Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


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 no 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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Modeling and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back

  1. David Falkner says:

    I’m not sure if this is a repost from Dr. Spencer’s site, but:

    “…ancient events which we have virtually do data on…”

    is probably supposed to be:

    “…ancient events which we have virtually no data on…”

    Dessler’s comment struck me much in the same manner. Isn’t tweaking a model the purpose of modeling? And wasn’t there just a paper published tweaking the aerosols in the model and then claiming the aerosols caused the post-98 slowdown?

  2. R. de Haan says:

    If this exchange of comments is regarded as a game of chess, the empire is checkmate in two moves.

  3. omnologos says:

    I recommend we collect all silly retorts by the “usual suspects” and use them against their future works

  4. Robw says:

    The truth will out…
    I just love watching another card from the pillars of the AGW house get pulled out. The tide has definitely turned in favour of REAL SCIENCE.

  5. Dave Dodd says:

    Dissed by that bunch of bozos should be proudly worn as a badge of honor!

    Thank you, Dr. Spencer, et al

  6. On my first dive into the AGW debate I noted that Steve McIntyre made his points with math while the people at RealClimate stuck to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.

    Now everything is different but nothing has changed.

    Using the argument that “My model is better than your model.” is a transparent attempt to ignore that the data falsifies their model. Of course saying“I can’t believe that this ever got published” is just back to the tried and true ad hominem.

    I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.

  7. ChE says:

    “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

    Sounds like Bellarmine talking about Galileo.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Keep plugging away Roy, you’ve got them making incoherent statements now. The end is in sight.

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Trenberth and Fasullo also responded in a guest post at RealClimate:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

    The second sentence includes the obligatory: “News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites…”

    A note to Trenberth and Fasullo : That’s as far as I read. Your post began with nonsensical name calling, so I assumed the rest was nonsense.

  10. Don K says:

    “Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. ”

    This would be a spokesman for the same community of experts who failed to notice that Mann et.al’s hockey stick had dispensed with the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period? Paleoclimate indeed. Is there any evidence that Schmidt et. al. have any particular familiarity with the Paleoclimate record?

    And why wouldn’t one expect the paleoclimate record when interpreted by folks who know what they are doing to tell pretty much the same story told by current satellite data? Does Dr Spencer see any fundamental conflict between the two?

  11. DirkH says:

    Kevin Trenberth should be glad somebody has finally discovered where the missing heat went.

  12. “the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”

    Masterful irony! Does this remark presage a flurry of (harrassing) FOI requests from Trenberth et al?

  13. Doug Proctor says:

    For a science that is “settled”, and the outcome/processes, “certain” it is significant that Schmidt et al respond so vigourously and quickly to disagreements with their findings. A strong offence is the best defence and all that, but the lady’s protests make one wonder why she is so touchy. If the technical work is so solid, you’d think they would dismiss, disregard, yawn about Spencer thoughts, not set about dismembering it (with sarcastic bewilderment at its foolishness).

    Touche, Monsieur Spencer.

  14. Mike says:

    How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?

  15. ZT says:

    One of the most important laws in climatology is the reciprocal relationship between the time lag for Gavin’s riposte and the seriousness of the blow to the team. The nearly instant and vociferous attack here indicates that a) the team are very worried, and b) the team had possession of the paper prior to publication

    By the way – inviting the team to ‘become a little more creative’ is probably not wise. These are the people who think nothing of deleting incriminating emails, faking their graphs, and redefining peer review and the scientific method.

    You’d think that if the science was so settled their bile would be a little more contained, wouldn’t you?

  16. PaulH says:

    The “Bad Astronomer” is flustered as well, including himself with the usual suspects:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    It’s not clear whether he read the entire article either.

  17. Latitude says:

    Wait a minute…….

    I thought the science was settled

    /snarc

    Keep going after them Dr. Roy, you’re my hero

  18. James Sexton says:

    lol, Doc, yeh, you’ve sent them over the deep end on this one. Discover magazine did an exceptional job of including the most logical fallacies in one little article than I ever remember seeing in so few words.

    Apparently, J. Taylor also authors for the Heartland institute and they once got money from Exxon, so, we should ignore your science. I once have a cousin, twice removed, married to a guy that inherited land with an oil well on it, so….. I guess, I can never publish. I’m immediately disqualified because of my obvious bias.

    And, yes, they did quote the Kev in the article, too. And apparently you are an advocate of ID….. so, there you go. Apparently your are part of the “far right”. Which, btw, hates the Big Bang…… I never knew we didn’t like comedic piano bars, ……..
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    Someone should tell that mental giant, Phil Plait, that the Big Bang theory was introduced by Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

  19. Athelstan. says:

    Dr. Spencer, the greater the indignation, the closer you must be to the truth.

    “Usual suspects”, is right, ‘tweaking models’ – who patented that ‘technique’?

    And then we could start on the T record and get into tree ring proxy data sets……………couldn’t we KEN?

    May I suggest lads, that you put your own house in order, not that there is much of value therein.

  20. Tallbloke I think Roys response would best go along these lines

    Take gavin’s words

    “The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.”

    Forget Dressler and Trenberth, forget their incoherency. Take gavin’s statement and draw the logical conclusion. Gavin has given 3 possibilities. I think Roys approach of showing a simple model that is consistent with the observations, doesnt address the uncertainty. It hints that the error may be in the models, it doesnt prove it. To prove it one needs to eliminate gavins objections one by one

    1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
    2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.
    3. Errors in the models: need to get specific here.

    I think Gavin is making a very coherent statement. he doesnt deny the mismatch. He tells you clearly what issues need to be addressed. Knock those issues down one by one and your left with a conclusion that he cant deny. The models are too warm. Time to figure out why, exactly. But first, steps one and 2

  21. Pamela Gray says:

    If there are serious disagreements and there are plausible proofs of these disagreements, they should put it in the journal as a rebuttal letter. Off the cuff pithy comments not followed by such serious published debate are decidedly unprofessional.

  22. James Sexton says:

    Maurice Garoutte says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:08 am

    I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.
    ===============================================================
    Nope, nothing has changed, ……. “He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.”

    Of course, Heartland doesn’t receive funding from Exxon, but we shouldn’t let little facts like that get in the way of a good smear attempt. Why bother with the truth when lies can further an agenda?
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

  23. RockyRoad says:

    “Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

    “I cannot believe it got published”

    Were Kevin talking about the missing heat, perhaps it is his missing heat that we don’t believe now.

    On the whole, it looks like The Team is fearful of becoming irrelevant. Oh, did I say “becoming”, because this has not been a good month for CAGW acolytes. (It kind of reminds me of the Debt Ceiling crisis–whether spending yourself to death or circumventing the truth, it eventually catches up with you and no amount of groveling, grousing, or griping will reverse the inevitable.)

  24. Hoser says:

    The other side are shaped by group-think. That’s why “scientific consensus” has traction. It’s done for political reasons, since AGW has a political basis. For one thing, it’s funded by government to justify the regulations they want to impose on us.

    Consequently, since there are more of them, they can get away with holding skeptics to a higher standard. There is power in the group. Group thinkers are afraid of unrestrained individuals. Power in the hands of persons disconnected from a group association are considered dangerous to members of herds. Those working supposedly for the good of the group are protected, even after making serious errors, because they meant well.

    Herds form as a means of protection from a perceived threat. Freedom is traded for a sense of safety. I don’t think anyone is surprised by the reaction to the paper. I’m afraid the only way to break the hold of the herd masters is to demonstrate that the real threat is AGW itself. We get it. Unfortunately, we lack a strong majority who realize the cost of AGW policies in lost jobs, lower standard of living, higher prices, invasion of privacy, wasted tax revenue, growing police state, etc.

  25. James Sexton says:

    Hmm, and again another comment went to never, never land?

  26. R. Gates says:

    What group did the original peer review of the paper? If the answer is there was none, then you can consider the comments by these other others as the post-publication peer review.

    In reading their comments it does seem as though Dr. Spencer’s analysis would lead to the notion of clouds forcing the ENSO cycle whereas quite the opposite is the case as clouds are a result of a release of heat from the oceans. This also goes to the widespread belief by some that La Nina “cooling” means less energy in the system, when in fact the suppression of cloud formation during La Nina episodes is a time when more net heat is being absorbed by the ocean.

  27. Scott Brim says:

    Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000-2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find it is not possible with current methods to quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

    Dr. Spencer, in your opinion, what kinds of new observational techniques, what kinds of new empirical data and evidence, and what kinds of new analysis methods would be necessary to determine with reasonable certainty what the atmosphere’s CO2 sensitivity actually is?

    In other words, what should we be doing in observing directly how the atmosphere actually responds to higher CO2 concentrations that we are not doing now?

  28. RockyRoad says:

    Steven Mosher asserts three possibilities:

    1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
    2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.
    3. Errors in the models: need to get specific here.

    Numbers 1 and 2 are moot points, Steven, and aren’t that critical to the outcome (or let the modelers expose the data processing errors and/or errors in the data since they’re making these fantastic allegations).

    Simply jump to step 3, get the model code, adjust the forcing factors downward until the results fit the empirical data, and report the differences in the factors. The results will show they’ve been too aggressive in their warming assumptions (which isn’t surprising because who would pay for a model that’s not a news headliner, right?). End of argument.

  29. pat says:

    Accurate data has always been the bugaboo to Warmists. Which is why, of course, they spend so much time censoring and altering data.

  30. Enneagram says:

    As Tallbloke says: The end is in sight..; and as the chinese philosopher said: “Wait in your front door and you´ll see the corpses of your enemies passing by”

  31. Smokey says:

    Mike says:

    “How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”

    Good question. Because as Mike should know, the Climategate emails exposed the plain fact that there exists a conspiracy between climate journals and climate charlatans like Mann, Jones, etc., to sabotage any skeptical scientist who submits a paper that deviates from the alarmist narrative.

    The conspiracy is exposed in the emails. Mike should read them to learn about the corruption of the journals first hand, written by the scheming perpetrators themselves.

  32. Slabadang says:

    Trenberth from RC!

    “To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model. ”

    Isnt that just fantastic!! Trenberth havent understood that the buty with Spencers observations dont need that as the data is everything included. Hes arguing to fix something that isnt there and defelitely nott broken.

    The final comment is:

    “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).”

    When a layman like my self realize that his is talking BS and tries to avoid the actual discrepancy between models and observations by laying smooke screens

  33. Chris Jarrett says:

    Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.

  34. rbateman says:

    You can’t harvest the crop before it has ripened, unless you like sour grapes and bad wine.
    The unsrupulous, however, will try to sell you a green crop as the real thing.

  35. jaypan says:

    @steven mosher
    “The models are too warm” and now Dr. Spencer should prove why?
    It’s not his models, right?

  36. Tilo Reber says:

    I’ve seen Roy Spencer and Keving Trenberth testify before congress together, and I must say, that Trenberth has this tendency to make these huge absurd judgements based on absolutely no evidence. Trenberth is the guy who long ago stated that CO2 forcing + feedback was always going to be strong enough to overcome natural variation. So here we are, with thirteen years of no warming and Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat. It’s like a guy searching for his wife in his house long after his wife has left him.

  37. Joe Bastardi says:

    There is no evidence of any trapping hot spots at 400 mb where their modeling is claiming it will be, and hence the positive feedback. Roys work merely confirms what Roy and the rest of us already know.. In fact with the oceanic and solar cycles changing, global temps in the long haul are going to go the other way. That is not a bold prediction given what is occurring.

