Home/BlogUPDATE: Due to the many questions I have received over the last 24 hours about the way in which our paper was characterized in the original Forbes article, please see the new discussion that follows the main post, below.
LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.
Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.
For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.
Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.
Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:
“I cannot believe it got published”
Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”
Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually do data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.
COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR
I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?
Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.
The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.
About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)
But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?
I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ‘skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.
For example….
…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.
Well, they can’t have it both ways.
If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?
That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.
I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.
Dr. Spencer,
You’re superb! Thank you! Thank you! I and many other scientists, phsycists, engineers, biologists, ecologists, doctors etc applaud you for representing us and giving US collectively a reason to believe we aren’t “stupid” and “ignorant” for following blindly the IPCC dogma.
The big problem is that ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ are the best words to describe the tripe served up as ‘science’ by denialists.
Surely it’s ok to call an idiot an idiot when he/she is an idiot?
So the science that demonstrates no catastrophic warming, no usual seal level rise, and no increase in extreme weather is “stupid and ignorant” but your ungrounded, religious, opinion is sacrosanct? If that’s not stupid and ignorant I don’t know what is!
Worse still, now that the IPCC elite have deigned to note the existence of your paper and complain about it, the alarmists will site their complaints and claim that it has been debunked.
No, what they will do is explain the science to Spencer yet again. He will squeal ‘marxist conspiracy’ (like his Norwegian associate) but it wont change the facts…his science is junk.
IA: I hope you live in a warm place, buddy boy! Gonna be a heckuva winter. See Geoff Sharp’s new predictions (he has been spot on these last 5 years or so, much to the dismay of the warm-earthers in the Trenberth bunker). I actually feel sorry for you and your ilk. Maybe you are young and can learn, I hope.
Enough waste of time for IA with his tiny head in the sand.
Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen is a good CME focused on Colorado and Central England, that would knock out those computers the Gore warm-earthers solely rely on.
Dr. Spencer,
Do you care to comment on the way the blogosphere has reacted to your paper?
Most of the articles I have read, including James Taylor’s in Forbes, attempt to make the case that AGW is a total sham and that CO2 plays almost no role in climate. Your paper is presented as the verifiable proof.
However, that is not at all what I took away from your paper. Instead I thought you basically showed that there are still plenty of unknowns surrounding Forcing and Feedbacks and what effect they can have. If anything the overall conclusion would have been that AGW is still occurring but at a much slower pace than what has been predicted by “alarmists.”
just looking for some truth here
Jake
Jake, please see the discussion I have appended to my blog post.
-Roy
Surely, this is a misquote of Gavin Schmidt:
“Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”
Data developed with modern technology is “imperfect”. Instead we should rely upon crude estimates from proxy data.
Gavin is repeating the line that his boss Hansen has taught him well “We know the sensitivity! We can tell from the Ice Ages!” Ha, no, we really can’t. The Glacial-Interglacial cycles are driven by the Milankovitch mechanism, a spatial and temporally heterogeneous climate forcing, which is not comparable in the way the climate responds to a spatially and temporally homogeneous forcing like a doubling of CO2. What Gavin is really saying is he doesn’t understand, within his paradigm, how the glacial cycles can occur with the measured feedback. So? Back to the drawing board then. Most likely the explanation of how these cycles actually occur will relate to the modification of equator to pole heat transport by the change the distribution of insolation. This heterogeneous forcing can also alter the major atmospheric circulation patterns, which Roy has noted can induce changes in cloud cover, and then changes in climate. Within the “Global mean Top of the Atmosphere radiative forcing” paradigm, the Ice Ages don’t constrain sensitivity, they imply a pretty much infinite sensitivity, since only the Milankovitch changes are the true drivers, the forcings invoked, CO2 and Ice Sheets, are actually slow feedbacks, and the insolation changes averaged over the whole Earth are negligible. Obviously this paradigm just can’t explain the glacial cycles! To suggest that within this paradigm they can constrain anything is absurd.
Do you even have the faintest idea who silly your comments are?
Seriously, you have to ignore 30+ years of research to reach your level of silliness.
Write a scientific paper. Get it published. I dare you!
Sure seems to me like IA is terrified of your paper Roy.
his/her pathetic ranting is really very telling.
And probably as good of an endorsement as any.
Has it not been obvious for a while that ‘the gang’ to include Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have not been interested in working toward any kind of scientific truth, rather they have been interested only in winning?
I am still wondering if there has ever been any attempt to explain the missing ‘warm spot’ as IPCC models predict.
In any other science, if a prediction of a hypothesis does not occur it invalidates the hypothesis.
Yep, it’s all one huge Marxist conspiracy. Your Lord Mockton says so. As does your Norwegian fanboy…
IA is slinging mud by comparing skeptics to the Norwegian murderer. I would point out that Charles Manson is and Osama Bin Laden was devoted to alarmist climate change beliefs. Here’s mud in your eye!
The problem, Roy, is that you have an unmitigated faith in a low climate sensitivity and are willing to tune a million parameters or cook up impressive looking curves to confirm your idea– regardless of whether any of it is physical. You have been caught over and over doing this. Your insistence that people are trying to censor you or that ¨the empire is striking back¨ is absurd. Your credibility has taken a damaging hit in the eyes of the scientific community, so try rectifying that with good/objective analyses rather than submitting toy models and flawed ideas to spurious journals in an effort to receive attention.
I hope you are not allowed to teach students at UAH on climate issues.
Maybe they have a course on Creationist Climate Change?
Dr. Spencer–
Near the beginning of your paper, you state:
“Also, since all climate models have net feedback parameters greater than zero, none of the climate models are inherently unstable to perturbations.”
Did you mean “all of the models”
If you meant what you said, I wonder if you could explain it to me.
