Dessler’s GRL paper video

Perhaps fearing that his fast tracked no hurdles rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell wouldn’t be enough to have it the buzz of the blogosphere, highlighted in Real Climate, and blasted all over the web via compliant MSM via the press release, Dessler has made a video on the paper. Watch it below:

About these ads

59 thoughts on “Dessler’s GRL paper video

  1. That was pretty condescending. So clouds are an important positive feedback, except when you are counting the effects of aerosols. Got it. So why don’t aerosols cause warming then?

  2. Did I hear him say that climate hasn’t changed in the last decade or so? That only EN and LN caused variation? Huh? I better listen again.

  3. Funny. Aside from the unjustifiable authoritarian tone, he says that he didn’t reproduce the Spencer Braswell result. But he actually did.

    His image shows, despite all attempts to reduce the discrepancy, the very same brutal discrepancy between the models and the observations and Spencer’s and Braswell’s paper. So indeed, Dessler paper, while not original at all, is also proving that decades of mindless model building without any comparison to the observations have been wrong.

    Dessler has disproved the IPCC climate models just like Spencer and Braswell did. He just chooses not to show his own graph in the video, and when his face is facing his own graph, he obviously hides his head in the sand.

  4. “Results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong.”

    No point in doing experiments, really. We should just get on with the multi-billion-dollar modeling and curve-fitting boondoggle.

  5. “Results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong.”

    Ah HAH! Mr. Dessler is correct – the Hockey Stick purported to overturn many decades of science in Archeology that established a world-wide warming time-frame called the Medieval Warm Period and a word-wide cooling time-frame called the Little Ice Age…

  6. Garry says:

    “Andrew Dessler, atmospheric scientist in the College of Geosciences at Texas A&M University, has been named one of 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.”

    Well, isn’t that special?

  7. Apparently Dressler was so rushed that he wasn’t sure of the name of the journal in which his paper was to appear: The title screen of his video says his papers was published in Geophysical Review Letters. The actual name of the journal, of course, is Geophysical Research :Letters, which Dressler gets right in his script, at least.

  8. In Dressler’s equation, he states that energy is deposited by oceans and by clouds. Where does the ocean get the energy that is deposited? Where do the clouds get the energy that is deposited?

    Obviously, oceans and clouds do not produce that energy. Instead, they absorb and redirect the energy they receive from the sun either into the atmosphere, out into space, or into the deeper ocean. Otherwise, they simply hold the energy until the equibrium is disturbed and then redirect that energy.

    Dressler also seems to say that the “deposits” and “withdrawals” by clouds are close enough to equal as to total zero. Therefore the change in total energy is provided by the oceans.

    My question then becomes… Where does the ocean get its energy? Does the ocean get energy from the decaying core of the earth or does the ocean get its energy from an outside source such as Sol? If the original source is from Sol? How is that affected by clouds? Don’t say zero. If the oceans energy is provided by the decaying Earth, how?

  9. A short History of science communication.

    First there was science by show and tell, and word of mouth,
    The printing press brought science by manuscript.
    With the rise of the academies, journals and peer review was introduced.
    The internet brings Blog Science to which journal editors respond by lopping off their own heads.
    Dessler now heralds the future, with Science by Youtube!

    (perhaps Spencer can rap the response)

  10. Luboš Motl says:
    September 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Bravo Lubos

    This is also what I wanted to bring up. Dresslers graph is no different to S&B. Both show models out of kilter with observations.
    Whereas Dressler clutters his graph with 13 individual model lines, S&B use 2 lines of 3 least and 3 most sensitive models.

  11. Funny how Dressler does not show HIS plots at the close of the video that show more agreement with SB11 than AR4

  12. I hve just realised, —— I am a scientist! – scientolo — scien — .

    But even so I cannot account for this kind of stupidity.

    Clouds – per say – have of course no – or very little influence on temperatures. It is the ability of clouds to keep the sunlight away from the surface that adjusts the surface temperature. I.E. more cloud, = less temperature. – less cloud = more, – or higher temperatures.

    It has nothing to do with anybody’s bank account – Oh, apart from the possibility that the CO2 crowd may wish to empty yours!

  13. So, essentially, he didn’t think his torpedoes were armed over at the paper mill so he made a propaganda video to enforce his beliefs, just like the socialists does.

    Question: how many actual scientists in all the other fields make propaganda videos to support their comments to scientific papers?

    Well, at least he isn’t hiding his embracing of communist methods.

  14. New Planet May Be Among Most Earthlike—Weather Permitting

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110830-new-planet-found-most-earthlike-life-clouds-water-space-science/?source=link_fb20110904newearthlikeplanet

    “The unpoetically named HD85512b was discovered orbiting an orange dwarf star in the constellation Vela. Astronomers found the planet using the European Southern Observatory’s High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS, instrument in Chile…”

    “On average, Earth has 60 percent cloud cover . . . “

  15. Garry says:
    September 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    COLLEGE STATION, Feb. 21, 2011 — Andrew Dessler, atmospheric scientist in the College of Geosciences at Texas A&M University, has been named one of 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.