  38. James Sexton says:

    Smokey says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Mike says:

    “How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”

    Good question. Because as Mike should know, the Climategate emails exposed the plain fact that there exists a conspiracy between climate journals and climate charlatans like Mann, Jones, etc., to sabotage any skeptical scientist who submits a paper that deviates from the alarmist narrative.
    ===============================================================

    And, as Dr. Spencer alludes, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”…. the Kev is part of the gate-keeping team.

    Now, why and how the Gav and the Kev think they’re qualified to comment on a study by Dr. Spencer, essentially interpreting satellite data, is beyond me. If I thought the data was flawed, I go to an expert and ask…… perhaps Dr. Christy or someone at RSS. Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum?….. not so much.

  39. Latitude says:

    “I cannot believe it got published”

    “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

  40. R. Gates says:

    Mike says:

    “How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”

    Then Smokey says:
    “The conspiracy is exposed…”

    ____
    Peer review is now a conspiracy? The Spencer and Braswell paper is now getting the review is should have had before being published.

  41. Doug in Seattle says:

    The ball is back on Dr. Spencer’s side of the net after Trenberth, et al give a weak return. Now its time for the spike. Perhaps Kirby or Svensmark will take the honors.

  42. JDN says:

    @Roy:
    Everything you say depends on that CERES satellite working the way you think it should. How does it perform the measurements? Does it look at total irradience on a panel and the deconvolve to determine radiance from a point on the earth, or, does it look down at the earth in blocks and then reassemble the angular distributiion of radiance? Or something else? There are so many devils in that detail that you shouldn’t blindly accept the data. So, can you comment on why this satellite is measuring what you need to determine the radiation budget?

  43. KnR says:

    In a way Spencer should be grateful , three hundred years ago these ‘characters. would have been calling for him to be burnt at the stake for daring to suggest anything that part of the established dogma .
    They have no choice their entire professional life and standard in tied up in AGW , they will defended to the dearth as their so far in that can’t back out . So they attack blindly not even knowing what it is they attack , all that really matters is that they react to any challenge to the dogma .

  44. Steve Garcia says:

    Roy:

    (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)

    Almost no single paper in science is a “proof” of anything. Each one stands as evidence of what it argues. The total body of evidence from multiple papers comprises the proof.

    The “consensus,” i.e., the bulk of peer-reviewed papers does, in fact*, argue against Dr. Spencer’s side of things. The “*” is there because with the Trenberth-ian efforts to control what makes it through the peer-review process, we may not ever know what the true balance is between one side’s arguments and the other. In emails exchanged a few years ago with Dr. George Taylor, who was then the Oregon State Climatologist, George talked about how the older climatologists – who were much less convinced by the consensus – had realized that it was a madhouse (my word, not his) and that to argue against CAGW was to invite serious funding problems, and a large number of them were simply lying low.

    Well, Dr. Spencer has not lain low, thank goodness. The discussion over at SlashDot on his paper is almost entirely picking on nits, as far as I can see, with the bulk saying either that he hasn’t “proven” anything (see above), or that some sentence in his paper argues against himself, or that it doesn’t trump anything – besides the ones that point out that, after all, this is Dr. Roy Spencer, and this is UAH, so what else can we expect out of him? (Many there seem to also confuse climate warming itself with anthropogenic warming; they can’t understand that it might be warming for reasons other than human activity (or human activity other than CO2), so they see any warming as proof that mankind is evil – intentionally so – and will, some day, stalk and kill Bambi’s mother, so that our grandkids won’t have Bambi anymore like we did.)

    The first real point, as I see it, comes from Einstein, in his point that it only takes ONE real, solid, uncompromising fact to disprove a theory and that consensus means nothing in the face of that fact.

    The second real point is that as long as there can be found holes in the CAGW theory – as long as there are any tangible facts arguing the other way – the science cannot not be settled.

    I give Dr. Spencer a lot of credit for sticking to his scientific guns and being an adult among a bunch of immature fellow scientists who have gone off half-cocked in a wrong direction because of what they WANT to be true. I would define “immature scientists” as ones who want something to be true, so they garner facts to fit their desired conclusion, rather than let the facts point them to an objective conclusion. It is a lot like being infatuated with someone and only being able to see her/his good points; reality will educate them eventually – but in the meantime the adults in the room have to put up with all the gushing and cow eyes. And no matter what the adults say, the immature ones will defend their POV assiduously. Though he is well outnumbered, he keeps pointing out the errors of their ways.

    Science is not about jumping to conclusions and then corralling facts to suit that conclusion. If conclusions do arise, they can only be tentative at first, and then science’s job is to derive enough tests that can falsify them. If correct, the conclusion will pass. In a complex field such as climatology, one such test is not enough to prove or disprove the entirety – but it does swing the pendulum one way or another. This paper swings the pendulum a little bit away from the CAGW conclusion, and the immature scientists “on the other side” aren’t happy about it. Big deal. The adult scientists on the other side and in the middle should be able to judge what it does to the overall state of things.

  45. Tilo Reber says:

    Steven Mosher:
    “1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
    2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.”

    LOL. This is true of any studies that use emperical data. And studies that don’t use emperical data don’t tell us anything.

    Mosher: “I think Gavin is making a very coherent statement. he doesnt deny the mismatch. He tells you clearly what issues need to be addressed. Knock those issues down one by one and your left with a conclusion that he cant deny.”

    Gavin is grasping at straws. If you could satisfy one and two he would find some other straw to grasp. Take the Church and White study that we just looked at. Suppose I said that “well, it may not be true because there may be data processing errors or errors in the data”. But let’s say that I gave no evidence of these errors. I just asserted the possibility and rejected Church and White on that basis. Would you buy that and expect Church and White to prove that there were no errors in their data processing or their data? I don’t think so.

  46. Smokey says:

    Gates says:

    “Peer review is now a conspiracy?”

    Of course, as anyone who has read the damning Climategate emails knows. Even Gates’ famously closed-minded cognitive dissonance can’t get around that fact.

  47. Steve Garcia says:

    A bit OT here, but the prosecutor Trenberth brought it up, so the defense is allowed a wider latitude…

    @Slabadang July 30, 2011 at 10:19 am:

    Trenberth from RC!

    “During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño…

    I’d like to know how he can assert this. I’ve searched high and low and can’t find out where the scientists say the heat energy for El Niño comes from. I know, Trenberth has much better access to sources than I do. I would have this question: What paper explains the mechanisms of HOW the La Niña “uptakes” and “stores” the heat? I’d like to see exactly what assumptions are behind this assertion. I have a hypothesis in the back of my head that I’d like to falsify and get rid of, if it is worthless.

  48. Interstellar Bill says:

    Here missing heat, here missing heat, heat, heat, wherever you are.
    I have lots more delicious grant $billions, fresh from a bankrupt government’s printing presses…
    Please, please, come out and rescue our scam, it’s almost too late!

  49. Brian says:

    James Sexton says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:55 am

    “lol, Doc, yeh, you’ve sent them over the deep end on this one. Discover magazine did an exceptional job of including the most logical fallacies in one little article than I ever remember seeing in so few words.

    Apparently, J. Taylor also authors for the Heartland institute and they once got money from Exxon, so, we should ignore your science. I once have a cousin, twice removed, married to a guy that inherited land with an oil well on it, so….. I guess, I can never publish. I’m immediately disqualified because of my obvious bias.”

    Yes, James… James Taylor can’t be taken seriously because of his over the top article and ties to Heartland Institute. The guy is obviously a flim-flammer and probably a god fearing Republican also. If Spencer himself wasn’t trying to pass off his agenda, he would have called Taylor out on his over the top article.

  50. curryja says:

    I have a post up at Climate Etc. on the Spencer and Braswell paper
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/

  51. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trenberth, Gates and many others are wrong about the cloudiness response to ENSO.

    The late 20th century was characterised by a run of strong El Ninos yet cloud cover DECREASED.
    They have it exactly wrong in global terms even if they are right in regional terms. Now despite the beginning of a negative PDO cloud cover is INCREASING.

    El Nino increases surface air temperature to enhance convection above. That enhanced convection then descends in the sub tropics to strengthen and widen the sub tropical high pressure cells for LESS clouds and MORE energy into the oceans.

    In the process the mid latitude jets get pushed poleward and/or become more zonal for reduced total cloud cover globally.

    However that is only half the story because at the same time the level of solar activity is affecting the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere too but from the poles and can either supplement or offset the effect of ENSO on the size of the sub tropical high pressure cells and the latitudinal position of the jets.

    In view of the data how can they keep asserting that El Nino produces more clouds and La Nina produces less clouds?

    Mine is the only hypothesis that accommodates all that plus a cooling stratosphere when the sun is active and a warming stratosphere when the sun is inactive.

    During the late 20th century warming trend the stratosphere was observed to cool and that was also supposed to be in accordance with AGW. However since the 90s that cooling has ceased and the stratospheric temperature trend is now one of slight warming:

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”

  52. davidmhoffer says:

    Nice hijack attempt R Gates. The results of Spencer’s study are about how much energy is being released to space versus how much energy the computer models calculate is being released to space. It has nothing to do with what drives what, and the study isn’t a model, it is just measurements compared to models. The models are wrong, or the measurements are.

    Sad is it not that the world is inhabited by legions of those (like you) who would rather believe that the sky is falling than to admit that the bump on Chicken Little’s head is from an acorn. Confronted with the fact that there are no cracks in the sky, nor pieces missing from it, they point to the bump on Chicken Little’s head and come up with the most convoluted of theories as to why it could not possibly have been an acorn, or any of a thousand other causes, it must have been a piece of the sky. They even have computer models showing exactly how the sky is falling apart.

    Sadder still is what their obvious belief system dictates to them. They rejoice in every bit of evidence showing that the world is coming to an end, and with grim determination, discredit every shred of evidence that it is not. It is bad enough that they believe their models to the point that they ignore actual measurements showing the models to be wrong. But the worst part is that they WANT the sky to be falling. Not because it would prove their models right, but because they can’t believe in a world where humanity has a bright future and doesn’t bring disaster down on themselves.

  53. jorgekafkazar says:

    “Travesty” Trenberth’s ironically ambiguous comment is particularly precious: “I cannot believe it got published” And Schmidt’s “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record” is a close second. Warmists have loudly proclaimed that contrarian arguments derived from paleoclimate data don’t apply to the modern, “unprecedented” CO2 levels. This is starting to actually get funny.

  54. Smokey says:

    Brian says:

    “James Taylor can’t be taken seriously because of his over the top article and ties to Heartland Institute. The guy is obviously a flim-flammer and probably a god fearing Republican also.”

    That’s what passes for an attempted refutation when an alarmist posts at the internet’s “Best Science” site. Really, ad-homs and projection are all they’ve got.

  55. Pamela Gray says:

    La Nina reduces air temperature thus clouds. Without clouds the fairly constant Sun is allowed more access to the ocean. We don’t readily see the heat build up because equatorial winds that blow towards the west are stronger during La Nina’s thus mixing colder layers beneath with the warmer layers above. Without a warmer sea surface temperature, clouds are not formed as thickly, as evaporation is reduced.

    During El Nino, air temps build up thus clouds build up. The winds that were blowing towards the west die down or change direction and blow towards the east. The waters not only layer themselves, but start evaporating off the top layer of warmth into the atmosphere, creating clouds that prevent the Sun’s full strength from getting to the ocean surface.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but that is why La Nina absorbs heat and El Nino evaporates heat from the oceans.

  56. Stephen Wilde says:

    Steve Garcia asked

    “I’ve searched high and low and can’t find out where the scientists say the heat energy for El Niño comes from. I know, Trenberth has much better access to sources than I do. I would have this question: What paper explains the mechanisms of HOW the La Niña “uptakes” and “stores” the heat? I’d like to see exactly what assumptions are behind this assertion. I have a hypothesis in the back of my head that I’d like to falsify and get rid of, if it is worthless.”

