Rise of the 1st Law Deniers

 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.

 

 

About these ads

133 thoughts on “Rise of the 1st Law Deniers

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. “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

  5. 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.

  6. As the saying in the UK goes, (& it may well be elsewhere), “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. The Second Law of Thermodynamics certainly applies to the warmists… the entropy of the AGW argument is increasing… it is chaotic.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!!!

  13. 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? :)

  14. …the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test those models for their warming predictions.

    By definition then, how can these models be considered “science” if they can’t be tested and falsified?

  15. 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.

  16. Alec Rawls says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:36 am
    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.

    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?

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. “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.

  21. This is America, the most powerful nation in the world. We landed men on the moon and today we can’t even have that first law repealed? What a travesty.

  22. @Hugh Pepper

    But you’re missing the big thing Dr. Spencer is saying: modellers use short time periods to try to “verify” if their model is conforming close enough to reality. No modellers use 100 year cycles. And then, using satellites, we see that on those short, “verification” time scales, the climate’s response to heat is significantly different than the models. It is these short time scales that are used to diagnose feedback, and then the feedback is used to predict 100 year cycles.

    It doesn’t matter if others are trying to say “but the models predict for 100’s for years”. The issue of if they conform to reality enough to be an accurate prediction, via short term tests, rather than fooling ourselves about feedback is what’s being discussed by Dr. Spencer.

  23. strawbale says:
    August 1, 2011 at 10:04 am

    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.

    It’s pretty difficult to dumb-down the criticisms put forward by the pro-AGWers on this issue. They’re about as low as they can go (primarily because they don’t do anything one could call objective science).

    But hey, the upside is that they can continue to play with their models, burning CPU time until their grants run out. However, nothing substantive will be gained.

  24. Hugh Pepper says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:37 am

    “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.”

    Which observations in particular? Are you referring to global temperature datasets or radiation measurements such as CERES? I seem to recall it was a previous analysis of the radiation measurements that was responsible for the ‘missing heat’ conjecture. That fact alone should cast doubt on the accuracy of IPCC models.

  25. Hugh Pepper says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:37 am

    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.
    ================================================================

    lol, and you asked them for examples of the confirmation….right? I’m aware of no model that predicted the last decade of flat temps. Does the Kev and Fasulio have one that they didn’t tell us about? Further, I wasn’t aware that the models confined themselves to a century prognostication. That doesn’t seem very useful, in that our behaviors are guaranteed to change in the century to come, as is the dynamics of our climate. That’s one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard, yet.

    lol, the observation of more heat escaping than the models account for is confirmed? ahahahahahahah!!!!! Someone needs a nice quiet vacation in a small padded room.

  26. “Darren Parker says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:53 am

    It’s not just Soros – Maurice Strong is the man”

    It is both Soros and Strong and others. They are partners in a global cabal to promote statism as a means to control production and consumption of energy. The UN and NGOs are front organizations that they manipulate to achieve their goals.

  27. Hugh Pepper:

    At August 1, 2011 at 9:37 am you say:
    “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.”

    Then at August 1, 2011 at 9:51 am you say;

    “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.”

    Say what! Dismissing a paper by an assertion that it “has no merit” is an ad hominem attack on the author(s) of the paper.

    Importantly, it is a rejection of the scientific method and it is a falsehood to assert that the Spencer&Braswell (S&L) paper “Compares apples and oranges, by comparing 10 year period variations with 100 year cycles used by the modelers”.
    The S&L paper compares measurements to empirical data. It is basic scientific methodology to make that comparison and if a model fails to agree with the data then that indicates a fault in the model unless and until the data is shown to be wrong. This principle that models must emulate reality for them to be valid cannot be dismissed as being comparing “apples and oranges”.

    The modelers do not assess any cycles (of 100 or any other years lengths) so it is a blatant falsehood to assert that the S& paper compares “10 year period variations with 100 year cycles used by the modelers”.

    The S&L paper demonstrates that the observations of S&L refute “the modelers’ forecasts”. That some other data may – or may not – agree with the modelers forecasts is not relevant.

    If that is the best that Trenberth, Fasulio “others” can do to refute the S&L paper then RC should keep quiet because their “comments” confirm the point made by Roy Spencer in his article above.

    Richard

  28. As an AGW skeptic (and a former physicist), I am interested in a response to BargHumer’s post. It seems reasonable but, honestly, I haven’t spent a lot of time with thermodynamics except for my undergraduate and graduate courses.

  29. @strawbale:

    Hey, just read the paper OK? this one is really simple. Or at least ask specific questions and the folks here will help you out.

  30. I think this paper by Spencer and Braswell will actually break the AGW. I think it will stand over time as the actual paper that broke the camels back. In fact I became a denier (not even a skeptic) 3 years ago, from being a believer believe it or not LOL. THis will put to shame even people like Monckton who are going around calculating that at most C02 will cause a 1C rise per century? absolute drivel we don’t know that. This paper uses REAL data and its showing that probably C02 has NIL effect on global temperatures, BTW…. I said probably…. Its time for skeptics to start completely denying any discernible warming at all due to anthropogenic C02 Haha

  31. @David,

    BargHumer’s post is invalid from the start. “If CO2 was the only factor in Warming” is a nonstarter. It is not a factor in Warming. Warming is a net increase in energy pressure for a particular volume of space.

    There are Two Factors Warming. Energy In and Energy Out with several dependencies. Dependencies include but are not limited to; Specific Heat Capacity (SHC), Density, Volume of System being measured, Energy transfer mediums available, Emissitivity (based on substance, phase, temp, and shininess), and relation to regions of differing Energy Pressures.

    A Thermo System is most basically the Sum of all energy transfers into and out of that system. No closed system exists in nature. Temperature is best viewed as Energy Pressure when observing energy transfers over time if one wants to predict the temperatures of specific regions in a heterogeneous environment. This helps since different substances are able to store more energy per unit volume than others and different phases of matter create differences in the mediums and rates of energy transfers.

    Entropy demands that the most efficient means of energy transfer be max’ed out while the next mode be max’ed out as well. This would strongly suggest that Convection influences the rate of Radiation more than the rate of Radiation influences Convection.

    CO2 does not Create Energy. CO2 concentration is being hypothesized to influence the temperature of the Atmosphere or Surface, which or both has never been adequately explained. It has been reasonably postulated that CO2 absorbs outgoing IR and that slows the rate of cooling enough to cause an increase in energy pressure (aka Temp) at the surface.

    continued below . . .

  32. Finally got around to reading the paper in full and I can see why Dr Spencer is nonplussed by the Prof. Trenberth’s criticisms that the model is too simple as it does not include ENSO. As is explained quite clearly in the paper, the monthly data are anomalies and plotted as monthly figures prior to and after temperature maxima – this takes account (and in fact relies on) ENSO variations. In fact, it is stated specifically that since the temperature maxima ARE ENSO-related and the pattern of net flux suggests radiative forcing, this implies that ENSO events have a radiative forcing component. This is presented as a hypothesis which Drs Spencer and Brasswell leave out there for refutation by detailing the data sets on which it is based.

    Should people wish to do so, they could refute this by using these data sets, instead of which they appear to have resorted to denigration of the authors.

    I don’t have the maths to be able to determine the validity of the work Dr Spencer has done (in particular extracting the flux signatures up to 18 months either side of temperature maxima), but I can read the paper and follow the logic and it seems quite clear that he has identified a serious discrepancy between measured data and the existing models. Whether this is enough to invalidate those models is not clear and no claims to this are made in the paper. With the simple figures included it cannot be stated whether difference is statistically or – more importantly – scientifically significant, but the variability in the experimental data would be based on quite different sources of error than the models to which it is being compared which would make suv=ch a comparison subject to a great deal of controversy in itself.

    What is abundantly clear, however, is that the proponents of high sensitivity models are simply not prepared to address the discrepancy between their models and the data and instead are attacking the validity of the paper itself. As a model-builder you simply cannot allow yourself to dismiss criticism in this way – you have to look as critically as possible at your model and when anyone else brings up a point, it has to be addressed because you are never going to be able to fully validate your model yourself. Hubris is the worst possible trait in such a case and this – sadly – is what is being demonstrated here.