    This implies he’s on the warmists’ A-Team. If his argument and attitude is as poor as it appears, they tars the whole team.

    These fellowships and awards that warmist scientists get come with cash benefits that go straight to their bottom line (pockets), don’t they? (Unlike the grants Willie Soon got, which go for expenses.)

  16. Over the years I have often been struck by the thought that there are no analogs of Einstein and Feynman, i e brilliant original thinkers, in the climate field. After observing this sad spectacle I must conclude that there are also scant few analogs of Antonio Salieri, i e competent journeymen, as well

  17. O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    But even so I cannot account for this kind of stupidity.

    Clouds – per say – have of course no – or very little influence on temperatures. It is the ability of clouds to keep the sunlight away from the surface that adjusts the surface temperature. I.E. more cloud, = less temperature. – less cloud = more, – or higher temperatures.

    It has nothing to do with anybody’s bank account – Oh, apart from the possibility that the CO2 crowd may wish to empty yours!

    That would be “per se”. It’s Latin, you may have heard of it.

    And Dessler would surely be flummoxed by the existence and use of parasols. Somehow they must warm their users, never cool them.
    The bind moggles.

  18. Here is Dessler in 2009 pretending that climate models cannot be validated:

    http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation

    As climate models have a numerical time step, simulations can be run as easily forwards as backwards, simply by changing the sign of the time step. When this is done, one finds that the predictive power of the models is negligible, as the models cannot ‘predict’ the past, without being fed the correct answer.

    Aware of this, people like Dessler pretending that model validations are impossible, are simply being misleading. (To put it politely).

  19. good grief…..
    The book just came out…..and now the movie!
    At this rate it will out in video and on Netflix before I can get this typed…………

    …………..T-shirts and action figures are on their way to KMart and WallyWorld………

    Unfortunately, that also means it will be on TV over and over and over………….

  20. Slight incongruencies between models and real world data are expected, if the models were perfectly consistent that would be unusual. The climate models have 2 sigma significance, and over many decades it is inevitable that real world data, around 5 percent, of the time won’t match the models.

    It is dishonest and desperate to seize upon slight deviations between the real world data and the models over short time scales.

  21. The stench of desperation is clear to any informed observer. The more they protest, the greater the certainty they are incorrect, I’m afraid. It has a very similar feel to Dr Mann’s protestations of innocence that are still going on.

    CAGW, RIP!

  22. Sorry guys, but I support this initiative.

    Yes, Dr Desslers tone was a bit condescending, however he isn’t a trained speaker AFAIK and his speaking would normally be giving presentations or lecturing, so this is a minor point.

    It would also have been better to show his own plot as well as Dr Spencers one. But I would call this “teething troubles”.

    All in all though, I have to applaud the idea of a video “abstract” that covers the high points of a paper. Anything that gets science out to the people is a good idea. Similarly, video abstracts would allow people to quickly compare the findings of papers without wading through the full paper. It would also avoid over hyping of papers as people could see for themselves exactly what the researcher is claiming for the paper.

    I think the idea is great and should be developed perhaps in a fashion similar to a news teaser. The video has the high points or major points, for full details and the maths, read the paper.

  23. Jaypan says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Interesting approach that. Start with the conclusions and kind of work your way back.
    ===============================================================

    That’s pretty much all we’ve seen from climatology in the last 20 years.

  24. What’s up with these climate change alarmists. Why do they so often sound like they are talking to 3rd graders. Al Gore constantly does that and so does this guy. It is beyond irritating listening to such arrogant condescension.

  25. This is pathetic.

    All he really says is

    ‘Look Children here’s an equation that looks scary. But I, the Big Scientist understand it. And Lindzen and Spencer are wrong.

    Ya Boo!’

    Condescending arrogant and without any discussion of science. It might impress Al Gore and the weaker ‘science’ journalists, but wouldn’t pass muster with a bunch of reasonably intelligent 15 year olds.

  26. @ZT

    That’s a great video. She explains correlation and the associated values well and clearly, Clearly not cut out for a career as a climatologist.

    And its a great hat!

  27. When we sit in the sun and a cloud moves over to put us into shade it gets cooler. This is as simple as it gets.

    If this gentleman has measured extra heat then he is probably measuring the wrong thing.

    Sorry to be condescending in para 1.

  28. It is quite an extraordinary video since it does not provide any evidence whatsoever for what he says. It is simply a monlogue, and the listener is given nothing with which to make up their own independent mind. In my opinion, it is a complete waste of time since it does nothing more than say ‘I have written a paper that disagrees with S&B; S&B have got things wrong’.

