difference between CMIP (coupled atmosphere-ocean) and AMIP (atmosphere with prescribed sea surface temperature) runs and found that they give completely different answers. In other words, the analysis of AMIP output that LC performed is not relevant to diagnosing the properties of the fully coupled climate system. Which is what I suspected but had not checked. RS also has various other criticisms about how the data were processed, and his alternative analysis shows a much closer agreement between models and data. Although his wording tries to be gentle (because he wants to believe LC's overall conclusion that the models are too sensitive) it is quite clear that he thinks the LC paper is wrong.

The sad thing about this is to see Lindzen getting his claws into some young post-doc and teaching them how to do (and get published) shoddy analyses without doing obvious checks. I hope this person learns how to not fool himself so easily in future."


Fooling yourself over and over is not a good thing.


 


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook