Comments on: New Paper from Roy Spencer: PDO and Clouds

By: Herbert

Herbert — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:00:18 +0000

st lucia…

This is one of the more useful reads I have had today….

By: Mhaze

Mhaze — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:58:52 +0000

To: Raven who referenced http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml saying “It appears they are coming to exactly opposition conclusions based on the same satellite data.”

A longer view than 2003-2008 is revealing. Charts follow from 1947 to present.

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=556

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:02:13 +0000

Dr. Spencer,

Can you comment on this paper and explain how it relates to your research:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml

It appears they are coming to exactly opposition conclusions based on the same satellite data.

By: nobwainer

nobwainer — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:11:27 +0000

Is there a study of high, middle and lower cloud cover for just the pacific ocean over the past 30 yrs or so?
Studies in global patterns that show neg cloud effects on temperature might be hiding whats really going on over the pacific.

By: kim

kim — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:32:24 +0000

Sometimes I wonder if modern immunology might eventually put a base of science to much of the conjecture of homeopathy. Also, if you ever read the clinical notes of the early homeopaths, the attention to clinical detail was superlative, the interest in the patient and the signs and symptoms was outstanding, and the willingness to change therapeutic course was exemplary. They were accomplished clinicians.
=======================================

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:13:17 +0000

Glenn (12:10:06) :
I guess this is to increase the IPCC confidence level from 99 to 100%…
more likely to 101%…

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:12:09 +0000

JamesG (10:31:39) :
On sunspots I think you are being controversial are you not? [...] If you’re out of step with other solar scientists and astronomers then it’s customary to acknowledge that before declaring your own standpoint as being the absolute truth. Or have you convinced them all?
First, I have acknowledged that repeatedly [and it should not be necessary to to it in every posting. Second, "out of step" is too harsh. There is a growing acceptance of our work on the Sun's magnetic field and Sunspots, for some recent work on this see http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
staring with the full acceptance [even by Lockwood's group] of our finding that the aa-index [on which the famous 'doubling of the Sun's magnetic field was based] is wrongly calibrated. It takes time to wake people from their dogmatic slumber.

On your point about homeopathy I’d agree. I only point out that all such arguments apply equally – or perhaps even moreso – to CO2
And there is CO2 rearing its ugly head again. The CO2 controversy has nothing to do with whether the is a Sun-climate relationship.

By: Rhyl Dearden

Rhyl Dearden — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:58:41 +0000

People have started looking at Ship’s logs (100 000s of them) since they were first kept, to study weather patterns. I wait the outcome of this with interest.
Now I hope some scientists will collate the comparisons with AO, PDO etc. Sun spot activity, ENSO and LNSO and any other factor that can be used.

At least this will be about a real period of time to look at climate rather than concentrating on the past 100 or 50 or 30 or 10 years.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:10:06 +0000

“Through these field studies, scientists in DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program will gather crucial data on the complex interplay between radiation, clouds and aerosols — currently one of the main challenges in climate modeling.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/ddoe-doe102308.php

I guess this is to increase the IPCC confidence level from 99 to 100%…

By: JamesG

JamesG — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:31:39 +0000

Leif
I’m not attempting to link CO2 to the sun. I’m just pointing out that most of the hand-waving arguments put forward in support of CO2 as a causative agent are totally facile, being based on abject guesswork and I attempted to show that you could use exactly these same facile arguments for a sun correlation with just as much evidence (ie none at all). No argument based on guesswork has validity whether it is pro-sun or pro-CO2. Honestly I didn’t think I was being that subtle :-)

On sunspots I think you are being controversial are you not? There are good sunspot correlations shown on Sami Solanki’s site and a pretty good fit is made to the Armagh instrument measurements. If you’re out of step with other solar scientists and astronomers then it’s customary to acknowledge that before declaring your own standpoint as being the absolute truth. Or have you convinced them all? I’d remind you that Willie Soon still sees solar activity as showing excellent correlation in the Arctic – where, crucially ,post-hoc adjustments to the temperature data have been minimal.

On your point about homeopathy I’d agree. I only point out that all such arguments apply equally – or perhaps even moreso – to CO2, where complete guesswork is ritually presented as fact and a relatively tiny increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is presented as highly important without any other guide than a) an extremely poor correlation of rising CO2 to rising temperature, b) some overly simplistic physics and c) a ridiculous assumption that climate somehow acts just like an electric circuit.

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:00:39 +0000

I noticed this presentation which suggests that statopheric temperatures have stopped cooling for the last decade or more and even when there is a trend it is less than expected by the models:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/15isa14m/techprogram/paper_125889.htm

This strikes me as a rather signicant data point since the modellers always insist that straspheric cooling is the “signature” of GHGs.

I was wondering if Dr. Spencer could comment on whether this data actually re-enforces his argument that CO2 sensitivity has been over estimated.

By: ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING-AL GORE « Ragamuffin08’s Weblog

ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING-AL GORE « Ragamuffin08’s Weblog — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:25:31 +0000

[...] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/ [...]

By: Roy Spencer

Roy Spencer — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:53:10 +0000

Patrick:

Don’t trust the NOAA-15 AMSU data for channel 6 or “LT”…channel 6 has a calibration drift, and LT is also affected by that.

At some point I would like to replace the NOAA-15 data on that web page with AMSU data from NASAs Aqua satellite. The biggest problem with these sensors is that the calibration changes slightly with instrument temperature, and the NOAA polar-orbiters are not maintained in a sun-synchronous orbit.

The Aqua satellite has fuel that is used to maintain it in a constant orbit, so there are no year-to-year changes in instrument temperature, and we believe it’s calibration stability to be the best of any MSU/AMSU instrument yet.

By: Gorthaur

Gorthaur — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:31:57 +0000

Quote “If you want to do something useful, stop hiding behind web identities. Write a letter to the editor, write your elected representatives, but don’t post anonymous calls to action. Otherwise your voice is useless. – Anthony Watts”

You are quite right and normally I would. I’ve gotten close to a political leader in the last 2 years and because of this I must hide my ID for the time being ( for respect of those whom I associate with), I am actively fighting the AGW left from the inside.

I do read your blog on a daily bases and I’m a firm believer of Cosmoclimatology and hopefully more public funding will go in that direction.

I see a time line of two to five years before before the tide of public opinion can turn the media in its output. It is my firm belief that global poverty is the real issue of the 21st century.

Therefore I apologize for my use of my internet game name on this forum and I will not post again till my position in the political sphere is more secure.

Gor.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:53:39 +0000

Pet Rock (11:30:42) :
Do you agree that there is/was some/any historical significant correlation of sun (not TSI) with climate?
My stance is that no such correlation at a level that makes it player has been demonstrated to my satisfaction. It is likely that one day we’ll dig a valid correlation [one that has a causative agent] out of the noise, but it ain’t here yet. I’ll make an analogy to geomagnetic variations. There is an influence of the Moon on those variations. Only visible when you massage lots of high-quality data. But the effect is usually ignored because it is so small.