  29. WTF — if Spencer’s graph is wrong, where is the correct graph. Show it you damned fool, instead of just trust me. He thinks that people will go OOH and AHHH if he presents a checkbook balance followed by a barely kindergarten energy balance equation and then followed by “trust me”. What a waste of time

  30. Made this comment on Dessler’s Youtube channel, for him to accept…

    Ok, reinforced temp effect (like 0.2 to 0.3 C, due to IPCC) in 11 year solar cycle, or Palle et al (2004) GCR and cloud data…
    farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3374704163_299b77b5c9_o.jpg
    …and similar data from other sources irrelevant, because IPCC has said — and Dessler repeat — clouds doesn’t drive temperature, but are positive feedback so when the sun stops shining it isn’t because of clouds, but vice versa! Alice in Wonderland science ;)

    (Btw, ranking feature disabled.)

  31. Søren Bundgaard says:
    September 7, 2011 at 2:35 am

    Piers Corbyn…

    I’m a “climate denier” blogger, but I’ve promoted Corbyn as authority on climate issues (and refuse to link the blog ClimateRealists, because they promote conspiracy theories and speculate on wrong absurd “theories”). Corbyn’s claim being a forecaster with the best record and virtually no errors is also weird (but a powerful ad, and in long range casting he might very well often be more accurate than Met and other “computer weather model”-based forecasters), and obviously sometimes his predictions too. He’s like a pope with the truth, with confidence in himself (here he says that the effect from GCR on clouds is 0.3%, and lots of the video is about the media trying to deceive us, the money involved in this etc).

    I don’t use to argue with Corbyn fans accepting garbage/lack knowledge, and probably it would be wise to continue doing so, but in this video Corbyn in his remark on the cosmoclimatology denies the temperature effect from the 11 year solar cycle. An existing effect so strong it can’t be explained by TSI change is basic-, or knowledge, mentioned by IPCC since the 90s, see e.g TAR Ch 6. AGW apologist skepticalscience.com mention it — a 0.2 C effect in the 11 year solar cycle (but also interpret the large temperature effect as a reinforcement from positive feedback, just like IPCC) — here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

    Btw, a nice post by Nir Shaviv:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

    “It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. [...]

    [...]

    …the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations.”

    /br, Magnus A

  32. This is actually a good idea. Spencer and Braswell, or someone on their behalf, should make a simple layman video explanation. Put up lots of neutral colored maps and formulas so it looks scientifically accurate to everyone. Or use a red biased map, if they really want to make their point. Of course they won’t be able to use a fancy tag line like, “results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong”. But I’m sure someone can come up with a better one for them.

  33. Dave Wendt says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    “Over the years I have often been struck by the thought that there are no analogs of Einstein and Feynman, i e brilliant original thinkers, in the climate field. ”

    In my opinion, Ferenc Miskolczi could be described as a brilliant original thinker. His theory boils down to the argument that CO2 can only replace the already existent abundant greenhouse gas water vapor but not change the energy dynamics fundamentally. In this way, he transcends the question of climate sensitivity or what feedback is how strong… Willis Eschenbach mentioned the Constructal Law once, and Miskolczi might have found something similar for the climate.

  34. Dessler sees no merit in S&B’s paper. That might be a problem in the way Dessler’s brain works. I mean he really needs to provide independent empirical evidence of his sanity. Without seeing the independent empirical evidence of Dessler’s sanity, I think we can safely dismiss him as a “crank”.

    Either that, or he is just acting in his self-interest and trying to protect his job. It would provide some empirical evidence of his impartiality if he resigned and quit his job and declined all funding from organizations associated with the climate change political establishment – just to prove that he is not doing it just for the money. It would further support his case if he declined to publish further in any controversial journals like GRL where the Team is known to exert a strong influence.

    So Mr. Dessler, you want empirical evidence? Then provide some!

  35. O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    I hve just , —— I am a scientist! –

    But even so I cannot account for this kind of stupidity.

    . It is the ability of clouds to keep the sunlight away from the surface that adjusts the surface temperature. I.E. more cloud, = less temperature. – less cloud = more, – or higher temperatures.
    ————-
    Apparently amongst all the scoffing you might have overlooked the possibility that you haven’t the faintest clue what the Spencer or Dessler papers are actually about.

    Please look at them over and over and over again until you get it.

  36. This video is the same sort of one sided, condescending drivel we usually have to put up with at election time or on the cheapest of cheap and nasty cable channels. Good grief, is this twerp one of the AGW leading lights?

  37. Looks like Dessler is not taking comments on his video on YouTube. 3000 people have looked at it and there are only 2 comments. One is one day old, one is 2 days old. My comments have not gotten through after 20 hours.

    Dessler is a little like Romm. He must have 100% control of the message. Obviously Spencer’s paper was no threat to the science that required an immediate response. The only reason for producing such a quick response and pressuring the publisher to take it on a fast track was to control the message, not to save the science. No matter how wrong Dressler’s paper is; no matter how shabbily it was put together; the fact of it’s existence will allow the warmers to claim that the Spencer paper has been “debunked”.

Comments are closed.