    In my opinion the heat energy for El Nino accumulates because the ITCZ is always north of the equator (due to the current global landmass distribution) which creates an imbalance of solar shortwave inout either side of the equator.
    Periodically the imbalance becomes large enough to provoke an El Nino event as the system tries to move back towards thermal equilibrium either side of the equator.

    In theory the release of ocean energy during an El nino should reduce ocean heat content for a net cooling of the entire system. However during the late 20th century ocean heat content rose despite the run of powerful El Ninos. Now, with more La Ninas the ocean heat content should in theory be recharging but it is not.

    The reason is that El Nino actually increases the width of the subtropical high pressure cells pushing the jets poleward and allowing MORE sunlight into the oceans.

    However that is not always enough to offset the energy release. Another factor is required to achieve that.

    That other factor is the level of solar activity. When the sun is active the polar vortex becomes more positive pulling the jets poleward which supplements the effect of the EL NIno allowing even more sunlight into the oceans. So it was during the late 20th century. Strong El Ninos combined with an active sun allowed the surface pressure distribution to change enough to allow sufficient shortwave into the oceans such that ocean heat content rose despite the strong El Ninos.

    That is the only scenario whereby all the observations can be made to work in a coherent fashion.

  57. Mark Hladik says:

    Responding to R. Gates:

    Feel free to look at a .pdf of the original paper (I am holding a hardcopy of it in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers [riffle-riffle-riffle]) where it says on the first page, directly underneath the authorship data:

    “Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011/ Accepted 15 July 2011/ Published: 25 July 2011″

    Then on page 1612 (the next-to-the-last page):

    [boldface] “Acknowledgements” [boldface off]

    “We acknowledge the modeling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM) for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3multi-model dataset. Support for this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. This research was sponsored by DOE contract DE-SC0005330 and NOAA contract NA09NES4400017.”

    As far as peer-review goes, in the thousands of scientific papers I have read, I usually see something to the effect of, ” … … and the comments of [2] [3] anonymous reviewers … …”, so the absence of such a statement here is of some concern. I would expect that Dr. Spencer could shed some light upon this, but I do note that there was a gap of some two months duration from May to July, when the original was revised.

    Possibly in response to some reviewer(s) comments?

    Mark H.

  58. Sandy Rham says:

    The presumption that a lack of clouds mean that the ocean is heating is deeply flawed. For any given radiative heating there will be a wind speed that evaporates the heat away as it arrives. So the tropical cu-nim seen from space is a much smaller area than the area of ocean it cools.
    Strong trade winds will cool the ocean even under a cloudless noon.

  59. Tom Rowan says:

    “Well, they can’t have it both ways.”

    The warmista cult believes COLD is HOT and all newly minted sunshine heat is “unprecidented.”
    On top of that, everything is heating up “faster than previously thought.”
    So of course the warmista cult must have it both ways…the “theory” cannot withstand the logical truth.

    If there is no warming, man cannot be responsible for non-warming.
    So even though the planet is not warming, it in fact, is according to the lying bastards who have been caught lying from the start.

    Having it both ways is easy for the warministas…their rent seeking hoax and scam depends on it.

    Yippee Ky AAAY Dr Spencer!!!

  60. Jose Suro says:

    “Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data…..”

    I would ask him, in a Jack Nicholson voice: “Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Tree rings and sediments? Please tell me that you have something more, Gavin. The whole CAGW world is on trial for their life. Please tell me their scientist hasn’t pinned their hopes to a tree ring.” :)

    Best,

    J.

  61. Brian says:

    Smokey,

    Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/george-bush-global-warmin_n_96871.html

    http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-04/news/29685848_1_global-warming-climate-change-greenhouse-gases

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html

    It’s time to accept reality Smokey. Even those that you think would deny the issue are now accepting it.

  62. Mike Abbott says:

    Doug in Seattle says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:38 am

    The ball is back on Dr. Spencer’s side of the net after Trenberth, et al give a weak return. Now its time for the spike. Perhaps Kirby or Svensmark will take the honors.

    Dr. Spencer may be preparing to deliver the spike. His July 15 blog entry announcing that his paper had been accepted for publication closes with this statement: “And this is not over…I am now writing up what I consider to be our most convincing evidence yet that the climate system is relatively insensitive.”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/our-refutation-of-dessler-2010-is-accepted-for-publication/

  63. cal says:

    Dr Spencer

    At what wavelength(s) is the outgoing radiation measured? My guess is it would be around the 10 micron atmospheric window. Are there any measurements around the 15 micron CO2 absorbtion band. It would seem to me that the ratio of outgoing radiation at 10 micron and 15 micron would be conclusive one way or the other. As the amount of CO2 increases the radiation at 10 micron should go up and the radiation at 15 micron should go down. Therefore the ratio of the two should increase dramatically. Have these measurement been made?

    I have also made the point before that a decrease in 15 micron radiation requires the layer radiating into space to be at a lower temperature. This is the basis of the AGW theory since the greater CO2 density means the layer moves to a higher altitude. For low CO2 densities (less than about 400 ppm) this makes sense. However the satelite data I have seems to show that at current densities the radiation layer is already at the tropopause. Thus a higher altitude no longer means a lower temperature. From now on increasing densities needs a drop in tropopause temperature. There may be a mechanism to cause this but it is not obvious. However if it is happening it should be measureable. Has such measurement been made?

  64. Stephen Wilde says:

    Sandy Rham says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
    “The presumption that a lack of clouds mean that the ocean is heating is deeply flawed. For any given radiative heating there will be a wind speed that evaporates the heat away as it arrives. So the tropical cu-nim seen from space is a much smaller area than the area of ocean it cools.
    Strong trade winds will cool the ocean even under a cloudless noon.”

    Locally and/or regionally yes but globally no.

    The extra uplift in the tropics enhances the downward flow in the subtropics for an overall expansion of the tropics as a whole with more sunshine and more energy into the global oceans.

    A similar reply for Pamela. Due to a La Nina reducing the energy supply to the air the air cools and can hold less water in vapour form so whatever happens regionally or locally the global effect is more clouds and the tropics contract.

    This is what the cloudiness data says:

    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf

    See fig 1 . Until 2000 positive PDO with lots of strong El Ninos) cloudiness was decreasing. Since then (negative PDO just getting under way) it has been increasing.

  65. Brian,

    Politicians, left- or right-wing, always sing along with the crowd.
    Their “opinion” isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
    Maybe it’s time you should accept reality, Brian: climate has been always changing, long before we featherless bipeds were introduced by evolution.

  66. Mark says:

    Dr Spencer, heard you on Coast to Coast. Sounded Good!!

  67. Smokey says:

    Brian sez:

    “Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue…”

    And their qualifications are …?

    Brian, you are trying to make this issue one of partisan politics. IANAR, and plenty of liberal/left folks who post here know the catastrophic AGW scare is being hyped for grant money.

    And climate alarmist Michael Mann became infamous for his debunked hockey stick chart, which purported to show there was no climate change until the start of the industrial revolution. But the IPCC can no longer use Mann’s original hockey stick chart, because it was so thoroughly deconstructed by McIntyre & McKitrick.

    In other words, it is actually the believers in the CAGW conjecture who refused to accept the fact that the climate has always changed. Skeptics have always known that the climate constantly changes — and that prior to the industrial revolution there were much more drastic changes than the current, very benign climate.

  68. Gerald Machnee says:

    Mike says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:49 am

    **How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?**

    Too bad. The team does not control all the publications. You wish.

  69. Gerald Machnee says:

    Brian says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Smokey,
    **Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.**
    And where did they get their “science” from?
    You are right. Address it to the round file.

  70. Bruce Cobb says:

    Brian says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.
    Idiots and scalliwags of all stripes have joined the CAGW bandwagon for various and sundry reasons – money, power, fame, desire to be “part of something”, etc. What’s your excuse?

  71. DR says:

    @Gates
    What do you know about how the peer review was performed for Spencer’s paper? What we do know is several journals are predisposed to reject papers that put the so-called “consensus” view. It took McIntyre & McKitrick 18 months to get their paper published after several months alone battling the stall tactics by Santer et al.

    How much “peer review” scrutiny went into this load of dung by Dessler in his?

    [my bold]

    The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.

    Virtually guaranteed? That is a scientific statement?

    Roy Spencer has offered to hold a public debate with Andrew Dessler or anyone else on these matters.

  72. Gary Hladik says:

    Brian says (July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm): “Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed…It’s time to accept reality Smokey. Even those that you think would deny the issue are now accepting it.”

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    OMG, I can’t believe he actually cited politicians as experts on “reality”!

    Wait, wait, I can do even better: “Ahem, I believe in CAGW because…

    (wait for it)

    I saw it on ‘JERSEY SHORE’!!!” HAHAHA!

    Stop, stop, you’re killing me! :-)

  73. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Brian on July 30, 2011 at 11:08 am:

    Yes, James… James Taylor can’t be taken seriously because of his over the top article and ties to Heartland Institute. The guy is obviously a flim-flammer and probably a god fearing Republican also.

    As opposed to being a god-fearing Democrat, which isn’t a problem. Or is it? Do they exist in your tiny closed-off world? Is your issue merely with someone being a god-fearing (fill in political affiliation)? You really need some good trolling skills, that’s way too blatant.

    From Brian on July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm:

    Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.

    So after implicitly denigrating Taylor as less trustworthy for probably being a god-fearing Republican, you cite THREE god-fearing Republicans for your attempted appeal to authority. And do so with two pre-Climategate articles so for all we know Bush’s and McCain’s positions have changed, and Romney was a Massachusetts governor where you basically can’t win a state election without moderate/liberal leanings. To note it though, Romney was opposed to Cap and Trade.

    BTW, even Wikipedia has noted an apparent change to McCain’s position:

    In a February 2010 Arizona radio interview, after the host had made lengthy comments claiming that “80 percent” of global warming science “is based on fraud and misinformation,” McCain, who had previously countered such inaccurate statements, made no correction.[243]

    By September 2009, McCain had largely disengaged from the climate change debate, and criticized the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill out of the House as “appear[ing] to be a cap & tax bill that I won’t support” and having “a lot of special deals for a lot of special interests.”[246] The senator also had both substantive and procedural objections to the cap-and-trade bill being worked on in the Senate.[246]

    Ref 243: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/17/mccain-never-favored-cap/
    Ref 246: “On Climate, Partners on Hill Drift Apart”, Juliet Eilperin Washington Post September 13, 2009

    Go back to your (C)AGW-pushing masters. Your Troll-Fu is weak.

  74. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates: “The Spencer and Braswell paper is now getting the review is should have had before being published.”

    Do you think that Mann’s upside down Tiljander data had the review it should have had before being published?

  75. DesertYote says:

    Pamela Gray
    July 30, 2011 at 9:58 am

    If there are serious disagreements and there are plausible proofs of these disagreements, they should put it in the journal as a rebuttal letter. Off the cuff pithy comments not followed by such serious published debate are decidedly unprofessional.
    ###

    Unprofessional for scientists, not for propagandist.

  76. Jose Suro says:

    “Brian says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Smokey,

    Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/george-bush-global-warmin_n_96871.html

    http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-04/news/29685848_1_global-warming-climate-change-greenhouse-gases

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html

    It’s time to accept reality Smokey. Even those that you think would deny the issue are now accepting it.”

    Brian,

    This is how what you wrote reads to an educated person:

    “A, B and C agree that X is true,
    Therefore, X MUST be true.”

    And,

    Most people believe that X is true,
    Therefore, X MUST be true.

    Now really…..