  33. This is a note to anyone who doubts (or doesn’t understand) the following statement.

    … you cannot diagnose feedback, at least not at zero time lag as Dessler and others claim to have done.

    Spencer is absolutely right as long as you can only see the system inputs and outputs. A system with feedback is defined by its transfer function.

    A = B/C

    where:
    A is the system gain
    B contains the forward gain
    C contains the feedback gain

    You really can’t distinguish this system from one where:

    A = D

    As long as you can find

    D = B/C

    where D has no denominator; which will be true for systems with no delay even if D is complicated. (at least I can’t think of a counter example) It is trivially true if D is a constant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-loop_transfer_function

  34. Dr. Spencer, you have done a great job!

    I know many people ask you to look at this and that, and comment on it. I also know this must be quite irritating for you.

    But can you please, please have a look at what Harry Dale Huffman has written, showing that there is no greenhouse effect at Venus? I find nothing wrong with it, it just confirms others arguments regarding laps-rate, gravity and distance from the sun;

    And give us a comment? Please?

    Here;

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

  35. From @The End is Far . . . CO2 absorbs outgoing IR and that slows the rate of cooling . . .

    This thought has several fallacies. First it only initially slows the Radiative Rate of cooling. It does not inhibit the Convection Rate which is dependent upon Gravity, the elasticity of air, and varying densities of air due to Energy Pressure (Temp) and Humidity. A reduction in the radiative rate will only result in an increase in the Convective Rate.

    Another is the SHC for the varied Surface which is composed of water, soil, and a blend represented by vegetation. Water has a very high SHC (4.186 j/g C and 1,000,000g/m^3) which causes it to warm and cool slowly as compared to other substances such as Dry Air (1.007 and 1300 g/m^3) and Soil (less than 1 and ~2,650,000g/m^3).

    Trapping a couple W/m^2 Radiatively when the average cooling rate is 385 to 390 W/m^2 will not be measurable where the surface is water, and extremely difficult to detect over soil or vegetation, especially since Convection being the more efficient of the two mediums for energy transfer will automatically be a means to relieve any increase in localized Energy Pressure. In fact, since the Earth’s Surface’s SHC is highly variable, this causes some areas to cool more quickly than others causing convective currents to form which increases the rate of cooling.

    Another is elasticity. Since the atmosphere expands, it automatically has a mechanism to cool simply through expansion. The lower the air pressure the less work that has to be done to expand. Sure the temp drops more slowly with easier expansion, but it is quite cold above 6,500m (~0C) anyway. To see a very good example of the elasticity of the atmosphere, see the height of the Tropopause at the Poles and at the Equator. It is variable depending on the seasons, of course.

    Lastly (but there are other issues as well) areas with higher energy densities (i.e. solids & liquids) will typically show energy moving towards areas with lower energy densities (gases & near vacuums) since those areas cool far more quickly (small energy reservoirs deplete faster) than more dense regions. Areas with Higher Pressures but Lower Densities reach equilibrium with areas with Lower Pressures but Higher Densities quickly. Since the Atmosphere also cools towards Space, the net flow is outward.

    Being a Physicist (once a physicist, always a physicist), do you see any error with the above?

  36. “Einstein and Bohr disgreed for fifty years but they were adults and did not insult each other with warped minded terms such as Denier.”

    Sad to say it did get very heated with some name calling. In fact, not too different from today. Science (physics) models have always provoked serious and sometimes distasteful outbursts but that’s how it moves forward. This is what scepticism does. The difference today is that thousands of politicians have hung their hats on AGW in order to raise their taxation takes. That will make it virtually impossible to change this “science”. However, if it does break, because of the head of water behind the ‘dam’ of scepticism, it will be catastrophic.

  37. At least this paper is getting some public attention from the alarmist camp. Now if they can go into specifics, Dr. Spencer et al can attempt to address them and voila! we have a scientific debate!

  38. Dr. Spencer,

    In your recent posts here at WUWT you do look like you are really enjoying yourself. I hope you keep that spirit! Science is indeed fun here at WUWT (thanks again Anthony & team).

    I appreciate the singular thrust of your statement, “We [Spencer & Braswell 2011] show it [the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation] actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later.” Something to really bite into.

    Personal Note: Last week I got the kindle for PC version of your book, ‘Fundanomics The Free Market, Simplified’. I already read it once and now going through it more slowly. It will take its place next to my 40 year old dogged eared paperback copy of H. Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’.

    John

  39. @kwik:

    Regarding Venus, that’s pretty much where Carl Sagan started. Sagan’s first estimates of the surface temperature of Venus were based only on knowing the temperature of the cloud tops, the rough radar depth to the surface, and the adiabatic lapse rate of various possible atmospheric gases (nitrogen atmosphere, CO2 atmosphere, etc). It was both very accurate and was done before he went all nuts about the greenhouse effect. Also worthy of note was that his surface temperature estimates for a nitrogen atmosphere were far higher than for a CO2 atmosphere, as nitrogen has a much higher adiabatic lapse rate.

    He should’ve stopped once he’d given the correct answer, which would’ve saved all sorts of nonsense about a runaway greenhouse effect and other doomsday scenarios.

  40. Interesting that no one answers the question, or seemingly understands the point. Engineers often test systems with a step function. I am exploring the idea of a step function with CO2 input, since it is CO2 that the AGWers are always complaining about. In the book “Slaying the sky dragon” this point is made repeatedly that energy in = energy out + (energy absorbed during a transition up or down).

    The fancy footwork and naming lots of mechanisms related to radiation, convection, expansion etc, doesn’t change the basic equation at all.

    I am a skeptic, but this argument has not been dealt with properly as I see it. The point is not that CO2 does this, only that many people believe it does and that if they are correct then it doesn’t violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. If it does we need a simple explanation rather than being blinded with science – that is the way of the AGWer.

  41. It’s very easy to deny the theory of anthropogenic climate change since it isn’t an actual theory to boot, secondly because the “hypothesis” is based on anthropogenic global warming which in term is based on man’s effect on the supposed existence of a green house effect blanketing the earth’s emissions to space that so happens to create the open circulatory by-proxy system the hashish communist clowns call the climate.

    What is truly anthropogenic though is the hashish hansen smurfs’ geo-engineering fiddling to try and “fix” the climate back to the IPCC preferred 1988’s “climate” in a authoritarian dictatorial communist manner with out democratic regards to what everyone else thinks and wants.

    Only communist and doped up morons would spend billions on wasting a perfectly good [pair] of oxygen to each coal by storing it in the ground instead of recycling it back into perfectly usable [pair] of oxygen and a coal by spending mere millions on, say, planting trees and shrubberies and what not. Heck even ganja does a perfectly good job of recycling the CO2, supposed but unproven, menace.

  42. The warmists and the so called expert climate scientists are feeling the heat (or should that be the chill!).

    They are becoming more strident in their views whilst providing less and less science to back it up.

    They are relying more and more on their consensus argument and on attacking contrarians with ad hom and instant judgement on their evidence and hypotheses again with next to no scientific calculation.

    The team at RC (the site that deals with the science!!!!!!) are just conducting an exercise in PR and use censorship to achieve it. They desperately try to keep any evidence that may be an ‘inconvenient truth’ away from their threads.

    Just an example from today on the thread they have running about Dr Spencer’s paper.
    Quite a bit of the thread is about whether the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a forcing or a feedback on the climate.
    The thread has the usual quota of total ad hom and other nasty attacks ( by Ray Ladbury et al) on individuals who in some cases are asking reasonable questions or trying to make a reasonable point.

    I posted this.

    “.The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is not a separate forcing, it acts as an amplifier of the radiative forcing effect of the Sun. Take that away that and you are not left with the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ forcing you are left with nothing.

    For calculation, of the impact of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’, it is treated as a separate forcing and this seems a convenient thing to do.

    However, the basic axiom of AGW should, more properly, be stated not as “increasing ‘Greenhouse’ gases will cause the Earth to warm” but as “increasing the Radiative Forcing effect will cause the Earth to warm”.