I meant what I said. “Positive feedback” in climate parlance does not mean the climate system is unstable, just that temperature-dependent changes in clouds, water vapor, etc., act to amplify temperature perturbations, rather than reduce them.
In either case warming occurs, but only until the Earth gives off enough extra IR energy to restore energy balance. If feedbacks are positive, the warming required before than happens is large. If feedbacks are negative, the warming required to restore radiative energy balance is small.
None of which is shown in your paper Roy.
The phrase ‘toy model’ is probably not completely fair. I think it would be better to say ‘false model’.
If you leave out major factors that explain the climate forcings/feedbacks then it is simply a false model (both in engineering and in climate science)
Lance,
The net feedback is always negative (including the Planck response), so all models, are in that sense stable.
Could we get together on these things?
Spencer: all climate models have positive net feedback so are stable.
Colose: all models have negative net feedback so are stable.
In the classic electrical engineering sense, the feedback in all climate models is negative. But climate researchers have redefined “feedback”, and do not include in it the infrared Planck effect, which is what stabilizes the climate system. It’s value is about 3.3 Watts per sq meter of extra energy lost per degree of warming.
To climate people positive feedbacks reduce that 3.3 value, negative feedback increase it. But never does the value drop below zero, which would indeed be positive feedback in the classical sense, and the climate system would become unstable.
All of this would seem to be meant to confuse you…I sometimes wonder…..
Dr. Roy,
Might I ask what is stabilizing the climate from the forcing of the Sun?
Somehow I find DATA so much more compelling than a FORECAST from a computer model that was programmed by someone whose original marching orders were to FIND manmade global warming, and whose paycheck depends on doing so..
Excellent work, Dr. Spencer – Thanks a million!
Jim
If you’d bothered to read the data, you would see that the model proposed by Spencer actually defies logic (and basic physics).
Why do you ignore the thousands of peer reviewed papers in this area? Are they all part of (what you Norwegian friend) calls a Marxist eco-conspiracy?
Yet many people have used ¨DATA¨ and reached different conclusions. Probably because they are all in on the big conspiracy and Roy Spencer is the only noble knight in a crusade against the hundreds of evil dark age wrong-doers. Only logical explanation…
I think this is related.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/rationalizing-trenberths-missing-heat/
I think its pretty clear that the temperature data for the past decade call the theory of AGW into question. From there its a question of understanding why, and this paper is a great contribution. Hopefully natural impacts on climate change such as the PDO and solar variability (through cosmic rays) will continue to get more attention. My personal opinion is the question boils down to how much does CO2 impact climate as opposed to these other phenomena which the IPCC establishment effectively ignores. Of course if the sun does go into a long quiet phase the bottom line is nature is going to settle the question for us over the coming decades. If it keeps warming despite reduced solar activity (and increased cosmic rays impacting earth) then AGW would demand more confidence. On the other hand, will IPCC and AGW supporters be ready to drop their theory if temperatures decrease significantly? What really could be interesting is PDO going into a negative phase and the sun going into a quiet period at the same time. Will the two add together to produce a significant temperature drop?
“I think its pretty clear that the temperature data for the past decade call the theory of AGW into question.”
No it doesn’t. Not unless you dont understand the science.
Lance, in this case ¨positive¨ does not necessarily mean greater than zero! There are different definitions of feedbacks out there which I suppose could get confusing; Roy Spencer has an acceptable definition in his paper.
However you think about it, the global climate must have a net negative feedback if it is to remain stable to external perturbations. This includes the increased emission to space as the climate warms. Positive longwave feedbacks like water vapor reduce the efficiency of this feedback, making the dependence between the outgoing radiation and temperature more linear than T^4. That is, for a given perturbation, the climate will warm more to reach a new equilibrium. The issue is that Spencer thinks it is much more negative than virtually anyone else.
Chris. That sort of reasoning is why your side is losing this debate. Positive means greater than zero. Simple. If it’s less than zero than it is negative. If there are climatologists who cannot understand basic definitions like that then what chance have you got. It’s not a case of being a little confusing it’s a case of being dead wrong.
I have seen no end of ad-hom attacks on people for saying exactly what you have said about long term stability. And the reason is that the religious dogma from your side says that the system is dominated by “Positive Feedbacks”. But now your saying that positive is actually negative.
I agree with you that the system must be dominated by negative feedback. I been designing control loops for a long time. Positive feedback leads to instability. But when I say that, I get some little twirp like IA (who clearly doesn’t have any experience in anything technical) spew rubbish at me. But now I find that you agree because actually positive feedback is negative feedback. See my point?
Trenberth and Fasullo have responded to this paper:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
I mostly agree with them, and the general jist has been repeated by others before…
And still none of them can explain why incremental GHG ‘forcing’ will be amplified by over 400% when solar forcing is only amplified by about 60%, so the nonsense continues.
RW, you failed to answer Stoat’s questions so you have failed big time. Give up princess, you are just a denialist autobot…
What are Stoat’s questions?
Dr. Spencer,
Are those wagon wheels I’m hearing…funny how a paper with “no merit” gets them all in a frenzie.
The paper is supported by the Heartland Institute, Forbes and is being promoted on most right wing extreme denialist websites.
Clearly the PR campaign by the denialists has started.
And you complain when some serious scientists tear holes in the shoddy piece of work?
Roy
When will you be publishing an apology?
Clearly, you have completely misunderstood the science and the paper is simply another chapter of the denialist manifesto.
I think you probably understand what you have done is disingenuous but I’m also hopeful you are man enough to apologise.
Trenberth and Fasullo state in their response:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Para 2: “Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.”
Para 3: “The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce but use…”
Having announced that the methods are insufficient to replicate the results of Spencer and Braswell, Trenberth and Fasullo contradict themselves by undertaking the work and producing a similar result using an unlabelled Figure.
