by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
So, we continue to be treated to news articles (e.g. here, and here.) quoting esteemed scientists who claim to have found problems with our paper published in Remote Sensing, which shows huge discrepancies between the real, measured climate system and the virtual climate system imagined by U.N.-affilliated climate modelers and George Soros-affiliated pundits (James Hansen, Joe Romm, et al.)
Their objections verge on the bizarre, and so I have to wonder whether any of them actually read our paper. I eagerly await their published papers which show any errors in our analysis.
Apparently, all they need to know is that our paper makes the U.N. IPCC climate models look bad. And we sure can’t have that!
What’s weird is that these scientists, whether they know it or not, are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation. We show it actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later. Just like when you put a pot of water on the stove, it takes time to warm.
But while it only takes 10 minutes for a few inches of water to warm, the time lag of many months we find in the real climate system is the time it takes for several tens of meters of the upper ocean to warm.
We showed unequivocal satellite evidence of these episodes of radiant energy accumulation before temperature peaks…and then energy loss afterward. Energy conservation cannot be denied by any reasonably sane physicist.
We then showed (sigh…again…as we did in 2010) that when this kind of radiant forcing of temperature change occurs, you cannot diagnose feedback, at least not at zero time lag as Dessler and others claim to have done.
If you try, you will get a “false positive” even if feedback is strongly negative!
The demonstration of this is simple and persuasive. It is understood by Dick Lindzen at MIT, Isaac Held at Princeton (who is far from a “skeptic”), and many others who have actually taken the time to understand it. You don’t even have to believe that “clouds can cause climate change” (as I do), because it’s the time lag – which is unequivocal – that causes the feedback estimation problem!
Did we “prove” that the IPCC climate models are wrong in their predictions of substantial future warming?
No, but the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test those models for their warming predictions. And as long as the modelers insist on using short term climate variability to “validate” the long term warming in their models, I will continue to use that same short term variability to show how the modelers might well be fooling themselves into believing in positive feedback. And without net positive feedback, manmade global warming becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue. (e.g., negative cloud feedback could more than cancel out any positive feedback in the climate system).
If I’m a “denier” of the theory of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, so be it. But as a scientist I’d rather deny that theory than deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s not just Soros – Maurice Strong is the man
Global Warmist: “Don’t bother me with reality; what I’m looking for is a good fantasy!”
They’re not digging with a shovel now; they’re digging with a shaft boring machine: http://www.wirth-erkelenz.de/index.php?id=154
listening to: Talking Heads: “Stop Making Sense”
Dr. Spencer, I have no reason to believe you are wrong but I’m afraid I’m a little lost on how the 1st law is being violated by critics. How are their sums wrong because they have invoked a rapid or instantaneous feedback (I am also lost on how IPCC modelers can imagine an instantaneous feedback, but that is a different question).
The First Law, as all other scientific realities, is not politically correct. Arithmetic begone!
Lefties don’t believe in balancing the government’s fiscal budget, so they certainly don’t believe in balancing the Earth’s energy budget.
They borrow imaginary ‘missing heat’ as wantonly as the Fed prints more dollars of imaginary money. Their delusionary positive climate feedback is as fallacious as the infamous government-spending multiplier (which in the real world is also negative).
Socialist junk-science is as corrupt and destructive as Keynesian junk-economics. After all, they’re both only doors apart in Academe. Their fantasy-laden models even run on the same computers.
The fact that they came out so publicly to refute it reveals them as politicians, not scientists.
-> When a scientist has a paper that comes out that contradicts him/her, they go and read it, and learn. If they agree they revise their view and perhaps publish. If they disagree, they write more papers.
-> When a politician has an article that comes out that contradicts them, they go get themselves interviewed and the interview published.
Real scientists learn first, speak last. Politicians speak first, think last.
“But while it only takes 10 minutes for a few inches of water to warm, the time lag of many months we find in the real climate system is the time it takes for several tens of meters of the upper ocean to warm.”
Gee, is that why each year in the Northern Hemisphere the day of maximum sunlight occurs around 21 June or so, but the days of maximum daylight temerature don’t usually occur until from around mid- July to mid-August?
/Sarc
Dr Spencer
I came across this recent PhD thesis yesterday when I was trying to dig further into this problem.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~yhuang/research/thesis.pdf
It is a very long paper but it seems to be sound science. It seems to suggest that one can distinguish the cloud effect by spectral analysis. He looks to have done a very thorough job and yet it does not seem to be referenced by anyone. Don’t know if this is good or bad since it may mean it contains something that needs to be hidden. At least it uses actual satellite data.
I would welcome your opinion if you have time.
As the saying in the UK goes, (& it may well be elsewhere), “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”
Great response to the criticism, short and to the point.
It never has been about the science…..
….has it
The “consensus” has bigger goals in mind than doing science. Like Nancy Pelosi, they are “trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.” Also like Pelosi, what they mean by that is specifically saving the world of big government that we have today, headlined by such monstrosities as the IPCC. In other words, they are trying to save themselves.
Trenberth and Fasulio contend that the Spenser paper has no merit, that it compares apples and oranges, by comparing 10 year period variations with 100 year cycles used by the modelers. In any event, they argue, observations confirm the modelers’ forecasts.Others have made similar comments regarding the Spencer paper.
Hugh Pepper, as usual you spout mindless opinion that is contrary to the facts. Dr Spencer has shown with satellite observations that the models are wrong. And as we know, Trenberth has never been right. He’s not even up to the broken clock standard.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics certainly applies to the warmists… the entropy of the AGW argument is increasing… it is chaotic.