    Best,

    J.

  77. R. Gates says:

    In speaking about ENSO and cloud cover, some of you will enjoy this presentation on Cloud Cover responses to SST’s given at the 13th Annual Conference on Atmospheric Radiation in 2010:

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/13CldPhy13AtRad/techprogram/paper_171649.htm

    Click on the “Recorded Presentation” below the abstract to listen and watch the Powerpoint presentation. You’ll be asked to download the Webex application if you don’t have it already. The presentation only lasts 15 minutes, but it’s worth the listen.

  78. kwik says:

    Brian says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    “Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.”

    Aha, the Authority argument. So lame !!!

  79. R. Gates says:

    DR said:

    “Roy Spencer has offered to hold a public debate with Andrew Dessler or anyone else on these matters.”

    ____
    I would say the Trenberth et. al. response to Spencer & Braswell amounts to a public debate of sorts, and is a positive step forward. Trenberth in particular has been somewhat reluctant to respond to these types of papers in the past, but perhaps the larger than normal (but still not huge by any means) media traction the research received prompted Trenberth to make a response. I welcome both the paper and the response from Trenberth et. al. as,,for the majority of us who are not PhD level climate scientists, it can only be a learning experience and hopefully prompt all of us to do even more investigation of our own.

  80. Hans Erren says:

    “Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? “.

    No, the observations are tweaked to match the models.

  81. RayG says:

    Judith C. has started a thread on the Spencer and Braswell 2011 at Climate Etc http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/

    I hope that the authors will browse through the comments there and respond where appropriate.

    Thank you for your continuing efforts.

  82. kramer says:

    Hey Dr. Spencer, it is a good paper:

    Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others ["others" I presume means some members of 'the team'] are misstating what Spencer found.
    http://hosted2.ap.org/apdefault/APNews/Article_2011-07-29-Climate%20Skeptics-Study/id-a3946ff818d84baead6740ae1337ed42

  83. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From R. Gates on July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am:

    What group did the original peer review of the paper?

    Dang, I thought peer review was done by individual peers. And now it’s a group event? The only “peer review group” I’m aware of is the Hockey Team. Are you disqualifying the paper because they weren’t asked to join in?

  84. Dennis Wingo says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer

    The entire edifice of AGW is built upon the proposition that as CO2 increases, the absorption lines in the infrared spectrum broaden. Does the instrument on Aqua have the spectral resolution necessary to detect this line broadening? Back in the 1990′s we worked at MSFC with Dr. Christensen on filters for our small satellite that would measure the absorption coefficients at the knee of the curves (3db point) of several absorption features in the atmosphere. The bandpass of the filters that we used were about 5 nanometers, pretty darn good at the time. They were supposed to be at the same wavelength as some of the filters on Aqua.

    I have recently become aware of new tunable LCD filters with 0.1 nanometer bandpasses. With that kind of resolution we should be able to easily measure the line broadening from CO2, CH4, NO2 and H2O in both the visible and near IR spectrum. Is there anything on the table for a spacecraft mission to implement this type of imager?

    It would, through observation, settle the issue of the effect of these absorbers once and for all.

  85. RockyRoad says:

    Some of the biggest scoundrels in politics right now are RINOs by the last names of George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

    Ok, so I listed more than last names, but I didn’t want to confuse anybody as to which big political RINO scoundrels I’m referring to.

    Of course, that’s just my opinion, but I have more scientific background than all three of them put together–why, you could throw in Al “Simmering Core” Gore and Barack “Debt Denial” Obama and the margin of superiority wouldn’t change.

    And because I’m not running for office or trying to sell carbon “scam the folks” credits, I figure I have a lot more credability, too! It’s far better not to have “Political Authority”.

  86. JamesD says:

    Dr. Spencer (or someone else):
    In your paper, the actual satellite data shows a crossover in slope (negative to positive) in the lag region (negative x axis), while the models predict a crossover in the lead region (positive x axis). What is the significance of this difference between model and actual? In layman’s terms, if you please.

  87. Kev-in-Uk says:

    kwik says:
    July 30, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Quite! Maybe Brian will get a Life?

  88. Bill Illis says:

    Spencer’s paper merely shows that temperatures respond to changes in Radiative Flux/Forcing much less and much faster than expected in the models and in the theory.

    It takes 3.3 W/m2 of forcing to change temperatures by 1.0C. By contrast, doubled CO2 is only supposed to result in 3.7 W/m2 of forcing so anyone should be able to do the math there.

    Empirical evidence about how the Realclimate works …

    … (as opposed to how the RealClimate website works which is theory and climate model first – empirical observation is to be ignored and/or changed whenever it does not conform to the theory (which is often since almost none of it does). They all knew beforehad what this data showed – they ignored it and/or turned it into a pretzel so it would be incomprehensible .

    ——-

    Technically, during an El Nino in the tropical Pacific, cloud cover increases by a huge amount and outgoing long-wave radiation falls considerably (up to -50 watts/m2). So, the Sun is not warming the ocean, but the ocean is warming the atmosphere. Its the opposite during a La Nina, cloud cover goes to near Zero, Outgoing longwave rises dramatically and the atmosphere cools off.

  89. R. Gates says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    From R. Gates on July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am:

    What group did the original peer review of the paper?

    Dang, I thought peer review was done by individual peers. And now it’s a group event? The only “peer review group” I’m aware of is the Hockey Team. Are you disqualifying the paper because they weren’t asked to join in?
    _____
    By group, I didn’t mean to imply a team working in unison, but rather, more than one person. I simply and honestly wanted to know who reviewed the paper. I simply asked the question, and don’t disqualify the paper on those grounds, nor am I qualified to do so on any other account. The comments by Trenberth, Curry, et. al, who are qualified to review the paper, serve as an adequate “peer review group” (and they certainly aren’t acting in unison), and so the rest of us non PhD’s can read those comments along with the paper and try muddle our way through and decide if the paper has any substance to it.

  90. R. de Haan says:

    SunspotGate: Warmist Kevin Trenberth admits in an email that sunspots are an external forcing of our climate system; Romm publishes this admission, then deletes it
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sunspotgate-warmist-kevin-trenberth.html

  91. Warrick says:

    “Chris Jarrett says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.”

    I don’t know this specific journal, but it is hard to find a reputable journal that does not have page charges, much of the current jargon referring to this fee as an “Open Access” fee. Being on-line only does not indicate quality either as there are many highly reputable journals that use this model of publishing for cost control reasons. Requesting suggestions for reviewers is pretty common too – I assume they take the suggestions seriously but presumably check for conflicts of interest. It is also not uncommon for journal editors to request who you do NOT want to be a reviewer (and why). These are a part of real journal activities.

    Many academics try to infer an impact factor as giving an indication of the value of a journal. This has many problems, not least because the impact factor is determined by a single abstracting company, so reputable journals that happen not to be abstracted by this company will not have an impact factor measure. This journal is abstracted by CAB abstracts – this is at least is one indication that this is a serious journal.

    Real journals have a real business case behind them – someone has to pay to get papers published, either the reader as in the earlier model, or both as in the days of subscriptions plus author page charges, or the newer open and free on-line access model.

    Your comments are not helpful unless you can shed more light on the quality of the publisher behind the journal (MDPI of Basel, Switzerland who claim to have been publishing since 1996).

  92. Andrew30 says:

    James Sexton says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:02 am
    [Of course, Heartland doesn’t receive funding from Exxon,..]

    And the Climate research Unit of the University of East Angela has received funding from Shell Oil and British Petroleum for over 25 years.

    Bottom of this page from the UEA web site:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    The Climate Research Unit also receives funding from:

    Food to Ethanol: Tate and Lyle, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre
    Nuclear Power: KFA Germany, UK Nirex Ltd., Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
    Insurance: Norwich Union, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
    Political Action: World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Greenpeace International
    Natural Gas: Sultanate of Oman
    Batteries: National Power Corporation

    So nothing has changed in the profitable world of global warming.
    The Corporations are getting the Alarming Climate Science results from the Climate Scientologists that they have bought and paid for; and the results that they all need (see above) to ensure the demand for the products that they supply (see above).

  93. John Whitman says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    Nice paper and thanks for the barbed rejoinder toward the uninspired IPCCist centric team at RC. Those RC guys retread their worn out arguments so much that I think they perform more retreading of IPCC clichés than the bias ply tire industry does retreading truck tires! : )

    Your paper helps the strategic thrust of using observations and empirical methods to highlight the decreasing value of circular GCM arguments. It appears the strategy is having an impact . . . . the media seem to respond well to that type of argument . . . maybe because people understand climate observation as more trustworthy that the IPCC focused untestable hypotheticals (a.k.a. vaporware).

    It is a winning strategy scientifically. But I suggest we need some other strategies as well . . . how about strategies to get more funding for all the climate science ideas currently ignored by the IPCCist’s so-called consensus?

    Personal Note: You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the IPCC does have a very strong consensus. The IPCC consensus is based on myopia . . . the myopic consensus . . . . ahhh, that is the real basis of the IPCC consensus . . . a consensus of those who can look at only one illusive perception.

    John

  94. JamesD says:

    Shaun Dunne,
    I read both articles. Neither are much of a refutation. The first article obsesses with the “simple model”. The author clearly doesn’t understand what he is talking about. The “simple model” is an attempt to investigate **WHY** the “official” models are wrong, without drawing any definite conclusions (Dr. Spencer stresses this over and over in his article). The hippo in the bathtub, the fact that the “official” models underpredict radiant cooling is ignored.

    The second article can be summed up by this: “We know that the models are very reliable, that is why we have such wide error bars.” Pay attention to graph 3, which is a summation of “all” of the models. Note that in the lead time, the slope of actual data is more than DOUBLE that of what the model predicts. Yep, it is inside the confidence bars, but so what? The models are pretty much useless with such large errors.

  95. Paul Deacon says:

    Chris Jarrett says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.
    *************************************************
    I hate to break this news to you, Chris, but by the same reasoning your above post is a joke. Anyway, if the article is a joke, why have the Climate Team chosen to respond to it?

  96. Jose Suro says:

    RayG says:
    July 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    “Judith C. has started a thread on the Spencer and Braswell 2011 at Climate Etc http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/

    I hope that the authors will browse through the comments there and respond where appropriate.

    Thank you for your continuing efforts.”
    ____________________________________________________________________

    I’ve read both the paper and Dr C.’s comments , but not the subsequent member posts in her blog. The paper is a relatively easy read, good communicative language, short, the math is not too complex.

    That said, I don’t understand why Dr. Curry doubly reiterates that: “However, if there is no solution to measuring feedback, I would say that SB are concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models.”

    From what I read, and how I interpreted the graphs in Figure 3 of the paper, there seems to be a large discrepancy between the observed Radiative Flux/Temperature Regression Anomalies and the ones modeled. I think I understand that feedback cannot be accurately measured through observation because all the measured radiation is Net in just one bucket? But, I don’t believe that is the point. The point (I think) is that the smaller RF in the models has to be countered by more heat retention and therefore rising planetary temperatures. And this seems contrary to satellite (and terrestrial) observations, invalidating the models.

    Maybe someone more educated than me can offer me some more insights into these issues. I’m just a lay person :).

    Best,

    J.

  97. joshua Corning says:

    “The “Bad Astronomer” is flustered as well, including himself with the usual suspects:”

    I like how “Bad Astronomer” takes offense to the term “alarmist” yet uses an image of the Earth on Fire to accompany his article.

  98. bruce says:

    How can Gavin Schmidt say that the palaeoclimate record exhibits sensitivity without honestly factoring-in all potential external forcings and complexities of modal variation of the major synoptic systems like ENSO-NAO. Does this circular reasoning pass as science???