Methinks it rather betrays an undignified desperation to be seen to respond.
Its so funny!
They toasted and real stupid at (UN)Relaclimate to respond so sloppy. They obviously critizise Spencer not to have launched satellites in the year 1911 to fit thier fitted 100 year trendline who has no relevance in this meashurement or article what so ever.
“Some models are like this…. some are little less others bla bla bla bla ” And Trenberth ends up with presenting almost the same result as Spencer. This guys has lost it completely thats for shure. Its just to embarrasing to watch.
Dessler is a disgrace and I can not understand how ad hominems and guilt by association is more intresting than the scientific work thats presented. This guys have absolutely nothing left. They sold thier self respect many many years ago. They look like conplete idiots.
Slobber,
If you enroll before the end of July, you should be able to do a college science class or two this year. After that, maybe you will get into university as an undergraduate, maybe then do a PhD. And maybe then you will understand..how stupid you are…
Dr. Spencer;
I just love this quote (not from you);
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
As I’ve posted before, in the engineering field we have a saying;
“If your hardware does not perform as your model predicts, you need to IMPROVE your model”
Seems like the author of the original quote expects us to improve our hardware (Sun / Earth / Atmosphere / Universe) so it demonstrates higher fidelity with respect to the model. Boy, I’d sure like to get a contract for that………
Keep up the excellent work.
Cheers, Kevin.
Kevin, you’ve completely missed the point.
Spencer is saying that the tides cause the moon to move around the earth. Normal scientists say it’s the other way around.
You don’t need a model to explain dumb.
There are various ways of using the word ‘feedback’. Perhaps someone will write that what I am writing now is nonsense; that might be called ‘feedback’; but that is not one the senses of the word that interests us now.
There are two more or less distinct usages of the word ‘feedback’, that are relevant and more or less confused in the present discussion.
One usage of the word ‘feedback’ is that of, e.g., Bode 1945, which refers to a definite circuit diagram with four essential items it it: source, active (power-supplying) device, feedback path, load, and the variables that describe those items. The IPCC people cite Bode 1945 but don’t actually do it as he does.
The other usage of the word ‘feedback’ is rather looser, and refers loosely to a dynamical system described by a system of ordinary differential equations in canonical form. Sometimes such a system can be modeled by a linear approximation, and its matrix of rate coefficients can sometimes be calculated. Then such a system is stable just in case all the eigenvalues of the rate matrix are real and negative. In this case the system is loosely said to have negative feedback, but this does not mean to imply that it can be analysed so as to display the four elements of the Bode model. This looser usage of the word ‘feedback’ just means that the rates of growth of the dynamic variables of the system are determined by their joint present state.
It seems customary in this game to be careless or cavalier about distinguishing senses of the word ‘feedback’; we are far too clever to need to worry about trivial pedantries like this. It is so much quicker and more efficient to throw words around like confetti. Christopher Game
Responding to Dr Spencer’s post of July 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM.
Dr Spencer writes: “temperature-dependent changes in clouds, water vapor, etc., act to amplify temperature perturbations, rather than reduce them”
Dr Spencer is using the word “amplify” here in a special parlance of the IPCC, not the way Bode (1945, cited by the IPCC) uses it.
Bode uses the word ‘amplify’ to refer to the action of an electronic amplifier, which has an independent input signal with arbitrary time dependence, with a wide range of permissible signal time courses.
The IPCC usage refers to “amplification” only with respect to one specific time course of signal, a step change from one time independent value to another. The IPCC “amplifier” does not work as an amplifier in the sense that Bode uses the word, for this reason.
There are other differences between the Bode amplifier and the IPCC “amplifier”. The Bode amplifier adds power to the signal, from an auxiliary arbitrarily controlled power supply. No such supply is referred to in the IPCC “amplifier”. Moreover, the Bode amplifier works with an ideal (actively driven) summing junction, while the IPCC model simply has a Kirchhoff conservation node. Christopher Game
Realclimate is funny.
You point out to them that their paleoclimate hockey stick – which sold the message that the climate was so pathetically insensitive and cold…to everything else except the recent man-made CO2 – is broken. They say – ‘well, all that is unimportant. What happened in the past is interesting, but what’s really important is what’s happening today, and what will happen in the future’.
You point out the recent lack of warming, and the results of papers such as the present one, and they say – well, all that is unimportant. what happening in the present-day is interesting, but what’s really important is what’s already happened in the past’.
Nonsense.
They explain that current observations are completely consistent with the models.
Do you actually read any scientific papers?
Dr. Spencer I heard you interviewed on Australian radio, by Chris Smith yesterday in reference to your important paper.
The Aussie “Climate Scientists” who are exclusively government funded, to come up with rationales for the IPCC’s alarmist predictions, are quickly losing credibility over here because of their inability to get their predictions right.
In the last few years two of our state governments (Victoria and Queensland) took the CSIRO and other government funded scientific bodies advice seriously on anthropogenic induced climate change and built two enormously expensive desalination plants, which are now white elephants and which citizens will be paying highly for in their taxes for decades to come. It was claimed that the science was settled and the decade long dry period we had experienced meant that human land use changes and CO2 emissions had changed the climate and we could, on the science, expect the drought like conditions to continue and in future there would be less rainfall. With the coming of La Nina and starting last December we have had record rains and our dams in Victoria are still filling as the wet weather continues.
So those scientists like Trenberth et al are not simply “science nerds” whose opinions are academic but rather their science can be responsible for mitigation measures that have the potential to bankrupt countries when political leaders take ACC and its IPCC projections on future weather and sea levels and its proposed clean energy measures seriously.
It is becoming increasingly evident that CO2 is likely to be one minor variable amongst the very many known powerful and as yet possibly unknown variables which define our local and regional climates.