    There is only one problem with stating the issue correctly and that it is demonstrably false!

    In the last 500 million years the Suns radiative forcing has increased by about 65 WM2 at the TOA. 500 million years ago the Earth was a familiar place the atmosphere was very similar to today’s. Plants, animals and insects were well established we would feel comfortable if we were present then.

    (65 WM2 at the TOA is about 17 WM2 of actual forcing about 5 times the 3.7 WM2 due to a doubling of CO2)

    However, what has been the Earths response to this very significant increase in radiative forcing? Why it has cooled of course from about 22c to today’s 14c!

    Now I am sure people will come up with ‘ah buts’. However, that is not the issue, there surely are reasons why the Earth has cooled, in the face of this increase in radiative forcing.

    The truth is though, that the axiom, that the Earth must warm in the face of an increase in radiative forcing, is falsified and that is a fact!”

    Now perhaps some of the Warmists out there are prepared to comment here on this falsification of a basic axiom of CAGW as they certainly can’t at RC due to censorship. They can then also comment about why RC censored the post as it is just quoting scientific facts and making an obvious and logical conclusion.

    Why would a site ‘devoted to the science’ do this? Any possible reasons you can think of?

    Alan

  43. strawbale wrote:

    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.

    Here you go, in a nutshell.

    One group of scientists built some models that predict A will happen. Another group of scientists went out and took some measurements and found that B happened. Now the model group says that their models trump measurements because the measurements do not reflect what the models said should happen.

    Basically, it’s the claim that when theory doesn’t match reality, reality is wrong.

    Crazy, huh?

  44. BargHumer says:
    August 1, 2011 at 10:03 am

    IF CO2 was the only factor in warming…

    If there are net positive feedbacks …

    If the system can enter a runaway phase…

    Energy out = energy in minus whatever change is taking place (positive or negative).

    How does this contradict the 1st law of thermodynamics?

    What you are saying does not contradict the 1st law of Thermo. However, what you are saying is very different from what Dr Spencer or those attacking his paper are saying.

    The models in question seek to predict global temperature 100 years from now. Computers themselves have not existed for 100 years, nether has software, so no one has thus created a computer algorithm that has predicted anything 100 years hence. It has never been done. However, the climate modelers would have us believe they are doing just that. That’s quite convenient when you consider many of them are over 40 and will not live to see their predictions matched to reality, but that’s another matter.

    Dr Spencer is saying that the modelers primarily use knowledge of short-term climate variability to predict long-term climate change. As far as I know, he’s correct in saying that. Now Spencer has shown with satellite measurements that net energy changes create short-term changes in global temperature that are not predicted by the climate modelers long-term predictions using short-term climate variations. In essence he’s saying you need to at least be able to see the short-term cycles for what they are before you start predicting longer-term changes.

    So, in telling Spencer that his paper is meaningless to their predictions, they are essentially saying that short-timescale earth energy budget is meaningless to their predictions. This is a actually a predictable response given past responses from the team, but does in fact deny the 1st law of thermo in a sense. By ignoring changes you didn’t predict on a timescale that you may not have intended to care about, you are implying that basic thermodynamics doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter to your model of the Earth.

    Look at it this way. You have two people. On of them predicts the path of a rocket in space and says they will predict the path 100 years hence as it weaves through the solar system. Another says they see short term variation in direction, possibly due to unknown or poorly-quantified gravity wells. The first person then claims that any short-term variability is meaningless to their long-term projections. Isn’t that the same as denying F=mA? Is that not also the most ridiculous thing you’ve heard? What physicist would discount the effects of small changes in path to a spacecraft? In point of fact, one of the mysteries currently unsolved is the changes in path to two of the Pioneer probes leaving the solar system. They were off course and no one could explain why.

  45. Jeremy says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:10 am

    > The fact that they came out so publicly to refute it reveals them as politicians, not scientists.

    Or it means they recognize WUWT as an widely read information source but don’t want to come here in person.

  46. To Alan and

    Hugh Pepper says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:51 am

    “….. I think you should have valid reasons for this disagreement, rather than merely engaging in facile ad hominem attacks.”

    I must quote Bob Tisdale from the earlier thread;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/#comment-709018

    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.

  47. strawbale says:
    August 1, 2011 at 10:04 am
    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.
    =========
    From a fellow idiot,
    You are entering a realm you may never escape.

  48. This post has no credibility whatsoever, with such a glaring flaw.

    That pic is from Terminator Salvation, not rise of the machines.

  49. Just thinking out loud: We don’t deny climate around here; that’s about all we talk about. However, we deny that those who are modeling climate anytime in the future are doing a credible job. And by “credible”, that means can they first predict what’s happening in the short term, and can they hindcast what’s happened in the past?

    If the answers to those questions are a resounding “NO” (and they are), then they aren’t doing a credible job. And that’s what’s got their underwear in a bunch.

  50. Dr Spencer has hit a rich vein here. The time lag concept is unequivocal and occurs in nature all the time, but often doesn’t show up in many academic papers because academics are taught from day 1 to reduce and correct ‘errors’ and ‘mismatches’ as part of good academic editing. The difficulty lies in differentiating valid variation and time lag in nature to common mathematical or other errors. Forecasts must match specific timelines, variations to a theme must be ‘smoothed’ for errors etc. So ‘time lag’ is usually smoothed out and left out. This tendancy also springs from a deeper assumption; that variations to a dominant natural process are ‘errors’ or ‘noise’ by default, rather than an essential element of any chaotic system.

    Here are some time lags in nature for reference:

    -seasonal land maximum warmth after the summer solstice (up to 6 weeks after summer solstice).
    -seasonal cold mimima after winter solstice (as above, but usually less).
    -daily land warmth maxima after noon (several hours, depending on clouds and wind)
    -20 year time lag of max. earth temperatures determined by solar proxies (Usoskin paper).
    -lag in C02 max/minima of several hundred years following temperature changes and ice ages
    -lag in temperature changes following earth orbital variations/axis tilt variations and ice ages, particularly for warmth after an ice age (due to ice and albedo affects presumably, which has more time lag than cooling following an interglacial)
    -seasonal lags in ocean temperatures and currents following winter and summer solstice
    -lag in El Nino/Lina effects from west to east pacific
    -ocean tidal lags which follow the moon and sun, but are delayed due to the rate at which water is transferred across the oceans and to the shores.
    -Tidal river bores as localised tidal events lags, which may take hours to go up a river after peak tide.
    -max swell wave generation following a storm; swell waves produced from wind take time and space to form and reach their peak, and therefore max. peak swell size has a temporal and spatial lag after max wind strength, and only after a length of ocean has been traversed. This can also be effected by local ocean currents (which, if counter to the prevailing winds can produce rogue waves in the open ocean, an extreme ‘maxima event’, a very good analogy to the climate?).
    -max. wind gusts following a storm, eg ?tornados may be viewed as ‘chaotic lag effects’ once a tropical storm is already established
    -the whole concept of a ‘tipping point’ loosely fits into lag effects in a broader sense.

    Can’t think of any others for now, but they are common in nature, not so common amongst academica, due to the diffuculty in differentiating valid variation and time/spatial lag in nature to normal mathematical or other errors and inconsistencies.

  51. Dr Spencer,

    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?

  52. Spencer writes:

    “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.”

    Pardon me for kicking a dead donkey, but another way to say this is that Gaia Models that posit only processes of radiation (as all do) are incomplete. The time lag is in a natural process that is distinct from any process of radiation; in Spencer’s analogy, that is the time the water on the stove takes to warm.

    The Achilles Heel of all Warmista reasoning is that their models do not posit natural processes that are distinct from processes of radiation. Yet the forcings are in the natural processes such as cloud formation. Warmista must create physical hypotheses that describe the natural regularities that make up the relevant phenomena, such as cloud formation, and they must show that these physical hypotheses can be used for prediction and explanation of forcings. Warmista have not so much as attempted this absolutely necessary undertaking.

    Warmista science is no less “a priori” in its reasoning and methods than Spinoza’s philosophy. Warmista must put aside their aversion to empirical research and begin the work that will, in Spencer’s metaphorical language, enable us to predict the time lags in the different kinds of liquids and pots that are used on the stove.