  99. bruce says:

    Oh, and in reply to the above comment by Paul Deacon, Paul you are correct. There are many ‘proper’ long-established journals of 50+ year pedigree which require author contribution-this depends on the nature of institutional support, not impact factor, this is common in many botanical journals run by well regarded botanical societies (Castanea comes to mind). Thanks for reminding me about that bill.

  100. Tom T says:

    Chris Jarrett says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.

    WOW! That sure disproved everything he said in it, everything. Boy that was good, no need to do hard math or anything like that, just attack the publication. WOW! It must be wrong now. WOW!

  101. JamesD says:

    Gavin replied to my post pointing out he admits there could be “real problems” with the model:

    “Response: This is an odd game of gotcha you appear to be playing. Whenever someone does an analysis and shows a difference between a model and the observations there is always the possibility you have revealed something interesting about model imperfections (since no-one is of the opinion they are perfect). In some cases that imperfection is well known (like the double ITCZ problem in
    tropical rainfall), sometimes it isn’t, and other times the data is wrong. Very often though it is the comparison that is faulty (comparing apples to oranges for instance), or the implication that is at fault and that seems to be the case here – the big differences in this diagnostic between different models is not related to overall climate sensitivity (which you can easily see in Spencer’s figures), but between models that have a reasonable ENSO or not (see above). Some models did not have sufficient ENSO variability (GISS-ER was one) and this appears to affect this particular diagnostics. It is however, unrelated to climate sensitivity. – gavin] A little snark in the beginning, but a reasonable reply.

    It appears that the “defense” has settled on how well a model handles ENSO. I do not know how legit this is as ENSO is an oscillation, so the effect should cancel out. So for the sake of argument, heat flux increases during positive ENSO and decreases during negative ENSO. Model A predicts this. Model B will therefore underpredict heat flux during positive ENSO and overpredict heat flux during negative ENSO. So it would cancel out. However, the graphs in the RealClimate article show that the “ENSO aware” model does a decent job. Whether this is because it is “ENSO Aware” or is a coincidence is unknown.

  102. Tilo:
    You miss the point entirely. As usual

  103. Doug in Seattle says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:38 am

    The ball is back on Dr. Spencer’s side of the net after Trenberth, et al give a weak return. Now its time for the spike. Perhaps Kirby or Svensmark will take the honors.

    ########

    They raise some issues that all skeptics should rally behind.

    1. Where is the code and data.

    2. error bars please.

    3. Models that represent El Nino better, tend to represent this data better.

    That’s actually a good thing for people to note: Why persist in using bad models. Some are better than others.

  104. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Seems Trenberth is missing more than the heat he can’t find and whines about.

    This drive by means he is now missing credibility, integrity and honesty.

  105. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steve Garcia says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:01 am
    “I’d like to know how he can assert this. I’ve searched high and low and can’t find out where the scientists say the heat energy for El Niño comes from. I know, Trenberth has much better access to sources than I do. I would have this question: What paper explains the mechanisms of HOW the La Niña “uptakes” and “stores” the heat? I’d like to see exactly what assumptions are behind this assertion. I have a hypothesis in the back of my head that I’d like to falsify and get rid of, if it is worthless.”

    Superb question and post. The dirty little secret is that Warmista do not include in their models any thing resembling an La Nina process. Their models are about radiation inputs and outputs only. They contain no actual empirical generalizations that describe physical processes such as La Nina. In other words, aside from the hypotheses about radiation that they inherited from Arrhenius, all of their work is purely “a priori.” In Warmista models, La Nina is what they call an “emergent property.”

  106. Steve from Rockwood says:

    “Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. ”
    Is that the same Gavin Schmidt who claims global warming started in 1980?

  107. Werner Brozek says:

    Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo:

    “Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”

    This almost sounds like something Stephen McIntyre could have said about Michael Mann’s hockey stick. I hope Trenberth was equally critical of Mann at the time.

  108. Anton says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    “Nice hijack attempt R Gates. The results of Spencer’s study are about how much energy is being released to space versus how much energy the computer models calculate is being released to space. It has nothing to do with what drives what, and the study isn’t a model, it is just measurements compared to models. The models are wrong, or the measurements are.

    “Sad is it not that the world is inhabited by legions of those (like you) who would rather believe that the sky is falling than to admit that the bump on Chicken Little’s head is from an acorn. Confronted with the fact that there are no cracks in the sky, nor pieces missing from it, they point to the bump on Chicken Little’s head and come up with the most convoluted of theories as to why it could not possibly have been an acorn, or any of a thousand other causes, it must have been a piece of the sky. They even have computer models showing exactly how the sky is falling apart.

    “Sadder still is what their obvious belief system dictates to them. They rejoice in every bit of evidence showing that the world is coming to an end, and with grim determination, discredit every shred of evidence that it is not. It is bad enough that they believe their models to the point that they ignore actual measurements showing the models to be wrong. But the worst part is that they WANT the sky to be falling. Not because it would prove their models right, but because they can’t believe in a world where humanity has a bright future and doesn’t bring disaster down on themselves.”

    This is exactly true. My neighbor last night, discussing the day’s polar bear news, insisted that whether or not some people made things up, she knew for a fact that polar bears were dying from AGW because she had studied the issue, being a frequent viewer of the Nat Geo channel.

    When I said to her, “You believe this because you WANT to believe it,” she responded, “Yes, I DO want to believe it.” And then told me that I didn’t believe it because I DIDN’T want to believe it. How true in both cases, though I, at least, have years of exposure to the conflicting evidence that she does not. Who in his (or her) right might would WANT to believe the world is ending? Someone hoping to take credit for stopping it? Someone who loves wallowing in negativity and misery? Or both? I think many alarmists may be more than just gullible or dishonest: They may be mentally ill.

  109. JamesD says:

    S. mosher,

    “3. Models that represent El Nino better, tend to represent this data better.”

    Is this for certain? In one case (on RealClimate) the model that represented El Nino better matched the satellite data better. Is it because of El Nino?

    And what does this mean? That warmer SST leads to more convection and more heat flux? So that means we can expect less warming than we had been led to believe, no?

  110. KenB says:

    Thanks Dr Spencer, keep on chipping away, you lead the way, and we are one step closer to the day when climate science is restored to credibility and open to new research, new ideas, new discoveries. The team hid behind corrupted peer review, lax media scrutiny,”their” science, may they reap the weeds they sowed, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. the wheel is turning!

  111. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From R. Gates on July 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm:

    The comments by Trenberth, Curry, et. al, who are qualified to review the paper, serve as an adequate “peer review group” (and they certainly aren’t acting in unison), and so the rest of us non PhD’s can read those comments along with the paper and try muddle our way through and decide if the paper has any substance to it.

    So Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, even E.M. Smith, aren’t qualified as they don’t have PhD’s. Got it. Oh well, maybe someone with a PhD in Business Accounting can review the paper, since at the very least they are qualified to analyze the statistics, and they have the important qualification of having a PhD at all. Check.

    Anyone with a PhD in Ancient Babylonian Art want to review this paper?

  112. Kev-in-UK says:

    R. de Haan says:
    July 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    reading back from your link I see KT has written the following
    ‘The part not so well known is the pollution (aerosol), but that is
    small. Nearly all of the variations in water vapor and clouds, except for those
    affected by aerosol, are a response to the weather and climate variations; they
    are NOT a forcing’
    re the first sentence – how can one dismiss something as simply ‘small’?
    re the second – water vapor and clouds are not a forcing, but when affected by aerosols they are? – am off to visit confused.com……..
    answers on a postcard to
    ‘WTF does it all Mean’
    IPCC
    Switzerland

  113. Wait a minute…….

    Amazing how much has yet to be done after all “The Science is settled”. The Science still seems very restless to me.
    Keep going at them Dr. Roy, we are in awe of your persistence.

  114. davidmhoffer says:

    As I read through this thread, paying attention to the negative comments in general, R Gates and Brian in particular, I notice that the criticism can be boiled down to a few devastating tactics:

    o change the subject to something unrelated
    o point out that even some big name politicians think agw is real
    o complain that the journal isn’t reputable
    o complain that there doesn’t appear to be any peer review process
    o claim that only comments by people with PhD’s matter
    o claim that the paleo record is of more importance than actual, current, real, directly measured temperatures
    o complain that the results can’t be reproduced because ( roflmao ) the description isn’t detailed enough to replicate results.

    I couldn’t help but notice that there hasn’t been one criticism, not a single comment, not even a vague one, saying that the results are invalid and giving a reason why. Not one single explanation of anything in the paper that would point to factors not considered, math that was wrongly done, data that had errors in it, data that was excluded and should not have been, data that was included and should not have been, data that was compared to models that were measuring something else and so shouldn’t have been compared…..

    Nothing. Nada. Not one solitary criticism of anything about the SCIENCE presented.

    The models claim to be able to predict how much heat escapes the earth under various conditions, and based on 11 years of data measuring how much heat escapes from the earth…they got it wrong.

    Clearly George Bush’s opinions on WMD, “the war is over”, and AGW all trump the facts? That’s the best you guys can come up with? Wow.

  115. Dale says:

    Dr Spencer (don’t know if you read the comments),

    As an ‘average non-science human’ I want to thank yourself and your colleagues who are fighting against massive pressure, deceit and money to get the truth on AGW out there. There are a LOT of people like myself out in the world, who can tell there’s a political agenda behind the UN, IPCC, Trenberth et all and our Govts. Keep up the good work and remember one little thing: there is a lot of support for the work you guys are doing to bring down this political agenda, and bring cred back to science.

  116. William says:

    Gavin Schmidt has not logically connected the implications of the paleoclimatic data with what we are observing now. The gradual climate changes and the cyclic abrupt climate changes occurred are known to have occurred in the paleoclimatic record occurred for a physical reason.

    The modern satellite observational evidence indicates the atmospheric feedback mechanism resists change. (Feedback is negative.) If that is a fact, then there is based on the paleoclimatic record a massive forcing mechanism that abrupt cyclically abruptly cools or warms the planet in addition to cyclic forcing function that warms and cools the planet. All of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly. Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt change to the solar cycle. If Svensmark’s hypothesized mechanism is correct the planet should cool. Marshall’s analysis indicates in the past planetary cloud cover closely track GCR up until roughly 1994. At that time there was significant increase in solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere. The solar wind bursts have abated. The planet has not cooled however.

    The fact that the planet has not cooled indicates something is happening to suppress the Svensmark mechanism. (i.e. GCR is high something must be removing the ions that are created.)

    The extreme AGW crowd appeal to positive feedback to amplify small internal forcing changes which amplify the random and internal changes to explain the paleoclimatic observation that however is not what is observed. (The statement is if there is not massive positive feedback we (let say Gavin Schmidt for example) cannot explain the observation does not prove the feedback is positive.) Positive feedback creates a system that will oscillate widely. That is not what is observed. During the glacial phase the sensitivity is higher but still negative as the Canadian and European ice sheets are at lower latitudes and low elevation and hence melt if the temperature changes at the margin of the ice sheet. The swings in temperature are greater during the glacial phase due to substantial ice sheet melting at the margin of the ice sheet. What is observed in the glacial period is consistent with a strong external forcing function.

  117. phlogiston says:

    The discussion of feedbacks is still stuck in the rut of the flawed assumption of linearity. Climate is a nonlinear oscillatory system. As such, the effects of feedbacks, positive and negative, is quite different to those in a linear system.