Thank you for your independent and valuable scientific research.
Llew, Chris Smith is a denialist enabler. Try reading the science…please.
If you think CO2 is unimportant as a greenhouse gas, well, back to the Alan Jones school of denial for you old fella.
(let’s guess…white middle to late aged, middle class but not well educated…hates labour party… increasingly disenfranchised with life…unhappy at home… am I close Llew?)
Let me guess, unable to explain the bad predictions. I have heard many predictions and none seem to come true, still snow in Europe. Nice stategy, insult and attack. Also, if your random predictions are any better please tell me the predictions of the next 5 years that are so different from typical history that the only explanation would be that global warming theory is correct. Until then, I feel we put your theories to the true test and escalate our use of fossil fuels so we can prove global warming theories as true or not. Without doing that and failing at almost every predictions your work will fade into the unimportant stack in history. If we try this, the world prosperity will get back on track and maybe we can make some confirmations of these theories by the time we develop technologies that would be more efficient than fossil fuels without artificially destroying an economy by taxing and regulating fossil fuels. Question: Is it just a coincidence that global warming scientist and believers are Marxist? And which came first?
Good Job Roy!
The Big Media (hereafter referred to as “BM”)
will find words to cover for thier monopoly partners and the more we point out their errors the faster we’ll return science to where it belongs, out of the world of politics.
BM = Bite Me.
(which is what you can do nuff nuff)
RW,
the amplification has been explained numerous times. Please explain – do you actually read the scientific papers or just right wing blogs?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
This is the thing that really damns the Spencer paper:
“Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.”
Roy
did you ever explain this?
“Roy Spencer’s six trillion degree warming”
It turns out you need to set the starting temperature to negative six trillion degrees in 993, in order to match Spencer’s model for the 20th century. 6 trillion degrees. Wow. Now that’s global warming!
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/roy_spencers_six_trillion_degree_warming
Dr. Spncer’s work in mainly to point out the flaws of the climatic global models which he has done in an excellent manner. I don’t think anyone could have done it better.
However, the question remains what causes earth’s climate to go from ice age to interglacial back to ice age. What causes at times very abrupt ,drastic climatic changes on earth. That has not been addressed.
I maintain the only explanation is changes in solar activity ,which then cause items that control earth’s climate to phase into either a cold or warm mode.
Stephen Wilde explain how changes with the sun can set this in motion.
Again Dr. Spencer’s work is great in showing model flaws, but it does not address why the climate changes.
These comments require a moderator. You have a rather bad troll problem at the moment (IA), which should be dealt with. From experience gained in many other forums, ignoring the troll(s) generally will not solve the problem. It only gets worse.
WUWT is one example of effective moderation that does a good job of filtering out trolls while at the same time preserving mature, non-childish opposing points of view.
Dr. Spencer,
Trenberth says in his post on Real Climate that if you look at all 10 year periods over the
last 100 years in the IPCC models that the results are closer to the data. What is your
comment on this? I did note that the range of the model results using this method was
rather large.
Dave Young
Please dont remove IAs comments. It is nice to read something that brings a smile to my face in the middle of the real science. IA illustrates just how desperate the warmaholics have become in trying to derail the behemoth that the skeptics of CAGW have produced. The science behind the skepics is so solid, that all IA has left is completley idiotic interjections.
IA must stand for Idiot Authority.
Read “IA’s” comments and you will begin to understand why the Gaia-Worshipers are losing the debate so badly.
Clearly, the intense frustration of having such massive momentum lost in such short order has dissolved their arguments into a petulant & childish shrilling.
I fully encourage their continuation with that particular direction.
I would think science research would be better served if they stop the pathetic whining.And go publish an honest counterpoint paper.IF they have already FIRST examined your paper and tried to duplicate it.If they do not think your paper is valid.They should publish a paper explaining why they have come to that conclusion.
From the two quoted:
Dessler,
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
Trenberth,
“I cannot believe it got published”
bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
That is their reasoned counterpoint?
A valid way to answer Dr. Spenser and Dr. Braswell is to go publish a counter paper explaining why they think it is wrong.To show that it is NOT replicable or that it is incomplete in its conclusions.Something like that.
They seem to have forgotten the basic idea of the scientific method.They prefer to attack it in the public arena,and without defined reason.
The better way is to,
To make a hypothesis and post a paper in support of it.Then see how well it stands up to other science papers in response.
If it survives the scrutiny from other researchers.Then it advances from a hypothesis to a theory.
Trenberth’s response is childish and no surprises as they have long forgotten science after practising of so many years of pseudoscience.
Others have pointed out that Gavin admits that this paper suggests that there is a problem with the data, with the data processing, or with the models.
Gentlemen, start your engines.
===================================================
Trenberth,
“I cannot belaieve it got published”
I cannot believe in 1997, the Annual Global Mean Radiation Budget got published in the AMS journal. Manufactured Back Radiation of 324W/m2 has more energy than the Sun’s 168W/m2 raeching the Earth surface.
Some of you may remember the brilliant environmentalist American scientists who thought it would be a superb idea to create artificial coral reefs by dumping millions of used car & truck tires into the ocean off the coast of Florida.
AGW is their new cause.
Having a degree does not import common sense. These are nothing but idealistic liberals with academic titles who are not held accountable for huge errors in judgment.
Poor IA.
The fear he/she displays is quite comical and really pathetic.
It is common when a religious Zealot is confronted with facts that don’t agree with their objects of FAITH.
His/her silly little rants are in reality a good endorsement of the validity of the paper.
If it weren’t threatening to the doctrines, they would ignore it.
LOL…
IA is an angry little teenager right?
Angry that his/her Faith is being challenged.
Very amusing.