  53. Addendum to my post just above, where I wrote:

    “Warmista must create physical hypotheses that describe the natural regularities that make up the relevant phenomena, such as cloud formation, and they must show that these physical hypotheses can be used for prediction and explanation of forcings.”

    To me, the most remarkable thing about the work of Svensmark is that he is creating exactly the kind of physical hypotheses that I describe above. His physical hypotheses will describe those natural regularities in the behavior of clouds that can be associated with laws governing cosmic rays and solar activity. The one – two punch of Spencer and Svensmark just might begin a Copernican (Keplerian, really) Revolution in climate science.

  54. Has anybody read the AP article referenced via link in Dr Spencer’s piece?

    “Several mainstream climate scientists call the study’s conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. ”

    “most of whom are not scientists……………?”
    So only the believers have a scientific majority?

  55. The warmiatas are using any argument they can to support their cuase. You can show them any evidence whatever, but they will not look. These “scientists” have a political agenda, that coincides with the politicians’ agenda. (who pay them) …. google Lysenko. We are in a very sad period indeed.

  56. Did you prove AGW theory wrong?

    NO, but the AGWers haven’t displled the disbelievers … they haven’t shown that current “climate changes|” are not natural.

    Logically, this is what the AGWers MUST do!

  57. Vic says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Dr Spencer,

    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?
    =========================================================

    Vic,

    I can’t speak for Dr. Spencer, but……..

    I certainly hope not. The glaciers were left over from the last ice age. Were those mountains of ice to return, we’ll have much more to worry about than 1/2 degree rise in temps.

  58. As long as the Sceptics confuse the phony GLOBAL warming with the constant real climatic changes; please don’t blame the Alarmist. Climate never stopped changing for 4billion years. Nobody can or should stop it from changing. Some places changes for better, another for worse. Every Sceptic that cannot see trough the trick Alarmist played on them by puting the phony warming with the climate in the same bascket is a born loser. H2O changes climate, not CO2! Simpson desert has less CO2 than around Kyoto city; which one of those two places has better climate and why?! See the health of the tree in Kyoto park; compare with the one in the desert. More CO2+H2O = GREEN. Who is the clown to say that before the industrial revolution was the best amount of CO2 in the air and in the water?! Ask the trees, not the clown. Trees don’t tell lies.

  59. Interstellar Bill,
    I’m afraid I must disabuse you of one thing: The real political left know exactly what they want to achieve … their dominance over “society”, which means all economic, political and social activity of a population. TOTAL CONTROL. They have adopted a GREEN MANTLE to disguise their guise.

  60. James Sexton,

    So let me get this right, those glaciers hung on through ten thousand-odd years of the Holocene (including the medieval warm period), only to meet their demise in the last 150 years ? Wow !
    I never realised just how resistant to warming those vanished glaciers were.

  61. Vic says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
    Dr Spencer,
    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?

    The reduction in glacial ice is directly attributable (by correlation) to the reduction in piracy, so if you want the glaciers to increase then you and as many of your friends as you can talk into it should become pirates.

  62. “Dr. Spencer,

    In your recent posts here at WUWT you do look like you are really enjoying yourself. I hope you keep that spirit! Science is indeed fun here at WUWT (thanks again Anthony & team).

    I appreciate the singular thrust of your statement, “We [Spencer & Braswell 2011] show it [the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation] actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later.” Something to really bite into.

    Personal Note: Last week I got the kindle for PC version of your book, ‘Fundanomics The Free Market, Simplified’. I already read it once and now going through it more slowly. It will take its place next to my 40 year old dogged eared paperback copy of H. Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’.

    John”

    You should add The Fatal Conceit and The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek to your list of economic bibles.

  63. **Vic says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
    Dr Spencer,
    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?***
    Did I miss something? In which part of the paper are glaciers discussed?

  64. Dr. Spencer – I read your paper, and as far as I can tell there is no estimate of errors in the text and no errorbars on your charts.

    That means that your statement “huge discrepancies” is false. Or at least it cannot be determined from your paper. Without an error estimate one may assume that the differences you see are within the margin of error.

    My question: How is it that you managed to get a paper without any discussion of errors through the peer review process at remote sensing? [snip]

  65. Vic says: August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
    Dr Spencer,
    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?
    *************************************
    Dr. Spenser,
    I must agree with Vic. Both Chicago and New York used to be under an ice sheet up to 5,000 feet thick. It is arguable that the world would be a better place should they return!

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

    Hey guys! It’s a joke! Unfortunately, dealing with the Goreacle acolytes, it is not always clear as to which statements are supposed to be funny.

  66. I want to know which idiot at NASA let this Spencer fellow get his hands on real data?
    Disaster!
    Nothing but disaster will follow this major blunder.
    There’s no going back.
    The truth is out.
    A complete, utter disaster.

    /sarc off

  67. 1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would would say no.

    2. No one denies the 1st law of thermodynamics and you know it.

    3. Still denying evolution?

    4. Still hoping Steve Martin will play your character in the movie? (Yes I read your book Blunder. This feedsback into #1.)

  68. Hugh Pepper says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:51 am
    … I have stated views which are expressed by Trenberth and Fasulio in their paper which appeared in RealClimate.

    So that would be peer reviewed, then, Hugh?

  69. Mike says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    1) What do you think of his paper?
    2) What do you think of his paper?
    3) What do you think of his paper?
    4) What do you think of his paper?

  70. Hugh Pepper says:

    “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.”

    Hugh Pepper, please don’t exaggerate the status of the Trenberth and Fasulio comments. Re-read RealClimate and you will see it is a commentary and certainly not a paper and as such has no more (or less) merit than any other non-peer reviewed comment. AGW proponents are quick to criticise any non peer reviewed comments by those contesting their beliefs but seem to ignore the absence of peer review in comments that support their views or, as in this case, imply peer review that in fact has not occurred.

  71. I enjoyed Dr Spencer’s paper and coming from the mathematics/physics background concur with it. Also in maths we have a concept which is used in forecasting and i.e definition of state. It posit that before you attempt a forecast (which is probablistic by defintion) one needs to ensure that the starting point is fully defined without probability. Climate syaytem being a complex phenomena is not fully defined on day Zero. Whatever day zero is assumed. Thus the starting condition is probabilistic and not certain which exposes the forecast to significant potential error.

    On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.

  72. Vic says:
    August 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    James Sexton,

    So let me get this right, those glaciers hung on through ten thousand-odd years of the Holocene (including the medieval warm period), only to meet their demise in the last 150 years ? Wow !
    I never realised just how resistant to warming those vanished glaciers were.
    =============================================================

    lol, No, I don’t think you’re getting it right. The glaciers weren’t “hanging on”, ice covering land has been receding since the ice age….. in fits and starts.

    Vic, I’m in awe of people like you. I can’t, for the life of me, understand how you function. People such as I am called climate change deniers all the while it is you people that expect the climate not to change. Its the silliest part of this entire larger dialogue. Where do you think those glaciers came from? Why do you think they should always remain?

    You people take a snap shot of how the world was at one particular point in time, idealize it, and then expect your fantasy world to remain, when, in fact, the world(with mankind’s efforts) has gotten much more habitable in recent years. But, then you blame the very people that makes the world easier to live in for destroying your fantasy world. It is simply an astonishing dynamic! —— “Oh that evil petro!!! I can actually find work beyond walking distance!! That should be outlawed!!!”——- “Oh that evil gas!!! It keeps me and my family warm during the cold season!!!! We certainly should attempt to end that!!!” ——- “Oh, that evil electricity!!!! It keeps our food fresh and cools our homes and allows production of goods and services!!! We must end this now!!!!” ——— You do realize how silly this sounds to rational people, do you not?

  73. Nullius in Verba says:
    August 2, 2011 at 12:10 am

    “On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”

    So was I. But only in the question regarding intelligent design. I was also very dissapointed in Isaac Newton when I read about his escapades within alchemy and religin. But the formulae F = m x a still holds, at least when moving very slow in respect to the speed of light.