    In a nonlinear-nonequilibrium dynamic system, negative feedback produces complex structure and attractors with fractal pattern – not the cancellation of any departure from stasis (Lindzen’s ironic “climate perfection of the early 20th century”). Likewise positive feedback is not unlimited and eternal, leading to either a plazma or absolute zero, but such positive feedbacks are time limited and eventually “saturate”, causing reactive opposite positive feedbacks, the result being regular, monotonic oscillation, and the suppression of the complex fractal structure associated with negative feedbacks.

    (In such chaotic-nonlinear systems negative feedback goes by other names such as friction, damping or dissipation.)

    The climate temperature wavetrain can be seen as the result of the competing effects of negative and positive feedbacks, with the complexity from negative damping masking periodicities from the reactive or excitable positive components.

    The most fundamental “given” of the system is that it oscillates. That is what oscillators do. The character of the oscillation is determined by the character of the feedbacks.

  118. Bob Tisdale says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:19 am

    A note to Trenberth and Fasullo : That’s as far as I read. Your post began with nonsensical name calling, so I assumed the rest was nonsense.

    I hate to add an AOL-style comment, but … me too.

  119. JamesD says:

    I checked the documentation on the MPI ECHAM5 model and find no discussion on ENSO.

  120. John W says:

    Mike says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:49 am
    How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?

    Appeal to authority much?
    It doesn’t matter how many were too PC, paid off, intimidated, or brainwashed to take it.

  121. Latitude says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 30, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    I couldn’t help but notice that there hasn’t been one criticism, not a single comment, not even a vague one, saying that the results are invalid and giving a reason why.
    ===============================================================
    ding…..ding
    We have a winner……..

    David, if the science was settled, they would have whipped out a paper countering it………

  122. Jantar says:

    R. Gates says: July 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm…..

    By group, I didn’t mean to imply a team working in unison, but rather, more than one person. I simply and honestly wanted to know who reviewed the paper. …..

    Just as many here would like to know who reviewed many warmist papers. It is my understanding that authors of papers are not normally told who the reviewers are. So how can anyone expect to get an answer to that question?

    Even if we were to find out who the reviewers are would that change the conclusions of the paper?

  123. JamesD says:

    Hmmm…. The more I think about this “ENSO defense”, the more it seems like b.s. What does it mean that ECHAM5 handles ENSO better? Does this mean they have an ENSO flag/factor, such that when it goes positive, they force an increase in heat flux? That would be completely bogus to do for a back cast.

    You see, the ability of a model to match yearly temps is not that important, really. However, the ability of the models to match HEAT FLUX at a given temperature IS CRUCIAL. So it doesn’t matter if ENSO is positive, except that this conveniently is also the only time we had any heating to speak of. So the ENSO argument boils down to throwing out the results during ENSO because of some mysterious mechanism that increases heat flux during positive ENSO, which mechanism (pay attention here) WON’T cause an increase in predicted heat flux for “regular” heating. A stretch.

    Bottom line, during periods of high temperatures during the past 10 years, heat flux was higher than predicted by the models. It boils down to that.

  124. Slabadang says:

    To James D!
    “It boils down to that”

    Yes I agree and i have read all the comments. They are trying to lay out smokes screens. But the beauty of the paper is that its includes all radiation and that’s the central message. To claim that the ten year period is too short is defenitly someting to prove for the team. But they have the advantage to publish any rubbish they like.

  125. Bill Illis says:

    On the comments about the paleoclimate, I think the best paleo data is very consistent with Dr. Spencer’s current time-frame results.

    CO2/GHGs play a minor role at about one-third to one-half of that proposed in the theory. That is what the highest resolution data going back as far as possible says. Gavin invokes paleoclimate records yet he can only use / has only used a few cherrypicked time-periods (amongst the other hundreds of thousands of time-periods which contradict the cherries).

  126. Andrew says:

    The comments made so far, that claim this study is wrong, generally lack serious substance. But let’s see if we can’t dissect the catechism from on high that the team gives us.

    Trenberth says “these apparet negative feedback is really just ENSO, which is not radiatively forced because we already know it isn’t”

    In point of fact, Roy’s paper was a response to this very idea, put forward in a paper by Dessler, that one can in fact diagnose the feedbacks from the data because the variations are “due to ENSO” and “ENSO is not radiatively forced because we already know it isn’t.” The point of Roy’s work was that in point of fact there are variations in clouds causing temperature changes in the data, this is pretty clear from the data. Author a paper, get criticized by another paper, rebut the criticism, the criticizers fail to understand and repeat the criticism. I think Lindzen has noted this is a common pattern in climate science.

    Gavin basically says “well,this could be any number of things” but puts his money on the data being wrong, or a statistical fluke. There is little to be done about such vacuous criticism, doubters will wiggle themselves within your error bars endlessly, the only thing one can do is gather more data, and narrow the uncertainty. As always, if you doubt the radiation measurements, you are obliged to cite a reason why the measurements are untrustworthy, and plausibly hypothesize why this uncerainty skews in your direction only, not the other way at all. You can always say, well the uncertianty is large enough that my crackpot theory out on the tails of the probability distributioncould still be correct-there is a non-zero probability that I will wake up on the moon tomorrow. It’s negligible but nonzero. So how likely is it, then, that the “truth” is as far from the current mean of the data as Gavin surely believes? It’s fine to say Roy didn’t quantify this. It is not logical to give greater weight to someone crying that the truth is pretty distant from the mean than to someone saying it’s pretty close.

  127. J. Felton says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 30, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    I couldn’t help but notice that there hasn’t been one criticism, not a single comment, not even a vague one, saying that the results are invalid and giving a reason why.

    * * *
    Exactly. The fact that they are reacting with the ususal ad hominem attacks, ( RC even tries to draw attention away with a strawman argument,) shows even more that the Spencer and Braswell paper is likely accurate.

  128. Pamela Gray says:

    Bill, thanks for your comment about ENSO cloud response. It confirmed my understanding of equitorial tropical cloud response to La Nina/El Nino events. La Nina warms the ocean, El Nino cools it. How this equatorial response is then reflected in extra-tropic cloud conditions is another topic of interest and one that Steven seems to be speaking to. Example: The cold tropical cloudless La Nina seems to have resulted in a very wet cloudy summer for us in Oregon with temperatures in the bottom half of the normal range, not in the top half. That is not unusual. La Nina events have historically resulted in such summers where I live.

  129. JamesD says:

    “But the beauty of the paper is that its includes all radiation and that’s the central message. ”

    True. The SW radiation/temperature covariation is interesting. Clouds?

  130. extremist says:

    Don’t worry Dr Spencer, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Just point and laugh at His Haughtiness. I read your paper first, and this post afterwords. Andy’s comments are hilarious. Trenberth’s comments are side-splittingly funny. Too bad these bozos don’t realize they’re the laughingstock of the world now.

  131. Alex says:

    It’s amazing how easy it is too be censored at realclimate.

    I tried to post this:
    I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don’t match because the IPCC models are wrong. I very much doubt the satelite data is wrong.

    Lots of comments after it but not mine, I have picture evidence too. 42 posts had been approved mine seems to not be in there and there up to 60 posts.

  132. nevket240 says:

    William says:
    July 30, 2011 at 4:52 pmThe fact that the planet has not cooled indicates something is happening to suppress the Svensmark mechanism. (i.e. GCR is high something must be removing the ions that are created.) ))

    Not so fast young fella. Give it time. A lot of very cold records are being set that you are not factoring into a blanket statement.
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/ Bob does not hide the decline. Overall we are cooling, except for GISStimates.
    regards

  133. James Sexton says:

    Alex says:
    July 30, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    It’s amazing how easy it is too be censored at realclimate.

    I tried to post this:
    I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don’t match because the IPCC models are wrong. I very much doubt the satelite data is wrong.
    =============================================================
    lol, I wouldn’t bother to keep looking.

    What gets me is all of the hubbub. I mean, its a great paper and all, but our thermometer readings over the last decade has told us that the models were wrong, anyway. This really can’t be news to anybody….can it? There isn’t a model out there that predicted the flat-line we’ve experienced for over a decade now…… well, none that predicted it prior to it occurring.

  134. Jean Parisot says:

    Do you think that Mann’s upside down Tiljander data had the review it should have had before being published?

    Which time?

  135. JJB MKI says:

    Wonderful. Criticism from the people who brought us cherry picked proxies, mangled by incorrectly, often fabricated statistical techniques, combined with jaw-dropping examples of circular reasoning, self-deception and doublethink. ‘Scientists’ who cannot tell the difference between noise and meaningful data. Who have gone to any lengths to avoid replication of their work outside a sympathetic clique. Who hide their data from any who have the audacity to question it. Who have gamed the peer review process through the bullying, flattering and cajoling of editors of once respected, now imbecilic science journals (who have gone the way of the mainstream press in their scrutiny of empty assertions presented as ‘science’), in order to create the illusion of consensus. Who have turned the IPCC into an official wing of RealClimate. Who set out to hijack and politicise science in order to concoct a lie they believed would guarantee them limitless funding and kudos; a lie that for a while at least, they probably believed. By coming out of their quiet closet in a largely ignored dusty corner of the scientific community wailing of impending doom for humanity, these educated buffoons have unwittingly exposed to the world the utter fallaciousness of ‘paleo-climatology’. They have been on the back foot ever since, desperately attempting to embue their brand of tarted up divination with some sheen of credibility. It is little wonder they can only fall back on ad-hominem attacks, straw men, well-poisoning, endless appeals to authority and over hyped computer simulations when faced with criticisms founded on observation and reason. Why should I listen to, or trust a single word they utter now I know how they perform their ‘science’? If it wasn’t for the cynicism of the media and gullibility of politicians, people like Gavin Schmidt would be sweeping faculty corridors, hoping for a glimpse of how actual scientists conduct their work. Their only use is as a barometer for their own dishonesty: the louder and more incoherently they shout down their critics, the more I want to hear what those critics have to say. The deeper they plunge their fingers into their ears, the more I want to know what they are desperate to avoid hearing. The more their echo chamber rumbles, the shakier the ground on which it is built appears to be.

  136. Jean Parisot says:

    Has someone published the combined radiation measurements without the reference to various and sundry predictive models? The challenge would then be on “the Team” to explain the performance of their “models”.

  137. Marian says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:22 am

    It is bad enough that they believe their models to the point that they ignore actual measurements showing the models to be wrong. But the worst part is that they WANT the sky to be falling.”

    Yeah, and just don’t you hate the hyperbole often claimed in the MSM that AGW/CC is worse than the models predicted. I also get rather tired of warmists over defending models when real data shows a different or a much better picture than their cyber fantasy model claims!

  138. Julian Braggins says:

    R. Gates says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am

    “What group did the original peer review of the paper? If the answer is there was none, then you can consider the comments by these other others as the post-publication peer review.

    In reading their comments it does seem as though Dr. Spencer’s analysis would lead to the notion of clouds forcing the ENSO cycle whereas quite the opposite is the case as clouds are a result of a release of heat from the oceans. This also goes to the widespread belief by some that La Nina “cooling” means less energy in the system, when in fact the suppression of cloud formation during La Nina episodes is a time when more net heat is being absorbed by the ocean.”

    Are you sure the clouds in a La Nina episode are not just shifted? The eastern seaboard of Australia and most of the eastern half of the continent seem to have had their cloudiest period for ~30 years. The ocean temperatures have been well above the daily max on many occasions which would help to explain the cloud. OK, local weather— for half a continent.

  139. jamesc says:

    ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.

  140. noaaprogrammer says:

    Tilo Reber wrote: “So here we are, with thirteen years of no warming and Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat.”

    Al Gore has already found it. Don’t you remember that the temperature of the Earth’s interior is at millions and millions of degrees?! Quite a heat sink!

  141. davidmhoffer says:

    jamesc says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm
    ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.>>>

    Really? He just made up 11 years of satellite data?

