Comments on: Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/ Climate Change Research Scientist, Author, Former NASA Scientist Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:21:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: KG http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-175 KG Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:11:10 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-175 The link to the XLS file to "run the model yourself" is broken The link to the XLS file to “run the model yourself” is broken

]]> By: Bob Paglee http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-125 Bob Paglee Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:49:10 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-125 Thanks for all your fine studies, Dr. Roy. Please keep fighting in search of the truth. Bob Thanks for all your fine studies, Dr. Roy. Please keep fighting in search of the truth.

Bob

]]> By: Wagathon http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-112 Wagathon Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:28:22 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-112 Hello Dr. Spencer: Would you be so kind as to amplify on your note, i.e., [NOTE: The claims that there are "fingerprints" of anthropogenic warming are not true. The upper-tropospheric "hot spot"; greater warming over land than over the ocean; and greater warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, are ALL to expected with any source of warming.] Thanks, MW Hello Dr. Spencer:

Would you be so kind as to amplify on your note, i.e.,

[NOTE: The claims that there are "fingerprints" of anthropogenic warming are not true. The upper-tropospheric "hot spot"; greater warming over land than over the ocean; and greater warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, are ALL to expected with any source of warming.]

Thanks,
MW

]]> By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-96 Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:35:08 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-96 Well, Jack, thank you for thanking me for allowing you to thank me. :) Well, Jack, thank you for thanking me for allowing you to thank me. :)

]]> By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-95 Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:34:09 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-95 I have not followed the stratospheric cooling issue in detail...Andrew is correct that it's a combination of ozone depletion and CO2 increase...plus, there was a recent paper that stratospheric water vapor has changed, too, which will behave the same way since it is also a greenhouse gas. So, I don't really know whether anyone has figured out whether the stratosphere has cooled as much as expected from more CO2. I have not followed the stratospheric cooling issue in detail…Andrew is correct that it’s a combination of ozone depletion and CO2 increase…plus, there was a recent paper that stratospheric water vapor has changed, too, which will behave the same way since it is also a greenhouse gas.

So, I don’t really know whether anyone has figured out whether the stratosphere has cooled as much as expected from more CO2.

]]> By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-94 Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:29:06 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-94 Good questions! I don't like using the temperature response time as a metric because it is a function of both (1) climate sensitivity (which we don't know), and (2) the rate at which heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, which is not well known. An error in the assumption for one then translates into an error in the estimation of the other. I think the reason why climate sensitivity is no more certain today than 30 years ago is addressed somewhat by our new JGR paper: (1) people have not accounted for internal radiative forcing when estimating feedback, and (2) even if they wanted to, it's not obvious how to do that! All I am reasonable certain of is that climate sensetivity has been overestimated....by just how much, though, is not at all certain. Good questions!

I don’t like using the temperature response time as a metric because it is a function of both (1) climate sensitivity (which we don’t know), and (2) the rate at which heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, which is not well known. An error in the assumption for one then translates into an error in the estimation of the other.

I think the reason why climate sensitivity is no more certain today than 30 years ago is addressed somewhat by our new JGR paper: (1) people have not accounted for internal radiative forcing when estimating feedback, and (2) even if they wanted to, it’s not obvious how to do that!

All I am reasonable certain of is that climate sensetivity has been overestimated….by just how much, though, is not at all certain.

]]> By: Jack http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-88 Jack Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:47:57 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-88 Dr. Spencer, I've been a fan of yours for awhile now. Thank you for allowing me to thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of climate change science. Truly appreciate your honesty, Jack Dr. Spencer,

I’ve been a fan of yours for awhile now. Thank you for allowing me to thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of climate change science.

Truly appreciate your honesty,
Jack

]]> By: Mikel Mariñelarena http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-62 Mikel Mariñelarena Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:59:22 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-62 Ooops, typo in my previous post. "noticeable warming" should read "noticeable change". Andrew, Dr. Spencer: if MSUs don´t measure the temperature of the appropiate stratospheric layers, where else could I find evidence of the stratospheric cooling trend? Thanks, Mikel Ooops, typo in my previous post. “noticeable warming” should read “noticeable change”. Andrew, Dr. Spencer: if MSUs don´t measure the temperature of the appropiate stratospheric layers, where else could I find evidence of the stratospheric cooling trend?

Thanks,

Mikel

]]> By: Andrew http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-61 Andrew Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:49:54 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-61 Mikel Mariñelarena-The primary cause of the stratospheric cooling in the layer being measured there is ozone depletion, which plateaued in about 1995, coincident with the slow/stop of the stratospheric cooling. The contribution from CO2 is relatively small. Mikel Mariñelarena-The primary cause of the stratospheric cooling in the layer being measured there is ozone depletion, which plateaued in about 1995, coincident with the slow/stop of the stratospheric cooling. The contribution from CO2 is relatively small.

]]> By: Mikel Mariñelarena http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/#comment-58 Mikel Mariñelarena Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:47:11 +0000 http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=2169#comment-58 Dr. Spencer, Regarding the stratosphere, you say that "it´s cooling". However, looking at your and Dr. Christy´s MSU records for the lower stratosphere, I can´t see any noticeable warming since the mid-90s. Should it not have continued to cool under an increasing GHGs scenario? Best regards, Mikel Dr. Spencer,

Regarding the stratosphere, you say that “it´s cooling”. However, looking at your and Dr. Christy´s MSU records for the lower stratosphere, I can´t see any noticeable warming since the mid-90s. Should it not have continued to cool under an increasing GHGs scenario?

Best regards,

Mikel

]]>