    My father was a heavy smoker, but still a very good pilot.
    These arguments are just a part of the very strange effect of certain people that dont understand mathematics and physics, has to rely on authorities in these matters. So they must choose an authority. Therefore they see all this as a battle between which authority to believe in. And therefore, all they can do is attacking those who questions their selected authority.

    They cannot attack Dr. Spencers plots made from satelite data. I doubt they understand a plot with an X and Y axis at all.

    So it looks very much like the case of religion. Their “God” is Al Gore. Questioning the God is much like blasphemy to them, and must be forbidden.

    This paper will be extremely damaging to the CAGW religion.

  74. The simple mutterings seem to of shifted to ‘well if 9 Drs say why would you listen to the 10th doctor’ rubbish. Seen this appeal over at Climate Etc as well.

    Funny enough these people probably would not agree with the term ‘well if 9 hedge fund managers say why would you listen to the 10th’ though.

  75. Mike says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would would say no.

    2. No one denies the 1st law of thermodynamics and you know it.

    3. Still denying evolution?

    4. Still hoping Steve Martin will play your character in the movie? (Yes I read your book Blunder. This feedsback into #1.)

    1. Flawed analogies are not science.

    2. Just because you say somehting, doesn’t make it true. Dr. Spencer has shown why he thinks the models are not compatible with the 1st law. You need to show otherwise and not just a sweeping statement.

    3. How is this relevant to climate?

    4. Ad Hom. Ad Hoim Ad Hom.

    You probably think you post makes you look really clever (ironic, considering the narcisist comment), but without any cogent reasoning, it just does the opposite.

  76. Or to put ike’s comments in perspective, in the real world, if 9 quacks agree on something that does not make it right. And in this analogy that’s what Trenberth, Dessler, Gavin Scmhidt and the RC gang are. They are the quacks of climate science.

  77. On the subject of error bars. Correct me if I am wrong as I am not completely au fait with the science here but the paper takes observed radiation measurements by satellite and then outlines an equation that explains the observed lag between the forcing/feedback and temperature.

    So the only possible errors are:

    1) The likelihood that the maths is wrong and the equation doesnt match the observations.

    2) measurement errors on the satellites instruments.

    With regards to 1) has any scentific paper provided error estimations concerning the likelihood of the authors maths being wrong?

    With regards to 2) surely the instruments have been calibrated correctly by the managing authority and any errors would be in magnitude rather than delta.

    Also as the main point of the paper concerns the lag of forcing/feedback to temperature how are temporal errors (the only ones likely to spoil the point of the paper ) likely to manifest themselves? Could the satellite clocks be variably inaccurate over time or did someone fall asleep at their console when taking measurements?

    As I said I am no expert here but in my imperfect opinion I fail to see where error bars are necessary.

  78. Nullius in Verba says:
    August 2, 2011 at 12:10 am

    I enjoyed Dr Spencer’s paper and coming from the mathematics/physics background concur with it.

    On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.
    ==========================================================

    R U serious? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry? Are you that devoid of perspective or understanding of math or physics? Do you know who John Napier was? How about, Francis Bacon? Or, Blaise Pascal? Of course, Newton was a prolific hymnist. But there is also Thomas Bayes, Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin, Pavel Florensky, Max Planck, Robert Millikan, Georges Lemaître, just to name a few mathematicians and/or physicists. Oh, they all also believed in creationism. Get a grip.

  79. Adriana Ortiz says:
    August 1, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Agree. The ceding of a “1°C” warming due to AGW is lukewarmist pandering. It is not in the data, and Spencer’s paper shows why. Radiation out rapidly responds to warming from ANY source, and kills the possibility of accumulation of heat energy on the scale required from such a minute influence on IR absorption.

  80. Mike says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would say no.

    2. No one denies the 1st law of thermodynamics and you know it.

    3. Still denying evolution?

    4. Still hoping Steve Martin will play your character in the movie? (Yes I read your book Blunder. This feedsback into #1.)

    —————–

    Mike,

    What fun! Here let me continue your comedy with my version of your punch lines for your wonderful jokes. (hint – you should team up with Josh).

    1. If 9 out of 10 scientists, who are IPCCists and CAGW centric climatologists, think the earth has a fever then shouldn’t a skeptical 10th scientist act on the 9 scientist’s premise even if you are the 10th scientist? Corollary: 9 out of 10 scientists are often wrong, that is why science advances.

    2. Some IPCCist and CAGW scientists passed their school tests when they studied thermodynamics, but it appears that some of them failed in the real world application of the 1st law to their IPCCist/CAGW research even thought they don’t deny the 1st law. I am sure they can learn from their failures.

    3. Interestingly, virtually every president of the USA has been expressly religious. By unique Mike logic they all must have been bad at what they did. Every physical scientist I have personally known was of a profoundly religious stance, most were of Judeo-Christian background (the guys with the Genesis thing). With unique Mike logic they must have all been bad scientists.

    4. Mike are you borrowing? None the less, if you are borrowing or not, the Pink Panther flicks were wonderful. I am sure they can be adapted in a very funny way to the activities of the IPCC to detect CAGW. It would out sell that other famous work of CAGWist comedy, the Gore one. What a laugh.

    Take care,

    John

  81. Vic says:
    August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Dr Spencer,

    I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?

    Look forward? Why would you want to return to “pre-industrial times”, coincidentally also known as the LIA?

    Are you mad?

  82. Friends:

    Can somebody please tell me what relevance Creationism and/or Roy Spencer’s belief in it has to his paper which is the subject of this thread?

    Not all scientists are Creationists, but most scientists whose work dramatically changed the history of science were. And not all Christians are Creationists; nowadays most are not.
    So what? These facts do not affect the science done by Roy Spencer in any way.

    Friar Mendel was a Creationist. He founded the science of genetics with his seminal work conducted in hs monastery garden. Without genetics we would have no understanding of how biological evolution operates, and evolutionary theory would be stuck at the level of Darwin. Do those who want to disdain the work of Roy Spencer by shouting “He’s a Creationist!” also want to reject the theory of evolution because Mendel was a Creationist?

    So, I request that this ‘red herring’ about Creationism should be ignored (except for being ridiculed) unless somebody can explain what relevance Creationism has to the subject of this thread.

    Richard

  83. LOL – the creationism canard again.

    Where there are laws there is a lawmaker.

    Where there are machines there are machinists.

    Where there are codes there are coders.

    Why should I believe there are exceptions to these rules?

    The universe is governed by law. Every living cell is an electro-chemical machine with its design and operation controlled by an abstract digital code.

    Maybe all the order in the universe appeared as if by magic 14 billion years ago in a big burst of energy that came from nowhere. Or maybe not. In the meantime, in all cases where there the cause is unambiguously identified – laws, machines, and codes are the result of design not accident.

  84. If a picture is worth a thousands words then a video is worth millions. Check out this collection of molecular animations of celllular machinery in action. And yes “Dave S.” is me.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/category/molecular-animations/

    For some reason, in large part the same people who believe in man-made climate catastrophe believe the machinery in the above video is just a freak accident of nature. That conclusion, which is absurd, is the result of ideology not rational thought.

  85. Adriana;
    Further, note the very powerful observations of Hoffman about the exact match of equal-pressure layers of the Earth and Venus atmospheres, due account for incident solar IR being made. DESPITE the >2000X greater density of CO2 on Venus.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?showComment=1309701737932#c2996401267831418580

    An interesting side-point he brings up in his comment response, above, is that the radiative efficiency of CO2 molecules “talking” to each other there explains the near exact match of lit and unlit hemisphere temperatures on Venus, despite its very slow rotation. The temps are homogenized by inter-molecular IR!

  86. Mike says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    “1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would would say no.”

    If 9 out of 10 doctors say they think you may have cancer sometime in the future based only on incomplete models and then want you to go through the cost and pain of chemo and radiation now just in case, I think a rational person would tell them to bug off.

  87. @ dave springer.
    “For some reason, in large part the same people who believe in man-made climate catastrophe believe the machinery in the above video is just a freak accident of nature.”

    I don’t think the above statement is true at all. For a start, describing evolution as “just a freak accident of nature” is not an accurate description.