    How about you post the specific ERBE data to which you refer, and show how it conflicts with the data cited by Dr. Spencer? Do you have actual data and actual comparisons that show what you claim? Or are you…

    Just making crap up?

  142. Blade says:

    Brian [July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm] says:

    “Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.”

    LOL! RINO Republicrats. The breaking news would be if the any of the three of them were skeptics!

    Previous commenters mentioned your Appeal to Authority. I have a different take on it …

    George Bush :: Appeal to Inferiority

    Mitt Romney :: Appeal to Sorority

    John McCain :: Appeal to Seniority

  143. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    jamesc said on July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm:

    ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.

    From NASA’s ERBE FAQ:

    What is ERBE?
    Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) is a NASA satellite measurement project that came about in the late 1970′s as a result of NASA recognizing the importance of improving our understanding of the radiation budget and its effects on the Earth’s climate, and a need to make accurate regional and global measurements of the components of the radiation budget. ERBE observations were collected from three satellites that measured global albedo, outgoing and reflected fluxes, and solar incidence. The first full calander month of ERBE observation began on November 1984. The ERBE project officially ended after the decommission of the NASA ERBS satellite mission on August 2005. All ERBE data have been permanently archived at the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center.

    Wow, ERBE can show that over the last thirty years, when the project ended about six years ago. Indeed, looking at the available datasets, there’s about either five or fifteen years available, ending in 1990 or 1999, except Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) which goes to 2003.

    Yet you’re aware of the ERBE results for the last thirty years? Will the miracles of modern Climate Science™ never cease?

    Looking deeper at the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), such info is available from the KNMI Climate Explorer:

    Time series
    monthly NOAA OLR 0-360E -90-90N Index
    ===
    using minimal fraction of valid points 30.00, olr [W/m^2] from Monthly means of OLR from interpolated OLR dataset, cutting out region lon= -1.250 358.750, lat= -90.000 90.000, (postscript version, raw data, netcdf)
    ===
    Two annual cycles, computed with all data available (postscript version, raw data)
    ===
    Anomalies with respect to the above annual cycle (postscript version, raw data, netcdf)

    Graphs are at the “postscript” links.

    There’s an odd spike around 1995, on the anomaly chart you can see what looks like a very strong upward step change in the data. This should be examined. From that point onward, sure looks like OLR has increased from then to now.

    Where do you get info on OLR that shows data for the unique CO2 spectral bands? Feel free to present it to support your claim. Pulled out from those last thirty years of ERBE data would be preferable.

  144. Shanghai Dan says:

    So, just to make sure I’m clear on this:

    Empirical data does not match the output from the models. Thus the empirical data must be wrong.

    Hmmm… Seems a lot of the pro-AGW crowd got things backwards! I’d say a review of the Scientific Method 101 is in order…

  145. Dave Springer says:

    @Spencer

    “Empire Strikes Back”

    Excellent! But be prepared to get sued by some dooshbag Hollywood liberal for using it.

  146. Paul Coppin says:

    It would perhaps be a propos to remind some that the purpose of “peer-review” is not to confirm or deny the science in the paper, but to assure the publisher and the editor that publication of the article will not diminish the standing, profitability, cachet and promotability of the journal, not the science…
    With regard to the authority of a PhD, it would perhaps be a propos to remind some that it is a point in time report, and, like a shiny new car, it begins to depreciate the moment it comes off the lot. In the end, it provides no better service going forward than the lowly rebuilt old clunker salvaged from the wreckers yard, cobbled together from bits and pieces found along the way. There may be, in fact, more value in the journey of the latter.

  147. Bill Illis says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    July 30, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    ———————-

    My comment about cloudiness was directed to the central Pacific. The changes here are big enough to affect the global average numbers but each region responds a little differently. Australia and Indonesia have the opposite cloud impacts during events.

    I’m afraid where you live, in an El Nino, you get more rain – in a La Nina, you get more rain.

    he timing might change a little and an El Nino will be a little warmer but, if you want less rain, you need neutral.

    http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/temp_precip/images/LaNinaImpacts_djf.jpg
    http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/temp_precip/images/ElNinoImpacts_jja.jpg

  148. William says:

    In reply Jamesc comment:

    jamesc says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm
    ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.

    jamesc,

    The ERBE data shows the opposite of what you state.

    “Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the
    feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.”

    The observed lack of warming on the planet and in the ocean supports Spencer and Lindzen’s results.

    The IPCC general circulation models are theoretical models that include assumptions. Satellite data and planetary temperature data indicates there are multiple fundamental errors in the IPCC GCM. The planet does not amplify changes in forcing. Feedback is not negative.

    The planet resists changes in forcing. Feedback is negative.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from
    the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It
    appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the
    increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes
    implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.
    This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.
    Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from
    ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision.
    Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the
    feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not
    distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate
    feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

  149. Steve Richards says:

    “How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”

    Just re-read the following from the Team’s CRU web site:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Over the last 35 years also, several staff have been on the editorial boards of a number of major climatic journals ( International Journal of Climatology, Climatic Change, Weather, Atmospheric Science Letters, Journal of Climate, The Holocene, Boreas, Climate Research, Theoretical and Applied Climatology ).

    No wonder people have trouble publishing!

    It’s like the Mafia.

  150. Matt Rogers says:

    What impresses me most about all of this is the recent “flurry” of studies attempting to explain why the planet is not warming as fast as was expected. This includes increasing stratospheric aerosols and Asian pollution. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html The very fact that we are debating something that wasn’t supposed to be happening in the first place is progress all by itself!

  151. observa says:

    [Let me rephrase] Phil Plait-

    “The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change, so more on [Big Oil] him in a moment — and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream [Global Gruesome Greasum] climate scientists.”

    And not only that but Thinkprogress can produce a geochemist that agrees with us so that trumps a Big Oil climate scientist any day so nyar nyar!
    Careful there Phil or next thing you know you’ll have any old common or garden scientist sticking their two bobs worth in and the well lubricated Climatology Club can’t have that now can they?

  152. Bystander says:

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fundanomics-the-free-market-simplified/

    Holy cow – imagine how people would respond here if a mainstream scientist said something like this.

    Talk about bringing a bias into the mix here…

  153. Pamela Gray says:

    Bill, you have us nailed in terms of precip under both ENSO conditions. The kicker is that in NE Oregon, we need snow, not just rain. Fortunately we got a boat load of mountain snow during the La Nina winter and our rivers are full. When we are under an El Nino winter condition we get lots of winter rain in the moutains, but that leaves us high and dry for summer irrigation water.

  154. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jose Suro says:
    July 30, 2011 at 2:44 pm
    “I think I understand that feedback cannot be accurately measured through observation because all the measured radiation is Net in just one bucket?”

    Right, And it cannot be otherwise for the Warmista because their models are radiation models only. In other words, the only natural processes that they model are processes of radiation. There arises the problem. Feedback is not a property of radiation. Feedback is a property of natural processes such as cloud formation. Warmista cannot deal with feedback for the simple reason that their models have nothing representing natural processes such as cloud behavior. In their models, phenomena such as La Nina are “emergent properties” of radiation.

  155. Theo Goodwin says:

    Judith Curry’s comments and conclusions regarding Spencer’s paper that she posted at her site are excellent. From the standpoints of solid science and solid scientific method, she explains that Spencer’s thesis is important. She does reject the “over the top” readings of Spencer’s thesis.

  156. R. Gates says:

    Julian Braggins says:
    July 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    “Are you sure the clouds in a La Nina episode are not just shifted? The eastern seaboard of Australia and most of the eastern half of the continent seem to have had their cloudiest period for ~30 years. The ocean temperatures have been well above the daily max on many occasions which would help to explain the cloud. OK, local weather— for half a continent.”

    ____
    You are correct in that warmer waters pile up of the eastern half of Australia during La Nina episodes & colder PDO cycles (hence the reason for the tremendous floods this past winter). But in addition to the location of cloudiness, El Nino/La Nina cycles are not equal in their NET contribution of heat and types and locations of cloudiness. More net heat globally is transferred from ocean to atmosphere during El Nino and this can be seen quite easily in global temperature data. One can very easily think of the charging and discharging of a battery as a good example of the NET effect of the ENSO cycle, where the battery charges during La Nina, and discharges during El Nino. Now there have been studies showing a relationship between solar cycles and ENSO, such as this:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3232.1?journalCode=clim

    And I’ve long suspected this is the case, and, if such studies are correct, then one might expect that during a round of La Nina’s occurring during a very quiet sun period, that the ocean battery of heat would not be recharging to quite the same level, so that during the following El Ninos, not quite as much heat will be released to the atmosphere.

  157. Richard S Courtney says:

    Bystander:

    Your comment at July 31, 2011 at 7:28 am makes no sense.

    You quote Roy Spencer as having said;
    “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

    Then you comment on that quotation by saying;
    “Talk about bringing a bias into the mix here…”

    Please explain how a person “supported by the taxpayer” to conduct honest research, and who tries to “protect the interests of the taxpayer” by his conducting honest research, is exhibiting “bias” when he attempts to “minimize the role of government” (or anybody else) in the conduct of that research.

    Should he behave like the Team by bowing to “the role of government” and ‘adjust’ his findings to support what government wants? Do you think that would not be “bias”?

    Richard

  158. Bruce Cobb says:

    Holy trolling, Bystander! Nice quote mining there. It was in reference to his book “Fundamonics” and he goes on to say “my point was that a federally-funded person like myself can be against excess government spending, just as some federally-funded legislators are, that’s all.”
    Besides, if a laimstream scientist ever said that I’d guess they would all freeze for eternity instead of roasting.

  159. Hello World says:

    Climate politics gets old after awhile.

  160. R. Gates says:

    Matt Rogers says:
    July 31, 2011 at 6:42 am

    What impresses me most about all of this is the recent “flurry” of studies attempting to explain why the planet is not warming as fast as was expected. This includes increasing stratospheric aerosols and Asian pollution. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html The very fact that we are debating something that wasn’t supposed to be happening in the first place is progress all by itself!
    _____
    Matt, you completely misunderstand what global climate models include, and have always included since first being developed. You also fail to see how the degree of confidence is high that there ought to have been more warming during the 2000-2009 period based on climate models. To search for reasons why something doesn’t happen when you think it should have, or happens when you think it should not is how you validate and refine your models.

    The whole issue really is that we don’t have a “control” earth where we can leave things untouched and then alter only one variable at a time on our separate “test” earth, to see what altering just that one variable will do. The next best thing we have is our global climate models which can serve as our “control” and “test” earth. The models showed we should have warmed more than we did in the 2000-2009 period, based on the contributions to the energy balance of the planet by the additional CO2 from humans. Since the models were wrong, then they obviously missed one or more factors. It is only logical for scientists to begin looking at what those factors might have been and once identified, to plug them into the global climate models and see if they can come close to duplicating what actually occurred. When you plug in the additional aerosols from increased volcanic activity, human sources (mainly China), a quiet sun, and several La Nina’s, etc. the climate models start to come close to duplicating what the actual temperatures were.

    A parallel experiment would be to ask what would have happened to the climate during the 2000-2009 period if you returned CO2 to pre-industrial levels of around 280 ppm. How much additional cooling might have occurred from the factors mentioned above?

  161. Steve Oregon says:

    “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.”

    This has been a frequent approach parroted by all of the rank and file activists as well.

    Alarmists to skeptics, “prove we are wrong.”
    On this alarmists regain and demand strict adherance to scientific evidence while their eyes looking for these standards never pass in front of any mirrors.