IA is obviously an experienced troll from the warmist hoax community. As such, he represents the intellectual vacuity that pervades that group. His inane postings are the internet equivalent of the playground bully yelling: “so’s your old man”. Since truth (dare I say, reality) is not on his side, he can only fall back on name-calling and obfuscation. His lack of relevance is his own self-inflicted punishment.
Basic thought experiment:
Were Roy Spencer to be the first to conclude 2+2=4, or E=MC2, the warmist argument against these formulas would focus solely on his religious inclinations.
Personally, I’ve been banned from several Gaia-Worship websites by simply asking for specific conditions that would disprove the AGW hypothesis.
This is very sad.
Come on, don’t be so hard on IA. He must have made it to captain of his eigth grade debate team.
IA states:
“Nonsense. They explain that current observations are completely consistent with the models. Do you actually read any scientific papers?”
One might ask him the same question – see: D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES
On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53(4) August 2008
As I also understand it, the IPCC modeling of CO2/GTemps have not predicted global cooling in the face of increasing CO2, or a tropical ‘hot spot’ (despite the highly wishful thinking of some), or sea level rises – all tricky inconveniences that highlight the fragility of the model based AGW hypothesis.
Things are not what they seem in model world. That must be worrying.
IA you give yourself away as a committed Green activist, possibly the typical Aussie variety with no understanding of the science or you would not quote and paste up the irrelevant alarmist attempts at rebuttal that apparently you’ve gleaned from scientifically questionable blogs. You would do better seeking to understand the issues around the apparent lack of sensitivity that the climate system has to CO2 forcing.
Dr. Spencer brings his expertise in climate science to bear on that issue and in doing that has caught the attention, particularly of those with engineering and science backgrounds in Australia, who follow and appreciate his research. (Me? A professional engineer with a mech eng degree from Melbourne University).
PS You are not very observant. ALP (Australian Labor Party) is not spelt Labour as you do (which is the Aussie way of spelling labor and probably indicates that is where you come from) but Labor. Wouldn’t choose you to collect climate change data matey. Perhaps an alarmist scientist could use your lack of this skill.
ignore the troll & it may vanish
You should be commended for being able to by-pass the mean ‘ol IPCC nazis and their fetishes about those oppressive peer reviews. When you can publish your findings in a book and on blogs and present them at Heritage Foundation conferences, you show the power of the internet.
But still, rather than always playing the victim, wouldn’t it help advance your cause if you responded to the numerous very detailed and specific flaws highlighted in your models by, for example, Barry Bickmore?
What would be wrong with doing that? Just point out the flaws in Bickmore’s analyses.
Bill,
Barry seems to go through considerable trouble missing the point of the Spencer Braswell paper. The main point being why do the IPCC GCM’s show that the earth retains so much more heat than actual observations. I think both you and Barry need to do more reading and less posting.
Typo alert!
Science aside for a moment – the method used for bringing the paper to the attention of the interwebs was a red flag. As I understand it, James Taylor, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, wrote the press release, Yahoo!/Forbes Article and headline. Being his is a well know partisan political organization and that the headline was sensationalistic, big red flag. Science done via press release is also a big red flag about the funding and motivations – not that it’s conclusive, but caveat emptor.
In any case, I look forward to hearing more about the methodology and conclusions of the paper from all sides. If the results are confirmed and repeatable, then that’s good news!
And an aside, call me a troll if you wish, but may I just suggest that people stop throwing out Al Gore as the face of AGW… anyone who follows the science seriously knows Al Gore is just a politician and invoking his name just makes your case look weak and brings it down to the level of name calling.
Stefano G!
Thanks for so clearly among so many other in the CAGWcamp for the thousand of times show that you dont really care about the science. You think eweryone ho publishes articles that challange the “consensus” is just as corrupted as the CAGW camp and that it is a political issue and not a scientific one. Well wy wont you arrange an election instead? And leave the scientific debate because your comment doent fit in here.
If you have an scientific argument instead if a political you maby restore some of the lost confidence of the cagw empire. With comments like that you just reveal your sekves to as serious as Romm and Monett.
Obviously you dont have any scientific argument what so ever and we learned what your rules are.
And I can tell you you deserve absolute ZERO trust.
The arguments against the meashurements so far reveals that this paper really is a killer and instead of appriciate exposed errors in models you respond like five year olds and fifght meashurements for not wanting to accept that the models suck in not one but many many aspects.
You are really really looking rediculus! Bahave and grow up. Yoy are ruining the trust to science is general.
Hey Llew, Yeh, this war will be won or lost on the ground where Big Green puts upon the rest us the enormous expense of carrying through their programs for what are insignificant results, except for the funding of their sinecures. These guys are the best.
I may be in my 60s but I am standing with the kids, who are 6-16 right now. They will be pissed when they see the bill we’ve rung up for them.
What is hilarious to me having participated in retail politics these many years is that people like, oh hell, why even say their names, because they are of the left believe that they are the revolutionaries, progressives…whatever they call themselves these days. They…are…the …establishment, as we called it in the 60’s. Down with it.
As for trolls, people(…crickets…) and they magically disappear.
My few chemistry and physics classes decades ago don’t make me a “scientist”. Furthermore, I’m not sure what a scientist is. I can read and understand most of what is being said on both sides, and I’ve concluded that AGW is a political left-right issue. Hysterics on the left and skeptics on the right. I learned three “rules” of science in my classes back when “global cooling” was the hysteric — mostly mid-1940s to late 1970s. They are (and hysterics seem to ignore all of them:
o Consensus is not science. All I hear from folks like IA is “that a majority of scientists say…” Galileo observed that “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. Hysterics turn me off blathering on about “the majority”.
o Correlation is not causation… mm why didn’t the slight increases in C02 after WWII cause warming instead of cooling?
o Peer review. How did Mays’ hockey stick get published?? It’s filled with bogus data? Why is he still considered a “scientist”? The same with Dr. James Hanson, when caught using made-up data, simply said I did it to get attention.