    But by and large, I doubt there is any correlation between people who believe in evolution and those who believe in AGW, and those that beleive in creationism and AGW skeptics.

    I’m a staunch Aethist and also a skeptic. Here in the UK, amongst those that I know, people’s religious belief has little to do with their possition on AGW.

    Besides, all this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. So Spencer believes in creationism. So what? That has littel to do with thefindings of his work in the field of atmospheric physics. And I say that as an Aethist who thinks creationism is a crock.

  88. failureman says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    blathering….. more blathering bs…… and more blathering…..
    My question: How is it that you managed to get a paper without any discussion of errors through the peer review process at remote sensing? [snip]
    ===========================================================

    You’re kidding, right? I’ve seen countless studies gone through peer-review w/o error bars or discussion of……. Tell me, the drowning polly bears…… where were the error bars or discussion of errors? Amazon’s demise? Where were the error discussions? The list could go on for quite some time…..

  89. I never said a word about creationism. I asked if Spencer still denies the reality of biological evolution as the best explanation for the origin of species. Does he? Why does he dismiss the views of his peers? Should we take the word of an outlier or use mainstream scientific opinion in policy discussions? If we go with an outlier which do we pick? Why not go with those who think warming will be on the higher end of IPCC estimates?

    As for his paper, yes I read it. It merely says he could not solve the problem. Others have estimated CO2 climate sensitivity using other means. It is well known there are uncertainties in the lag in radiative sensitivity and in cloud feedbacks. If we make just the right assumptions warming will be small, or we could make another set of just so assumptions and get warming to be very high, maybe 8C. Or we could base policy discussions on the mainstream most likely estimates of about 4C, which would be very serious and would not stop there in the 2100’s and beyond.

  90. Creationism is the elephant in the room, not only in this thread but in the whole topic of climate change. Creationists usually don’t say anything about it on these blogs so as not to get the two issues mixed up, but that doesn’t stop the AGWers putting them both in the “junk” science category, and using the same ridulous techniques for dismissing real evidence. The Creationists are used to the tactics, but the Climate sceptics are not quite so familiar yet.

    Someone on WUWT commented about Gish winning most of his debates, and it is true, not because he was good at debating but because the science was always on his side.

    This is the wrong place to talk much about creationism but the issue of “faith” cannot be avoided in this AGW debate, because as the sceptics know, the AGW idea is a belief system which has hijacked science. It is about faith, and many that are involved are militant Athiests.

    In his recent tour of Australia, Monkton referred to “Our Lord”, and the issue of fighting for “truth” referring to the Bible. It does seem that the climate change issue is really one about faith rather than science, just as the creation/evolution debate is also about faith and not science in the end.

  91. .Mike says:
    August 2, 2011 at 7:37 am

    “””. . . It [Spencer & Braswell 2011] merely says he [Spencer] could not solve the problem. . . . ”””

    ————

    Mike,

    Your statement about the paper does not allow for continuing dialog accuracy.

    If you read the paper as you have stated, then you should just be able to quote from it in support of your statement about the paper. Please do, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    John

  92. Mike says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    “1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would would say no.”

    Dear Troll,

    Cancer physicians practicing in the USA have a rather good record of success, elsewhere not so much, and the treatment is rather affordable.

    Climate scientists practicing in the USA have no record of successful prediction whatsoever, and the treatment makes you a slave.

  93. Mike says:
    August 2, 2011 at 7:37 am
    “I never said a word about creationism. I asked if Spencer still denies the reality of biological evolution as the best explanation for the origin of species. Does he? Why does he dismiss the views of his peers?”

    Criticizing the work of your peers shows them respect and is not dismissive. Science is the ciritical enterprise par excellence. There are many criticisms of Darwin that can be made quite cogently but have nothing to do with origin of species.

  94. Darren Parker says:
    August 1, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    @John Whitman

    “”””You should add The Fatal Conceit and The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek to your list of economic bibles.”””

    ————-

    Darren Parker,

    Yes, I indeed should add the FA Hayek works. They should sit well next my collection of almost all of Ludwig von Mises’ work. The Hazlitt paperback would still belong with those works as well as Spencer’s little book.

    NOTE: I plowed through von Mises in the mid 1970s.

    Thanks.

    John

  95. Mike says:
    August 2, 2011 at 7:37 am

    I never said a word about creationism. I asked if Spencer still denies the reality of biological evolution as the best explanation for the origin of species.
    =========================================================

    Mike, get real. You are inferring that because of his religious views, his scientific views must not be valid. It is an attack on free thinking and is a demand to conform to conventional thought. And, it is repugnant, as well as the antithesis to the scientific process.

    Further, I’ve given several examples of scientists and mathematicians who may have had a difficulty with the thoughts to today’s belief of the “origin of species” some few hold, Please apply your rationale to those scientists and mathematicians that I listed.

  96. That argument about the 9 doctors and the cancer patient crops up so often it is becoming a bit tiresome. It even croped up in the recent debate with Lord Monckton where I expected a higher standard.

    For those who still don’t get why this is not a good analogy of climate science, let me say that: cancer can be diagnosed quite easily using a variety of techniques including x-ray and biopsies. There is a database of millions of patients who have had cancer in the last 50 years, along with every possible outcome for every current medical technique as well as non intervention. From this statisticians can quite easily produce survival probability profiles for each of these treatments as well as non intervention.

    Climate science, on the other hand has one “patient”, planet Earth. Nobody knows what the outcome will be for any given course of action. It would be as if a person was diagnosed with a new symptom, that did not fit into any other disorder known to medical science, and the doctors then had to produce not only a prognosis but also a course of therapy.

    Does all this – obvious, I would have thought – really need to be said?

  97. “On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”

    Has Spencer published a creationism paper?

  98. “On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”

    There are 3 big questions that evolution has yet to answer: how did biological life bootstrap itself from simple chemicals?, thence after, why did single celled bacterial life exist for 3.5 billion years with no evolutionary change until the onset of the cambrian explosion 550 million years ago? and what evolutionary force led to the massive increase in brain size in humans alone? (All other evolutionary developments have ‘fanned out’ into many related animal types, and there is not a single surving species of bipedal ape, despite the obvious advantages).

    These questions alone tell us that evolution does not have all the answers and speculations on creationism is perfectly acceptable.

  99. The End Is Far:

    Steve, so good to see you re-enter the fray.

    Thanks for the reminder, that no matter the initiating event (radiative or conduction), convection is, by far, the dominant heat transport mechanism, until its final radiation to space. GK

  100. Dr. Spencer said:

    “…you don’t even have to believe that “clouds can cause climate change” (as I do)…”

    ____
    Not likely. Clouds cannot be a source or forcing agent of climate change, but can only respond via negative or positive feedbacks to climate forcings. Certainly clouds, in all their varities, heights, and locations on earth have both positive and negative feedbacks on climate depending on circumstances. We must look to what causes cloud formation (or prevents it) as the forcing agent or agents to climate change. These real climate forcing agents can be many, and may include at least some of the following:

    Volanoes, Milankovitch cycles, intersellar dust & meteors, comets, galactic cosmic rays, anthropogenically initiated increases or decreases in CO2, human activity creating more aersols or other particulates, changes in solar output, changes in earth’s magnetic field, etc.

    Clouds react to these forcings, but are not the cause of climate change…i.e. they are a result of or part of the climate change but not the reason for it. Put simply, clouds are part of the weather, and respond to the must longer- term forcings that cause climate change.

    But when you say, “clouds can cause climate change” perhaps you are referring simply to the fact that they can display positive feedback to climate forcing initiated by a the real cause of climate change.

  101. To Friends, It is important that we voice our opinions.

    For what it is worth I stand by and support Dr Spencers paper purely on the basis of mathematics and physics. His paper is based on verfiable and testable hypothesis. Dr Spencer states what the assumptions are and what the data is. Anyone can check and verify.

    In relation to “creationism” Dr Spencer puts forward a concept that is not verifiable or testable. This is not an appropriate position for a scientist. (Newton is known for laws of motion, calculus etc. Those who use the appeal to authority argument, can they please provide any objective evaluation of Newtons work in proving God or creationism?).
    We will Prove CAGW wrong by science and not by appeal to Authority.