    The merry go round is spinning faster lately with academia seemingly complelled to launch more frequent and more embellished chants as if they think that sells. All it id doing is massaging their own delusions to get them through another day.
    It’s as many of them feel if they pull out the lethal injection of lying that is slowly killing their careers they’ll be ruined quicker by the truth.

  162. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    RC is a good barometer for how the climate community feel about such papers. Today, they have this posted:

    The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

    Predictable.

  163. davidmhoffer says:

    Yes, the debates now sounds like this:

    Realist; This study shows that the climate models vastly over estimate the amount of heat trapped by GHG’s. AGW is not nearly as significant as the models predict.

    Crazed and Angry Group of Warmists; Look at all the drowning polar bears, the end is nears!

    R; Uhm….that turned out to be a hoax, now about this data-

    CAGW; Have you seen the list of island atolls that will be drowned by global warming?

    R; Well island atolls float actually, now about this data-

    CAGW; This data didn’t come from a peer reviewed publication so we don’t have to look at it.

    R; Well publication and being right or being wrong don’t have much to do with each other, and nobody has been able to show where this study is wrong.

    CAGW; I’ve heard you believe in religion. That makes you stupid.

    R; Well I see no reason to debate what I belive in or of it makes me stupid when all we have to do is look at this data and we can see that-

    CAGW; You probably vote Republican too. Did you know that stupid people are more likely to vote Republican?

    R; Well how I vote doesn’t really change the data here at all, so how about taking a look-

    CAGW; Do you know that George Bush believes in global warming?

    R; Uhm… yeah…. and he believes in religion too, so by your argument-

    CAGW; There’s no point looking at your results because they are based on a flawed model.

    R; No, they are based on actual measurements and then compared to a model to see if it is flawed….

    CAGW; So you admit it, the model you used is flawed.

    R: Yes, the model I usd is YOUR model, which is flawed.

    CAGW; What flaws did you introduce into our model to make is flawed? Did you also adjust the data? Do you have any idea what the scientific methos is about at all?

    R; Yes, I know what the scientific method is, in fact I-

    CAGW; So you admit that you producted the results despite knowiing what the scientific method is. Do you even know how many polar bears are drowning? You should have your degree revoked.

    R; I’ll give up my degreee if you can show one single solitary scientific rebuttal to my data.

    CAGW; so, you really don’t care what happens to the polar bears at all, do you?

  164. Mac the Knife says:

    Another blog picking up Dr. Spencer’s work.

    Climate Change May Be Less Severe Than Predicted
    Posted on: Sunday, 31 July 2011, 06:10 CDT
    A University of Alabama climatologist is claiming that temperature-monitoring satellites have revealed “a huge discrepancy” between global warming predictions and the actual levels of heat contained within the atmosphere.
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2087781/climate_change_may_be_less_severe_than_predicted/index.html?source=r_science

  165. David Falkner says:

    Blade says:
    July 31, 2011 at 2:12 am

    LOL! RINO Republicrats. The breaking news would be if the any of the three of them were skeptics!

    Previous commenters mentioned your Appeal to Authority. I have a different take on it …

    George Bush :: Appeal to Inferiority

    Mitt Romney :: Appeal to Sorority

    John McCain :: Appeal to Seniority

    Really? Bush, McCain, and Romney aren’t conservative enough? Sounds like bad news for the GOP. A more appropriate response would be to point out the fact that you don’t have to be a Republican to be a skeptic, either.

  166. kwik says:

    noaaprogrammer says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    “Don’t you remember that the temperature of the Earth’s interior is at millions and millions of degrees?! Quite a heat sink!”

    Ah, but that is impossible. If the interior is millions of degrees, and the surface is at, say 293 K, then the suface cannot heat the interior.

    Sorry, could’nt help it. Shouldn’t be chipping away on a fellow sceptic !

  167. JK says:

    Keep up the work Mr. Spencer. I’m glad your shooting for the same low goal as the other Team.

  168. observa says:

    We don’t want to listen to anything those crazy Creationists and IDers have to say because the science of Evolution is settled. How does it go again? Once upon a time Gaia had this Big Bang and all the water suddenly appeared for some of the amoeba to crawl out of onto the land in Africa and evolve and spread out into intelligent evolutionary folk you all see about you today, which naturally means some are more evolved than others…err..no.. that’s wrong because God said all creatures were created equal..err..no that was the equally evolved Karl Marx that pointed out the obvious, which naturally means we need a whole host of positive discrimination policies…err..
    Well that’s cleared that little lot up for us all and now we can move on to the evolving science of climate change.

  169. Shanghai Dan says:

    R. Gates wrote:

    You also fail to see how the degree of confidence is high that there ought to have been more warming during the 2000-2009 period based on climate models. To search for reasons why something doesn’t happen when you think it should have, or happens when you think it should not is how you validate and refine your models.

    So we can agree the models are not validated and need further refining. Thus why should we take actions based on the output of these unvalidated and unrefined models? Confidence in the models may have been high, but apparently misplaced. As your own words indicate. A wise person would thus conclude that we should have LOW confidence in the predicted future as indicated by these unvalidated, unrefined models.

  170. Steve Oregon says:

    R Gates said
    “It is only logical for scientists to begin looking at what those factors might have been and once identified, to plug them into the global climate models and see if they can come close to duplicating what actually occurred. When you plug in the additional aerosols from increased volcanic activity, human sources (mainly China), a quiet sun, and several La Nina’s, etc. the climate models start to come close to duplicating what the actual temperatures were.”

    Are you suggesting they know the amounts, the right assumptions and have the ability to accurately “plug in” layers of other factors and come out the other end with reliable duplication of observations?
    Oh please. I am a simple lay person but have read much. I find your imagination and confidence in climate modeling to be near fantasy like.

    Furthermore I don’t remember ever reading any evidence that a 280 ppm CO2 today would be mean any noticable difference in the climate.
    You seem to have a knack for embellishing the refinement level of climate science.

  171. Shanghai Dan says:

    R. Gates writes:

    When you plug in the additional aerosols from increased volcanic activity, human sources (mainly China), a quiet sun, and several La Nina’s, etc. the climate models start to come close to duplicating what the actual temperatures were.

    Wait a minute. I thought the drumbeat was that solar input was basically irrelevant, and that aerosols are a non-problem as well. Now we’re adding back in the sensitivity and effect of those? Are they so great they can cover the supposed contribution from CO2? If so, then is CO2 the actual thing that should be concern?

  172. deke says:

    It APPEARS Trenberth IS ALWAYS CONDESCENDING WHEN IT COME TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW HE STRIKES ME AS A GUY THAT HAS AN AGENDA TO PROTECT.

  173. QuickieBurialAtSea says:

    ” Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. ”

    Richard Alley sez:

    “This staff member is siting there telling me: ‘I didn’t take science, I don’t know science, I don’t like science. I’m going to tell you that you’re basing global warming on a hockey stick.’
    Alley: “No we are not! We’re basing it on something that a satellite measures.”

    25:30

  174. Blade says:

    David Falkner [July 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm] says:

    “Really? Bush, McCain, and Romney aren’t conservative enough?”

    Hell no.

    “Sounds like bad news for the GOP.”

    Yep.

    “A more appropriate response would be to point out the fact that you don’t have to be a Republican to be a skeptic, either.”

    Well naturally! But you do have to admit that the Democratic-Socialist party attracts alarmists the same way a dung pile attracts flies.

    Admittedly, Bush, McCain, Romney are not identical triplets. Two of the three pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but none of them give a crap about the Ninth and Tenth, which are the chief limiting agents preventing the Federal government from turning Feral. So no, they are not ‘conservative’ enough (your word), especially at this juncture where the FedGov must either be cut to the bone to its Constitutional definition or it will completely devour the country.

    I’m not vaguely interested in the word ‘conservative’ and even less enthusiastic about the GOP Republicrats or Democratic Socialist ‘parties’. It was only 16 years ago when conservative and Liberal completely swapped meanings. In 1995, the incoming young turks were the liberals trying to radically change the FedGov, Contract With America, balance the budget and devolve power from DC to the states, while the establishment liberals became the conservative defenders of the status quo, fighting every change. So the adjectives are truly meaningless unless one is a party hack.

    All three of them, Bush, McCain, and Romney are establishment types. If you need proof you are not paying attention.

  175. Richard Pinder says:

    Miskolczi calculated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars added 3 Kelvin to an Atmosphere with 18 times more CO2 than the Earth, he then produced a theory to explain this. The warmists are attacking the theory even though it is not as important as the Observational findings in his paper that demolish the AGW theory. Are they thick or are they trying to divert attention from the observational facts in his paper?

  176. Roger Knights says:

    With regard to the authority of a PhD, it would perhaps be a propos to remind some that it is a point in time report, and, like a shiny new car, it begins to depreciate the moment it comes off the lot.

    Here’s an amusing quote I came across recently (attributed to Harold Hay):

    “If you have what it takes, you don’t need a PhD; and if you DON’T have what it takes, then you DO need a PhD!”

  177. FerdinandAkin says:


    Brian says:
    July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.

    George Bush is described as being “an inarticulate frat-boy who is intellectually challenged.”
    Mitt Romney is described as being “a religious fundamentalist who believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago.”
    John McCain is described as being “a senile old ideologue who is incapable of making a decision that is not based wholly on political factors.”
    So Brian, you hold Bush, Romney, and McCain up as advocates of anthropogenic global warming?

  178. Bystander says:

    Shanghai Dan says “Wait a minute. I thought the drumbeat was that solar input was basically irrelevant, and that aerosols are a non-problem as well. ”

    That sure looks like a straw man argument Dan – climate science isn’t saying that solar forcing and aerosols are irrelevant.

  179. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Bystander on August 1, 2011 at 8:43 am:

    That sure looks like a straw man argument Dan – climate science isn’t saying that solar forcing and aerosols are irrelevant.

    Especially true for real climate scientists like Dr. Spencer. For (C)AGW-pushing Climate Scientists™ they become much more relevant when trying to explain away how their shonky theories with their alarming resulting prognostications haven’t been matching real-world observations. ☺

  180. Shanghai Dan says:

    Bystander,

    The Union of Concerned Scientists, often held up as a huge part of the “consensus” of AGW, states the following:

    Global warming is primarily caused by emissions of too much carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, drive our cars, and power our lives. These heat-trapping gases spread worldwide and remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. Thus, as we continue to emit these gases, their atmospheric concentrations build up over time. In contrast, atmospheric aerosol particles are largely localized near their sources, and do not linger in the atmosphere for long so that, even if we continue to emit them at current rates, their atmospheric concentrations will not build up markedly over time.

    Sure sounds to me that it’s not aerosols that are causing the issue, as they supposedly also cause heating.

    As far as the sun, we’re told outright that the “scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change”. It’s not the change in solar output that is creating the heating.

    But somehow, the change is that now aerosols and solar output are causing cooling – while most of the consensus up until now has been that they either have small, localized effects towards HEATING or simply do not change much one way or another. Most interesting!

    I think I’ll go with R. Gates’ earlier conclusion that the models are not validated and not reliable…

  181. DR says:

    Hmm. Seems I recall the Team attacked Steve Mcintyre with the same viciousness….

    :)

  182. Richard says:

    I wish almost anybody but Spencer had done this study. Fairly or not, his reputation as a shill for Big Oil is firmly in place, and nothing he does/says will be taken serioulsy by the warmists. So it comes as no surprise Realclimate is trashing him, his study, and the studys peer reviewers.

  183. Eimear says:

    When the Jedi return and the empire is slain, we can all party with the ewoks.

    By the way does this mean some high up warmist will redeem himself by taking the ‘hockey stick’ out of his ***. (i.e. darth vader’s redemption)

Comments are closed.