Little Feedback on Climate Feedbacks in the City by the Bay
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) here in San Francisco this week is amazing for it’s sheer size: many thousands of Earth scientists presenting talks and posters on just about every Earth science subject imaginable.
Today was my chance (PDF of presentation) to try to convince other scientists who work on the critical issue of feedbacks in the climate system that some fundamental mistakes have been made that have misled climate researchers into believing that the climate system is quite sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions. A tough sell in only 14 minutes.
It was standing room only…close to 300 scientists by my estimate. There were only a couple of objections to my presentation…rather weak ones. Afterward I had a number of people comment favorably about the ‘different’ way I was looking at the problem.
And while that should be comforting, it is also disturbing. Since when in science did the issue of ‘causation’ become a foreign concept? When did the direction of causation between two correlated variables (in my case, clouds and temperature) become no longer important?
If temperature and clouds vary together in ‘sort of’ the same way in satellite observations as they do in climate models, then the models are considered to be ‘validated’. But my message, which might not have come across as clearly as it should have due to time constraints, was that such agreement does NOT validate the models when it comes to feedback, and feedbacks are what will determine how much of an impact humans have on the climate system.
Andrew Lacis, who works climate modeling with Jim Hansen, came up and said he agreed with me that, in general, the feedback problem is more difficult than people have been assuming. In a talk after mine, Graeme Stephens gave me a backhanded compliment when he agreed with at least my basic message that the way in which we assume the climate system functions (in my terms, what-causes-what to happen) IS important to how we then deduce how sensitive the climate is to such things as our carbon dioxide emissions.
The three organizers of the session were very gracious to invite me, since they knew my views are controversial. One of the three was Andrew Dessler, who works in water vapor feedback. I had never met Andy before, and he’s a super nice guy. They all agreed that there needs to be more debate on the subject.
But most of the talks presented followed the recipe that has become all too common in recent years: analyze the output of climate models that predict substantial global warming, and simply assume the models are somewhere near correct.
There seems to be great reluctance to consider the possibility that these computerized prophets of doom, which have required so many scientists and so much money and so many years to develop, could be wrong. I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data in details that are beyond even what has been done with the complex climate models…and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.
Besides, since my simple model would predict very little manmade global warming, it must be wrong. After all, we know that manmade global warming is a huge problem. All of the experts agree on that. Just ask Al Gore and the mainstream news media.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post. It alludes to the experimental bias greenie weenies load into their models and “experiments”
This whole thing must be extremely frustrating for you skeptical scientists (sad that I have to make that distinction). Heads high, guys. Some of us really appreciate all you are doing. There will be vindication somewhere down the line.
>…Just ask Al Gore and the mainstream news media.
Most of us would prefer to ask people like you. Thanks Dr. Spencer.
It was standing room only…close to 300 scientists by my estimate. There were only a couple of objections to my presentation…rather weak ones. Afterward I had a number of people comment favorably about the ‘different’ way I was looking at the problem.
And while that should be comforting, it is also disturbing. Since when in science did the issue of ‘causation’ become a foreign concept? When did the direction of causation between two correlated variables (in my case, clouds and temperature) become no longer important?
If temperature and clouds vary together in ‘sort of’ the same way in satellite observations as they do in climate models, then the models are considered to be ‘validated’. But my message, which might not have come across as clearly as it should have due to time constraints, was that such agreement does NOT validate the models when it comes to feedback, and feedbacks are what will determine how much of an impact humans have on the climate system.
I for one would be extremely happy if the debate were to continue along these lines. Even if we discover CO2 is a dangerous driver of climat, and we need to curb emissions, I would still be happy (at least content, not happy as such).
May dialogues such as this prosper and draw both fruit and other real scientists into the light once more.
At least you were invited to give a presentation. My one reason for optimism at the moment is the fact that the AGW proponents are increasingly having to admit that the science is not “settled”. Climategate has provided us with an opportunity to force the mainstream to revisit the basic thesis of AGW at every level from feedback mechanisms in climate models to temperature reconstructions from tree rings.
“I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data in details that are beyond even what has been done with the complex climate models…”
Which is how it usually is. There’s nothing like a mass of complexity to hide the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Nice, Roy. At chemistry meetings, it’s pretty much the same– 20 minutes to get your information across. It’s about the minimum time any scientist has to make a concrete point. Sorry your was cut short by “protests”, which cut into your time.
Dr. Spencer–
Many thanks for posting here. THIS is real science, because it is assembling feedback data first and then going about deducing the right hypothesis from the data. The AGW movement has been doing the opposite for over 20 years.
It is, as you say disturbing, that your work is controversial. Your work is sound science, and frankly sound logic. It’s what all scientists should be doing. Your work is controversial because by challenging AGW orthodoxy, you put their funding at risk. The AGW movement is driven by carbon trading schemers and ‘Gaia’ kooks. The scientists are along for the ride because of the grant funding the money changers line up for them. That’s how AGW rolls. So wrong.
As to science, I am no more than a fascinated voyeur. My stronger points are logic and history, which I taught at the college level.
As a logician, it bothers me that we do not ask Question #1: would warming be bad?
As an historian, I know the answer: the warming periods our race has experienced have been joyous, positive, halcyon days for humanity.
Harumph!