    Dr Spencers paper on modelling to real data variations is science based and stands without any appeal to authority.

    thank you.

  102. Nullius in Verba says:
    August 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    To Friends, It is important that we voice our opinions.

    For what it is worth I stand by and support Dr Spencers paper purely on the basis of mathematics and physics. His paper is based on verfiable and testable hypothesis. Dr Spencer states what the assumptions are and what the data is. Anyone can check and verify.

    In relation to “creationism” Dr Spencer puts forward a concept that is not verifiable or testable. This is not an appropriate position for a scientist.
    =======================================================
    Friend, it is appropriate. In fact, some posit it is necessary.
    “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” and, “Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.” ——— Max Planck, recognized as the father of quantum physics.

    As you probably know already, I could provide you with as many quotes of scientists attesting their belief in a Creator. As, I imagine, you could provide some attesting their atheism. Nullius, no one will ever prove nor disprove a Creator. But, as to the appropriateness to hold the belief, it seems we can look back and note, many credit their breakthroughs and insights to their faith. We can see that their science was sound and revolutionary. You say it isn’t for scientists to hold? Newton said he wanted to see how God went about things. If he didn’t believe, would he have been so motivated to seek truth? The same holds for countless others. Whether you believe or not, is not pertinent to their discoveries. But, to them, their belief was prime to their endeavors. So, whether we believe or not, I say, Thank God they did!

    James Sexton

  103. So lets look at this situation the way a politician might.

    Salon spelled your name right.
    It was a pretty good photograph of you.
    They agree that you are a scientist.
    They acknowledge “Remote Sensing” as a Peer reviewed publication.

    You are 4 for four. That’s a win in the public eye.

    Keep it up!

  104. Dave W – yes Dr Spencer has published but only for creationist websites.

    Vince Causey. Thank you for your words. Vince evolution is an explantion of the diversity of organic life we see on our planet. Evolution does not seek to explain the Origins of life (your first question). Second, complexity if a difficult phenomena that requires long time periods to achieve (even with descent with fitness of purpose sieve). Your third question, “human” is a surving bi-pedal ape.

    You are partly correct to say that theory’s explaning evolution (as distinct from theory of evolution) like evolution by natural selection, molecular genetics etc have gaps. However we should try to fill these gaps with science, like we are highliting issues with CAGW.

    Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.

    tthnaks

  105. Nullius in Verba says: “Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.”

    Just like AGW-theism.

  106. Jamie says:
    August 2, 2011 at 6:47 am

    @ dave springer.
    “For some reason, in large part the same people who believe in man-made climate catastrophe believe the machinery in the above video is just a freak accident of nature.”

    I don’t think the above statement is true at all. For a start, describing evolution as “just a freak accident of nature” is not an accurate description.

    Oh goody. I gots myself an admitted positive atheist.

    As near as science can tell the universe started out from an infinitesimally small region of infinitesimally dense energy some 14 billion years ago. Then it unfolded like an origami into galaxies, stars, planets, life, and ultimately you and me.

    You think an origami like that could just happen by accident?

    You think you can prove it?

    For the positive atheist the answer to the first question must be yes. If not then he’s what’s called a “weak atheist” or in more common terms an “agnostic”. That’s me, a weak atheist. If there were an infinite (or practically infinite) number of universes then there would be one of them that happened to be born folded into the shape of ours. If there’s only one universe then the odds against it are prohibitive almost to the point of impossibility. Indeed, the so-called “multiverse” is currently physics best explanation for this with string theory estimated to have 10^500 different solutions where each solution represents a universe with a unique set of physical laws governing its evolution and ultimate fate. The vast majority are stillborn and so far no solution found in that very large set of solutions has yielded a universe remotely like ours.

    For the positive atheist the answer to the second question must either be “yes” or he’s clinging to faith in the non-existence of a creator. If yes then I’d love to see the proof and if no then you’re just another believer in things which cannot be proven. A mystic like any other clinging to a belief because it makes you comfortable in some way.

  107. Another point about the nine-out-of-ten-doctors analogy: The “doctors” involved in climatology, and their partisans, display considerably more quackish characteristics than do MDs. E.g., “the messianic delusion” (Mencken), touchy defensiveness, bafflegab, etc.

  108. Nullius in Verba says:
    August 2, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    “Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.”

    Then by the same token non-creationism is not science and it explains nothing.

    Science is the study of the creation (the natural). Theology is the study of the creator (the supernatural) . NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) promoted by one of the 20th century’s greatest paleontologists Stephen J. Gould, should be respected in my opinion to avoid conflict and assinine ad hominem attacks on scientists whose theistic beliefs differ from other scientists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

    NOMA is also the position of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Intelligent Design is the study of complexity. It examines means and opportunity and attempts to distinguish between complexity that is a result of natural law and opportunity from those where intelligent agency is involved. A good example is a lottery. If a person buys a lottery ticket one time and wins against odds of a million to one it’s usally attributed to luck. If the same person wins ten lotteries in a row it’s usually attributed to cheating i.e. natural law (odds of winning) were overcome through intelligent agency (cheating) to produce an improbable outcome.

    Analogously, for the universe to have produced rational man, was like winning so many lotteries in a row that any rational thinker must conclude that there was cheating involved – the deck was stacked to produce a highly improbable outcome.

    Intelligent Design is controversial because it isn’t harmonious with NOMA. It uses evidence obtained from the study of nature, applies mathematics (statistical probability), and comes up with an answer that strongly implies intelligent agency was involved in the origin and evolution of the universe. This lends comfort and support to theistic faiths and does the opposite for atheistic faiths.

    As far as the concept of common descent from one or a few universal common ancestors I have no essential objection to it but I would ask, as I ask myself, how does one go about distinguishing between common descent and common design?

  109. The Great Debate – What is Life

    Feb 12th, 2011

    Richard Dawkins, J. Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sidney Altman and Leland Hartwell, Chris McKay, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss, and The Science Network’s Roger Bingham discuss the origins of life, the possibility of finding life elsewhere, and the latest development in synthetic biology.

    http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel

    Well worth watching the 42 minute video of the conference. Especially Venter who is arguably the most productive researcher today in synthetic biology. Venter is the guy who raced, in a private effort, the U.S. government (The Human Genome Project led by Francis Collins) in fully sequencing the human genome . It came out a tie with both generating the first full sequence simultaneously. The big difference is Collins spent a billion dollars of public money to do it and Venter spent one hundred million of private money to do it.

    A great qoute from Venter at about 20 minutes where he talks about atmospheric CO2 becoming the primary building material we’ll be using once we harness the potential of synthetic microorganisms to produce everything from fuel to furniture. I can be found on WUWT and elsewhere saying that before too much longer governments will be regulating how much CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere rather than how much can be added to it.

  110. The first law for Climate scientists:
    If the measurements do not fit the model, the measurements must be wrong.

  111. Dave Springer says: …… many things. And the many things were well stated. I’ll be using some of that. Nice job, Dave!

    James

  112. James Sexton & Dave Springer,

    In a different setting I would love to pursue your dialog on religion vs. science and creationism vs. Darwinism. I will look forward to it, as I’ve already have enjoyed your present dialog.

    However, that discussion has nothing to do with Spencer’s paper. So, let’s do your discussion another time in a sole context of the philosophy of science versus theology. I suggest that you please do not mix it with discussion of Spencer’s paper. OK?

    John

  113. Dave Springer,

    Your argument about probabilities is an interesting one, and I liked your analogy of the lottery winner who wins 10 times. The problem I see with this, though, is that we can measure the probability of winning the lottery but do not know, I think, what is the probability of developing large, complex human brains – that is, with the ability for abstract thought etc.

    It is nonetheless interesting to note, that this has happened only once on our planet, whereas all other successful evolutionary solutions inevitably fan out into myriad species. We do not see, for example, only one species of animal that has evolved to fly, much less only one species possessing binoculor vision. Yet there exists only one such brain, and only one surving species of ape that walks on two legs.