Additionally, why do you folks let so many type os stay in your comments?? Right now, my opinion falls with Spencer and his crowd. Seems like a lot more science and less IA – type name calling.
IA, You’re an idiot.
IA says:
July 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM
“The paper is supported by the Heartland Institute, Forbes and is being promoted on most right wing extreme denialist websites.”
As opposed to being funded by George Soros and other fools seeking climate justice.
IA says:
July 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM
“The paper is supported by the Heartland Institute, Forbes and is being promoted on most right wing extreme denialist websites.”
As opposed to being funded by George Soros or other fools seeking climate justice.
IA said;
“Kevin, you’ve completely missed the point.”
With respect, I rarely “completely miss the point”. I do often see it from a different perspective, and sometimes raise concerns that may have been previously addressed, and I admit I do sometimes overlook the sub-sub-sub points in a discussion.
But I get the point exactly, Dr. Spencer has IMPROVED a model (one of way too many) to match the observed performance of the HARDWARE (I.E. THE EARTH) with included accessories; 1 Atmosphere, 1 Sun, 1 (as far as we know) Universe, (Billions and Billions)Stars, and of course the ever increasing Greenhouse Gases.
IA also wrote;
“Spencer is saying that the tides cause the moon to move around the earth. Normal scientists say it’s the other way around.”
With respect I think Dr. Spencer is saying that it takes a while to heat up an Ocean, seems quite logical to me.
IA also wrote;
“You don’t need a model to explain dumb.”
No, in fact I can explain dumb in many different ways, one of which is defending 20 year old predictions that demonstrate very little real world results.
Cheers, Kevin.
If one takes a critical look at Spencers paper one can see it may have some merit but also has some major shortcomings.even to a non expert AI points to some of these shortcomings. The problems with spencer’s empirical model are well-known (non-physically simple, no sensitivity analysis). Just the fact that he built the model and did not even realize it could be solved analytically raises big red flags in my mind.
Dont wish for IA to go away. He/she does more for our side than most of us can hope to do.
This has been censored before, so I’ll give it another try.
Dr. Spencer’s models have been shown to produce absurd results outside the calibration period (AFAIK, this would mean they fail basic validation procedure).
On the other hand, the models folks here love to criticize yield consistent results. Temperatures on the last decades have been rising much in agreement with the mainstream climate science.
How does Dr. Spencer respond to this?
(of course, I can post the references. I’m just omitting it for now because the links may be the cause of the previous censorship)
See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research
Not sure if this reply was directed to me, Noblesse. Was it? If yes, this poll only shows how strong is the contrast between the perception of American Adults about the disagreement within the scientific community (57%), and the large agreement (97 vs 1) among climate scientists themselves.
And of course, none of these figures address my previous post’s question.
Sorry, everyone is arguing for nothing. The world economy can not take the measures that the global warming people want. China will still go full blast and play lip service as will everyone else. The Marxist movements trying to control everything in countries will be stifled by common sense survival of economies. It is hilarious that the global warming people have carbon footprints higher than 99% of the world population and jump in private and jumbo jets flying all over the world in there hipocracy selling there chicken little theories and sparing no luxury for their own lifestyle. One thing for sure is that global warming scientist contribute nothing to the prosperity of the world and are essentially leeches on the economy and winers. On the subject of the science. I’m only a computer scientist, but have played a significant part in production of technologies that save lives, enhance lifestyles and billions of dollars of prosperity in the world. Many others in my country, the US, have done the same thing and we are able to spend untold amounts of our prosperity to help the world and saving lives. I understand complex modeling and data systems very well. Given he information I have read in these papers, I argue that if anyone thinks they have adequate data to predict anything in a data system that is so complex is crazy. I would bet Al Gores private jet that they have not identified 10% of the required data to even come close to a reasonable prediction.
Oh yeah, 99% of alchemist agree that they can create gold. 1% denialist.
Will the Genius
The difficulty of the solution does not say anything about the reality of the problem. Atmospheric physics will not change just because it won’t fit our economic/political/geopolitical agenda. CO2 will not stop obstructing infrared radiation just because China will need more energy.
It does make denialism much more inviting, though.
And again, your argument does not address my question on Aug 4th above.
There is no problem until you can prove that you have all of the information. I am trying to prove dr spenser’s paper. I am saying that an adequate data model does not exist to predict the future of climate based on adding co2 or whatever. It is easy to make a model that agrees with the past, right. Please tell me about the next 5 years of what will happen that will be so different from typical climate changes that would indicate some truth in any modeling. In the past I heard snows would not come, hurricanes like Katrina would be worse the next years after Katrina. All news from the climate modelers, wrong.
Will the Genius wrote
All news from the climate modelers, wrong.
Not really, and that’s the point of my original post.
“News from climate modellers” (at least the more broadly accpeted ones) match observations quite well.
I’m having trouble posting links here, but you can Google this paper yourself:
Rahmstorf et al. 2007, “Recent Climate Observations Comapared to Projections”
Dr. Spencer’s models, on the other hand, fail to pass standard validation procedure.
I read your reference, wow it says the problem might be worse that they even thought, meaning we really need to listen to them and do something sooner. Alarm.
How do you measure accurate water levels when there is no fixed points. The earth is spinning and orbiting, the moon, sun and other planets are pulling on water and all land is floating on plates in a sea of molten lava. Really?