The AGW Advocates need to provide Two things.
1. A detailed explanation of how to observe, in Nature, the GreenHouse Effect without a GreenHouse Cause (i.e. ‘Static’ containment of the atmosphere that also prevents Convection).
2. A Detailed explanation of: How the Cause of Back Radiation does not in turn Cause Back Back Radiation and then Back Back Back Radiation and so on.
The misnomer GHE is a primary cause to the confusion. Everyone admits that the GHE is not Caused by a GreenHouse, but you get the same effect. Balderdash! If you are not preventing the atmosphere from expanding AND preventing gravity from dragging cooler more dense air beneath warmer expanding (less dense) air, then the lack of a GreenHouse Cause does not result in a GreenHouse Effect. In fact, since the atmosphere is extremely elastic (not a GreenHouse) and Gravity exhibits less force on expanding air (air that is warmed), any increase in Surface temps will result in an Anti-GreenHouse Effect. http://wp.me/pB8xR-9Q
The region where the air is warmed by the increased Surface Temp will Stretch (not static) and it will become less dense than areas next to it and rise (does not prevent convection). The Exact opposite of a GreenHouse Effect.
The Advocates must ignore all kinds of Laws to make their Theory (which cannot accurately be explained or tested, go figure) “work”. This is not easily done in Models, never been demonstrated or observed in Nature.
Spencer really gave them a hard time!
I’ve read all the comments at RC. And its a manifestation of weakness in both arguments as well as in no critic comments is allowed. Its a site for fanatics who have joined the holy climate jihad.
They are getting more and more isolated and strange. Anyone without a dog in this fight has to get surprised over how low the argumentative level has gone. It’s not about science anymore for the “team”. Its a fight of survival then anything gets justified. I’m really concerned for the future of science.
The few scientific arguments avoid the central point Spencer is making. Thats a very clear signal that they really don’t know what to say.
Measurements against models… I can feel the smell of meashurements in the morning … it smells like victory!!!
I wish there was someone who could give a simplified summary of the arguments for and against these types of papers for us casual but interested observers who don’t have time to work out the science.
anyone? 🙂
By definition then, how can these models be considered “science” if they can’t be tested and falsified?
You confuse my words Smokey. I didn’t express an opinion at all. I have stated views which are expressed by Trenberth and Fasulio in their paper which appeared in RealClimate. You may disagree with them if you wish, but I think you should have valid reasons for this disagreement, rather than merely engaging in facile ad hominem attacks.
Still more evidence that these people don’t understand that life changes. The planet today is different from the planet in the past. It will be different in the future. They have a fantasy that climate and nature would be in an ideal “steady state” if not for the existence of human civilization. Are they all creationists of some sort?
IF CO2 was the only factor in warming, then in theory, from equilibrium, if enough CO2 is added instantly to the atmosphere to increase the global temperature by 1 deg C, i.e. a step increase in CO2, then it would take X number of years to reach that 1 deg C (on average) and then it would stop. At this point the energy entering the atmosphere and leaving it will be in balance and constant (on average). Whilst the warming is going on, the energy in and out is not balanced or else there could be no warming at all.
If there are net positive feedbacks (vapour, methane etc), then the 1 deg C could cause more GHG to be released, and the temperature would rise further.
If the system can enter a runaway phase, then the temperature would continue to rise until the system is exhausted or saturated (depending on the mechanism) and then the equilibrium would return.
Energy out = energy in minus whatever change is taking place (positive or negative).
How does this contradict the 1st law of thermodynamics?
To be clearer I mean an idiots guide to the arguments presented in the paper and the criticisms being put forward by the pro AGWers.
Lol, excellent. A scientist that actually invokes a scientific law!! Well done Dr. Spencer!
As to the models and their angst about the criticism of them. Uhhmmm, Where have they been? Is there a model out there that one could term as being remotely accurate? I asked the same question at Climate etc. ……… I was shown…….. now get this…… Hansen’s 1988 version! This is riotous! 1), It doesn’t matter how one slices it, he was wrong by 100%. In my book, that doesn’t count as being close to reality. 2) Do they wonder why they haven’t improved in over 20 years of study their understanding of our climate? It is because the base assumptions are wrong! One can tweak a model until the cows come home, if the base assumptions are wrong, they’ll never get it right! … and lastly, or if you’re counting at home 3) I completed a cloud experiment yesterday. I was playing badminton with family yesterday, in Kansas. For those that don’t know……its stupid hot out. But, I noticed something very strange. Every time a cloud passed between me and the sun, I felt significantly cooler!! Every time!! That was the second part of the experiment. The first part was conducted last winter…… for those that don’t recall it was stupid cold for a spell. During one particularly cold occurrence, I had to regularly start my vehicle in order to ensure it would start when necessary.(We don’t have plug-ins for battery warmers and whatnot.) The moon was full and one could discern the clouds moving overhead. When the clouds passed overhead, at no point did I feel any warmer than otherwise.
Conclusion…… Clouds block heat entering the earth better than they retain heat of the earth. The net effect is a negative impact on the heat budget. Any model that doesn’t account for this dynamic will be wrong. Is there one that does? I’ve never seen one.
“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):”
This is unbelievable, a group of third rate scientists at UnReal Climate quoting Einstein. Of course why are they third rate, well firstly look at the quality of thier output and secondly how they skew their results to suit the Fiddlestick Teams cause.
Einstein and Bohr disgreed for fifty years but they were adults and did not insult each other with warped minded terms such as Denier.
If our Gav and his mates say you are wrong then Dr Spencer you must be right.