Bullshit baffles brains.
This is nice and simple and very clear unlike the AGWarriors.
Now when will charges be laid against Jones, Mann et al?
Did Ben punch anybody yet?
“There seems to be great reluctance to consider the possibility that these computerized prophets of doom, which have required so many scientists and so much money and so many years to develop, could be wrong. I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data in details that are beyond even what has been done with the complex climate models…and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.”
There is a French saying that goes: “Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué? (Why do simple when you can do complicated?)
For those looking for more details on the content of Dr Spencer’s presentation:
This appears to be a draft/background from his blog:
Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System?
December 6th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-predictions-be-tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
Seems that at Al Gore and Goldman Sachs’ Chicago Carbon Exchange, you can buy carbon credits for 10USC/MT, down from a dollar in June. That is they have lost 90% of their nominal value.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Next time you meet a warmist, ask them if they have any “green” investments. If they say yes, point out politely that their interest may be colouring their view.
If they say no, ask them why not? After all, at 10c they can hardly fall much further. Hell I might buy myself a coupla hundred Mt just for the hell of it.
I can’t help feeling that you might as well have stood before a flock of Archbishops, who were discussing the 7 days of creation, stating that there is evidence that the earth is actually several billion years old – and giving evidence to support your idea. The religious elite smile and nod, and say encouraging words.. “interesting way of seeing things, young man…” before moving on to discuss whether The Almighty drank coffee or iced tea during work breaks.
Spencer should consider writing another post to explain this a bit more. It seems as if the role of clouds is a key to the question of how much CO2 matters, and I get the sense that Spencer has a different way of thinking about this, but I honestly found the PDF to be incomprehensible.
I think it is important when he said, “I’m trying to spread the word: Let’s go back to basics and look at what we can and cannot do with measurements of the real climate system to validate both climate models and their predictions”. Now if even that could be achieved it would be a breakthrough. It is sad that it would constitute a breakthrough – imagine that, examine measurements with a view to validation of models and predictions. Who’d of thunk.
Well done Roy.
“..and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.” Spot on: I spent too many hours of my career listening to talks on mathematical models by twerps who, when asked why their work should be viewed as being superior to what had gone before, would say it was because their models were more “sophisticated”. Partly, I suspect, this just reflects a typical character defect of the sort of p[eople who get absorbed by mathematical modelling, but partly it was a lack of good judgement caused by their narrow experience – typically they did no experimental work.
@Tom
Here is a link to the what Dr. Spencer was presenting at the meeting in SF. This is very easy to read and understand, especially when you see the satellite graphs where it clearly shows the loopback from cooling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Great read Dr. Spencer……What happened to the KISS method? It would seem that the more complicated you make something the bigger the chance that there will be an error or break down with in it. If it is to complicated then one runs the risk of not being able to find it especially if you are not well versed in modeling or computer programing as shown in the e-mail leaks. But if you need to hide something with in the model or program then complicated is the way to go. I have read your blog many times Dr. thank you for being a voice with fresh ideas even if they are considered ” controversial”.
Wayne Richards, you ask a good question, but perhaps in logic the question “what is the correct temperature of the earth, and why?” would have priority?
Also, am I right in logic in asserting that the simplest explanation for the continued existence, after however many billion years, of the biosphere, is that the globe does NOT contain a mechanism for runaway catastrophic climate change? As one always has to point out to warmists, that does not DISprove AGW, but it places the onus on them to make their case, not on the sceptics to refute it.
Since when in science did the issue of ‘causation’ become a foreign concept?
Scientists are people too. They believe what the tv and Hollywood tells them.
If the earth is “sick” and climate scientists are the the diagnosticians, then you’d think they would greet less alarming diagnoses with relief, not scorn. The patient may not be dying, after all. It’s certainly worth investigating. But the clergy of climate science are not interested in accurate diagnoses. Not anymore. They stopped being scientists a long time ago. They are planetary saviors now. Like the Blues Brothers, they are on a mission from God. Ends justify means, and the issue of anthropogenic global warming is not the issue. The issue is CONTROL. The issue is CONTROL. The issue is CONTROL.
“But most of the talks presented followed the recipe that has become all too common in recent years: analyze the output of climate models that predict substantial global warming, and simply assume the models are somewhere near correct.”
I’ve been working in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for over 20 years, and this recipe is used in our discipline as well. That is, run a flat plate boundary layer with your CFD code, show how great the agreement is with experiment, then run your code on a full jet aircraft aerodynamics simulation and assume your results are equally as accurate! However, nature and non-linearity have a funny way of humbling you…
Since I know how difficult even some very basic fluid dynamics problems are to solve with standard Navier-Stokes solvers, I am amazed that people doing climate modeling ascribe so much validity to their models given that the problem they’re attempting to solve is 10 times more complex – particularly when it comes to predictions (or projections) that are supposed to represent the state of the climate 50 years from now. There is no way, in my mind, that those solutions can remain uncorrupted by numerical error given they utilize essentially the same time-marching approaches as used for numerical weather forecasting. And I’m convinced it takes a lot of tuning to even get the hindcasts right.
Then, of course, there is the issue of code documentation and validation, which (in my opinion) groups like NASA GISS do very poorly, lending little confidence in their results…
Our supreme leader Gordon Brown PM leading the world.