I think the best way to test the model is that we greatly increase our use of fossil fuels for 50 years, eliminate all of the co2 restricting regulations and concentrate on clean air and water within reason so that we can develop real alternative energy that is efficient and clean. The extra food produced from additional co2 and great prosperity for the earth that will come from these changes would provide us the ability to develop the new efficient technologies that make financial sense, then we phase out the less efficient fossil fuels across the world and in the following 5 to 10 years we look for a trend difference and try to subtract the normal climate change that would be happening without us.
This would be a good test that makes sense and would give the best chance at proving the theories of the climate scientist, otherwise, I suggest you are working from a grossly incomplete data set and have no idea as to how to subtract the earth’s normal climate change from human effects.
I have seen no proof that our current climate change we are experiencing now is any different than if we had no input into the system. And the current climate models may just be attempting to model climate that has nothing to do with our influence.
If I do not understand how sea level is measured, than it must of course have been made up. Should’ve thought of that before, of course.
It’s easy to discard whatever evidence that we don’t like, isn’t it?
Well, just for the record, I still would like to know Dr. Spencer’s response to the fact that his models fail to reproduce periods outside his calibration one, while the models he attacks match observations.
——-v
If I do not understand how sea level is measured, than it must of course have been made up. Should’ve thought of that before, of course.
——-^
I did not say it was made up and you are right I do not know there method. But I am saying that I do not think it is possible to determine the causes and effects in the system.
——-v
It’s easy to discard whatever evidence that we don’t like, isn’t it?
——-^
I am not discarding, i am arguing that evidence is valid at all in some cases and definitely the cause of the so called evidence. I do feel that some things are accurately measurable e.g. Air temperature, pressure, components in air. These measurements are at points in time and specific locations which is problematic in modeling this as a system.
——v
Well, just for the record, I still would like to know Dr. Spencer’s response to the fact that his models fail to reproduce periods outside his calibration one, while the models he attacks match observations.
——^
My argument is that nobody’s model is complete and nothing can be determined from an incomplete model or I should say one that misses significant components. I think all of the information is interesting, the documentation of reactions and interactions of some of the components of earth’s environment. Too many unknowns. Just because I take a temperature over time graph and overlay my underwear changing schedule does not mean that future temperatures data can determine my underwear changing schedule.
You seem to be missing my argument. I am saying that I do not think any of the models have adequate data to determine what they are claiming to determine. So, constantly asking why one model matches observations and one model does not matter to me since I think that none of the model have adequate data to determine anything.
We know climate trends, and we have some historical information as to the past and of course a goal of any model would be to make it work for the past and then have is follow the trend for predictions into the future, that would be fairly trivial and probably work reasonably going into future until a trend changed then it would fall apart.
When I mentioned ocean level measurements, I was commented on how difficult it is to determine accurately something that we know may be an indicator of melting ice assuming everything else constant, which it is not and the set of other effects may not all be identified.
My point is that there are to many variables and we only know some of them. If we had 2 earths and one had no input from humans and the other having many input (burning fossil fuels…) then we could maybe come close to determining the effects. But, trying to determine anything in with the current data set is only coincidental and trends programmer into the model. We do not have a way of predicting trend changes without any inputs from humans. Trying to wreck the economy of the world and go to some environmental socialistic controlled system on such poor data is lunacy. Everyone can see what socialism is doing to the world right now when the government of the entitled run out other people’s money.
I always think it is funny when they talk about renewable resources which are currently windmills and solar panels, these things require manufacturing, installation, need maintenance, repair and have finite life. But oil is a very natural component that the earth manufactures whether we need it of not. And before we were here, oil was here and pooled up on surface and ignited by lightening and burned for years or until a rainstorm may have overcome the the fire only to happen again in the future. Same thing happened for coal. We seem to have plenty of these sources to create prosperity and provide us the ability to develop other sources, this is good. Why would we try to destroy this opportunity to have world prosperity to jam inefficient energy sources to prosperous societies. We put out oil fires and refine it and put it in our cars so that we can increase our standard of life for all. When we burn it in our cars it has a purpose and we try to make the byproduct cleaner than if it burned in a tar pit.
It’s interesting, that the US has become prosperous enough to spend a very small faction of our GDP on helping the hungry. The IPCC wants an amount larger than that to spend on this so called “issue”. In addition wanting restrictions that would further reduce our GDP and property. So, we like other countries will be unable to help feed the hungry as we do now. So, any actions from this research better be correct because many will die if any of this is implemented. We know this for sure since people die of starvation now and more will die if we have less ability to provide. No model need to prove that.
Alexandre, I am sure you are intelligent and may have a point in the way you are looking at data. I think research in this field is important to do, but demanding changes on speculative predictions is not the right thing to do. It would help if a model is created and has a historical record of predictions and could predict a trend change. I know it’s annoying to see capitalist seemingly rape the world of resources and keep much for themselves, but they serve an important part in providing the world’s prosperity. Anyone that is provided the ability to do research into things that interest them are the lucky one and would not exist without the capitalist doing their job. You may no believe the system works that way but I do not want to live in a cave and eat dirt.
Will,
There are two separate debates here.
One of them is the reality of the problem. There are ways to find out if the present warming is because of ocean cycles, solar irradiance increase or atmospheric changes (or whatever other cause). You seem to have a limited knowledge about this part, like when you assume climate models are some kind of statistical extrapolation of the past, or a blind assumption that the future will be just more of the current trend (correct me if I did not understand you appropriately). You’re missing the physical understanding of the process. There are more tangible evidence of this than you seem to be aware. The comparision between projections and observations should have made you raise some questions about your own perception of the present science – like “hey, either these guys were terribly lucky, or they might know what they’re talking about”.
The other debate is what is the appropriate response to the problem. Here we can mix whatever ideology/economic theory/belief/moral issues/ethical issues we like. On this debate, you can even sustain that the free market is so powerful that it can solve such diffuse externalities on its own (remains to be seen…). But even here, you seem to have formed your opinion from secondary sources, like when you mention what “the IPCC wants us to do”. Try to check the IPCC report itself to figure that out.