  114. G. Karst,

    Pleased to see a recognizable and friendly name here! Just started reading WUWT, wish I’d started earlier. I was reading Judith Curry’s site (Climate Etc), abandoned AccuWeather long ago, for a while but she keeps the topic pretty tied to Marketing rather than Science. She of course can refute all NGW Advocates, but she is far too busy. Her students can as well, but they are without names.

    Sound voices post there, but she is in no way interested in Science. She is completely absorbed in “The Message” and how to improve it. I got tired of seeing the same old responses “How about using the Scientific Method instead of trying to reword your conclusions that do not come with Methods to repeat.” so I popped in here. Very glad I did.

    In any event, glad to see you’re keeping up with things. Looking forward to getting this matter behind us so more important matters such as ending our de facto Slavery can be taken up in ernest.

    Life is a Journey and the End is Far . . .

  115. Vince Causey says:
    August 3, 2011 at 9:49 am

    “It is nonetheless interesting to note, that this has happened only once on our planet, whereas all other successful evolutionary solutions inevitably fan out into myriad species. We do not see, for example, only one species of animal that has evolved to fly, much less only one species possessing binoculor vision. Yet there exists only one such brain, and only one surving species of ape that walks on two legs.”

    Thats because the other species that walked on two legs couldn’t fight worth a damn. Same for the mammoths and saber toothed cats. The only other successful pack animals are dogs, and they associated themselves with humans.

  116. “Nullius in Verba says:
    August 2, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    Dave W – yes Dr Spencer has published but only for creationist websites.”

    Really, a scientific paper? Can you offer a link for that?

    Many great scientists have written books which include their theological views, including Einstein and too many others to name.

    I don’t recall any of them conducting any related experiments or publishing the results of them, other than the evidence presented in the manner in which they led their lives.

    Has Spencer done something different? Please provide a link.

    Until I see your evidence to the contrary, his paper stands on its own as real science.

  117. John Whitman says:
    August 3, 2011 at 9:16 am

    James Sexton & Dave Springer,

    In a different setting I would love to pursue your dialog on religion vs. science and creationism vs. Darwinism. I will look forward to it, as I’ve already have enjoyed your present dialog.

    However, that discussion has nothing to do with Spencer’s paper. So, let’s do your discussion another time in a sole context of the philosophy of science versus theology. I suggest that you please do not mix it with discussion of Spencer’s paper. OK?

    John
    ====================================================================

    John, nothing would give me greater pleasure. However, if you’d note, it was neither Dave nor myself that brought up the issue of ID, creationism or religion. It was, rather, responding to detractors of Dr. Spencer, who somehow draw a connection to the validity of his paper with his personal views of our origins. And, while God needs no advocate, I thought it bad form to leave the detractors of Dr. Spencer unchallenged.

    As to the paper itself, the way I see it, about the only way to refute it, would be to refute the satellite data itself. And that, is an undertaking I don’t think anyone like the Kev is up to. Just my thoughts.

  118. Dr Spencer’s paper regarding the delay in Temperature resonse, is not at all surprising; the supporting data of course, puts a scale to the events.

    The Principal energy input to the earth climate system, is of course the sun, via the TSI. But as we know, most of that energy lands in the world’s oceans, where it propagates to great depths; tens or hundreds of metres, with very little going past about 3,000 feet.

    So the IMMEDIATE response of the surface, and lower troposphere Temperatures to that energy input, is very small, since the greatest energy content portions of the solar spectrum, are exactly those that penetrate to the grteatest depths. (Have the lowest absorption coefficients).

    Solar energy deposited at depth in the ocean, will of course following absorption result in a local Temperature rise, and various thermal processes will kick in.

    First of all there will be conduction, which generally is a three dimensional diffusion of heat. The Temperature gradient is usually negative with greater depth, so the general direction of conduction would be downwards.

    But expansion due to temperature rise, would tend to create an upward convection . Normal hydrodynamic instabilities would prevent this from being a one dimensional laminar flow, but the net direction of energy transport would be inexorably upward, towards the surface. With such a huge mass of overlying water, it is no great surprise that the heating effect of that solar energy on the surface, and lower troposphere, will be delayed from the solar energy arrival.

    On the other hand, the atmospheric GHG LWIR radiation processes, are rather prompt,; particularly the tendency of “back” radiation to promote evaporation since the LWIR spectrum, unlike the solar spectrum, is absorbed in the top 50 microns or so, of the oceans, where prompt evaporation quickly conveys it back to the atmosphere, and then convection quickly moves it to high altitudes, in the form of latent heat, to be deposited high up when condensation and freezing occur.

    Dr Spencer’s nwork puts the result in quantitative form; but the extensive propagation delay, is not nat all surprising.

    And when I was designing feedback systems, propagation delays, in either the forward gain processes, or the usually lossy feedback paths,; and especially thermal delays, generally resulted in wildly oscillating systems.

  119. Vince Causey says:
    August 3, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Dave Springer,

    Your argument about probabilities is an interesting one, and I liked your analogy of the lottery winner who wins 10 times. The problem I see with this, though, is that we can measure the probability of winning the lottery but do not know, I think, what is the probability of developing large, complex human brains – that is, with the ability for abstract thought etc.

    Quite true. I seldom venture beyond the realm of molecular machinery common to all living organisms. The complexity at that level is quite sufficient to demonstrate the point and it’s all pretty basic stuff – parts with certain shapes fitting together into little machines that perform easily recognizable jobs. For instance this is one my favorites: the enzymes topoisomerase and topoisomerase II.

    http://www.dnatube.com/video/283/Topoisomerases

    The are very simple enzymes as opposed to something like ribosomes which are exceedingly complex. The topoisomerases work together with a large number of other enzymes which through coordinated effort accomplish one single larger task called transcription which is basically copying a DNA pattern for a coding gene into an RNA pattern which then migrates to a ribosome where it undergoes another process called translation where the digital code represented by triplets of 4 different base pairs (ACTG) is translated into one of twenty amino acids. Yet more little machines fetch the specified amino acids and bring them to to the ribosome where they are added to growing polymer chain hundreds to thousands of amino acids long which then folds according to a number of factors into a three dimensional shapes. This is almost exactly like a programmable milling machine reading instructions off a paper tape and translating those instructions into commands that attach different cutting or drilling heads and mill a block of metal down into gears and stuff like that and where those individual parts fit then fit together into even larger machines. Eventually the machines can grow to the complexity of a human brain. But you don’t need to go beyond the complexity in the simplest known bacteria to get the point across.

  120. Anthony Watts wrote January 13, 2011:

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) a U.S. publicly funded research center, uses the term “denier” six times in this upcoming talk, which he has submitted as a preprint to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in full public view. I’m reproducing it in full below, with only one comment: he uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language.

    Anthony Watts also wrote on March 2, 2010:

    As we all know, the debate over global warming is contentious, often vitrolic. Labels are often applied by both sides. One the most distasteful labels is “denier”.

    Anthony Watts reposted a comment from Judith Curry on November 28, 2009:

    This comment was sent to me in case it was not posted at all or in it’s entirety over at Climate Progress. It wasn’t, so I’m repeating it here because I think it is relevant to the discussion that Dr. Judith Curry started. From my perspective, the best way to begin to foster understanding is to stop using labels that degrade, and that goes for both sides of the debate.

    – Anthony

    Judith Curry wrote
    I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”

    I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.

    When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”.

    To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach.

    When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification.

    Instead, it has become mainstream.

    Small wonder that a great percentage of ordinary observers such as I begin to question that we haven’t been fed one big, fat lie after all. For the people propagating it have seemingly lost all sense of historical proportion.

    Not to mention, curious double standard …”

  121. I see the editor of Remote Sensing has resigned. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

    “Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing…”

  122. Louise; Wagner was protecting his day job, where skepticism is verboten. Also, as I posted elsewhere

    … Wagner resigned because RS wouldn’t cave to the pressure from the Team to retract the article, and he had to decide whose side he was on.

    His bumbling and confused “apology” is nothing more than a declaration of allegiance and obeisance to the Consensus, AKA the Hokey Team.

Comments are closed.