Just don’t make the mistake of (involuntarily, I’m sure) dismissing science and evidence because the solution you think is proposed is a bad one.
Alexandre,
–v
One of them is the reality of the problem. There are ways to find out if the present warming is because of ocean cycles, solar irradiance increase or atmospheric changes (or whatever other cause).
–^
I agree that climate sometime changes.
I cannot find definitive evidence that we are currently in a warming cycle. It seem to be in argument.
There is a huge argument over the reality of the problem. And if I believed in global warming/co2, and since I understand phase diagrams in which “tipping points” would come into play, I would not be driving in cars, flying in jets, experiencing luxury (since providing it is so co2 intensive). So, it is hard to understand scientist that believe this still participate in being the biggest contributors on earth. So, that makes me a little skeptical of their true belief. Instead of everyone going to luxury locations for their conferences, has anyone heard of skype, video conferencing?
You start to list factors that could influence climate, how many factors are in the total list? How many data points for each factor is required to determine anything? How are these factors weighted?
If I believed in this “stuff” I would define the factors, set specific data points needed (sensing points of contributing factors), then I would determine enough data points to show warming or cooling. Then I would publish the equation so that people could do it themselves and then as data points are collected over time they should agree with the model created. For a simplified example, sense co2 and vehicle ton miles. Then show the current noontime and midnight average temperature around world, then as time goes on anyone can plug in data and see if the average temperature agrees with model. All of this would be simplified so that most people can understand. If an anomaly occurs, it should correct over time. Does this exist?
The current believers seems to consist of two groups socialist and people that believe people that talking in three dollar phrases such as “diffuse externalities”, which is sufficiently confusing trying to determine what you are talking about but because of the pseudoscientific jargon, it must be right. You criticize many of my opinions because I do not have the breath of knowledge on the subject that you and others do. But if you cannot explain your reasoning in a way that others can understand then it indicates a lack of understanding on your part or obscuring something. You also have to understand that the techniques used by advocates have been used since the beginning of time and always demands action and money from others so that we can save you, so your movement is not even close to proving anything. Also, no I do not ignore science, I love science and have been involved in it all of my life. My field is very different than a climatologist, but would anyone really enter the field without believing in global warming before entering the science?
–v
You seem to have a limited knowledge about this part, like when you assume climate models are some kind of statistical extrapolation of the past, or a blind assumption that the future will be just more of the current trend (correct me if I did not understand you appropriately). You’re missing the physical understanding of the process. There are more tangible evidence of this than you seem to be aware. The comparision between projections and observations should have made you raise some questions about your own perception of the present science – like “hey, either these guys were terribly lucky, or they might know what they’re talking about”.
–^
My knowledge is limited, I agree. I guess I am being kind of accusatory saying that they are just creating models that match the current trend and that they cherry pick their historical evidence. And make their model work for current trend. You say “tangible evidence” all I hear is cherry picking, anecdotal evidence and calls for drastic changes and demands for money. Everyone knows of the same situation but for cooling only a few decades ago, none of the predictions came true, so forgive my skepticism. The advocates have been associated with exceptional occurrences of fraud, so the chicken little arguments are not believed. As I said before, if this was truly believed, they would of used very different methods to get people to believe. That has not happened, just scare tactics and emergency we have to take drastic measures and look at me, I am important and all of this just coincidentally agrees with what one would do to convert a free society to a marxist society. I am sure this is only a coincidence, really.
So until it is put in a form that people that understand basic science and mathematics can easily understand it will not be believed. It seems the population that the movement is going for is the ones that have limited understanding of science and math and that they are the “I want to save the planet group”. Just that by itself is very suspect?
So before we convert Marxism for this “emergency” your going to have to convince the skeptics. I have no reason to be stubborn since I live on this planet too. But, you have not come close to separating from the other frauds over history and your techniques of convincing people follow the frauds instead of reasonable techniques of obtaining support for a theory.
Well, I just mostly read the IPCC report summary for policy makers and found more suspect information, many hockey stick graphs and red temperature charts but the most interesting thing was that everything in the report says is bad. Nothing like, even though all the bad stuff higher co2 levels will provide more food for world. I don’t know if you believe that but, I cannot believe every result is bad? Reading that makes me think even more that there is a fraud going on.
Good Day,
Will
I cannot find definitive evidence that we are currently in a warming cycle.
Would you know it if you saw one?
You criticize many of my opinions because I do not have the breath of knowledge on the subject that you and others do. But if you cannot explain your reasoning in a way that others can understand then it indicates a lack of understanding on your part or obscuring something.
I would be glad to walk you through it – as far as my own limitations would allow. One good starting point could be (just a suggestion) David Archer’s course at the University of Chicago. It’s about physics of global warming for non-science students. It’s available online. You can Google the words David Archer Video Lectures and you’ll find it (again the problem about posting links). Radiative properties of gases are nothing controversial.
But keep in mind that this requires some time and effort, like learning the basics of electronic circuits or calculating structures of buildings. Archer’s 20 (or so) lectures should cover the basics.
I don’t know if you believe that but, I cannot believe every result is bad?
This planet has had a CO2 concentration of 280ppm or less for quite a long time (as long as ice cores can reach, at least). Every organism on Earth has adapted to it. There’s nothing strange in the fact that we all work well under this condition. OTOH, it would be quite peculiar if the optimal CO2 level for living beings were outside this range.
But there are marginal and local good effects, yes. They’re known to science, like the better vegetation growing under controlled conditions, like actual glass greenhouses. It gets more complicated in the real world, though.
Good day to you too.