A guest post by Roy. W. Spencer
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.
We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.
So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.
Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.
What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.
The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.
And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.
But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.
Aaron, Thanks! That clarification really helped.
OzDoc: I think Dr. Spencer is more right than wrong on the willingness of climate scientists to entertain countervailing views. See page 665 of IPCC’s FAR.
This is a philosophical thread, so I am adding a philosophical observation. It can be a stimulating discussion of how the scaremongering of AGW ends. History gives us a variety of options. One possibility is the Nifong phenomenon where blame is heaped on one person or a few people. Another scenario is the Y2K experience where people soon forget and no one is held accountable. A third parth is the Ruby Ridge precedent where the authorities quietly say “I guess we were wrong, and here is $3.3 million to soothe your pain.” Nevertheless, I believe a fourth option is more likely, and for that I draw upon the field of Economics. Unlike another profession we all know about, economists are quite humble and apologetic about their models. Yet, there is one issue on which economists have genuine consensus: minimum wage is bad policy — it has unintended consequences in lowering employment among the poor, enriching wealthy suburban families, and perpetuating poverty by giving incentives to drop out of school. (Most economists would agree with the goal of minimum wage and point to better ways to do it.) Nevertheless, yet despite these observations, the political realities mean that we continue with minimum wage increases. With academia, the media-entertainment industry, and bureaucracies soliding into AGW, I believe we will live with the fourth option in this information-driven society.
Saad said: “What will take longer to fix, however, is the damage done to the credibility of the scientific community. Perhaps in the end the AGW debacle will serve to reform the peer review process and herald a return to theose halcyon days when hypotheses were viewed with healthy scepticism until thoroughly and verifiably tested.”
I’ve been wondering about this too … the AGW push is so strong and it shows up everywhere. So many people already distrust what is published by the MSM and what they say scientists think…it could create a really nasty and long term backlash against science and reason.
When I first read about the Argo sea temperature results I thought, “Well what’s new? All the other global indicators show a slight cooling over the last five years, so what do NASA expect?” I expected that that alarmist response would be the usual one that “Five years is much too short a time to see a trend.”
However on reflection I realise that I was competely missing the point and this story really does seem to be extremely important. In fact it could be the most important piece of research yet against the AGW theory.
The point of a survey of the sea temperature that has 3,000 robots measuring the temperature as far down 3,000 feet below the surface, is to examine the amount of heat stored in the sea. We know that the majority of the surface of the earth is covered by sea, and because the specific heat of sea water is greater than that of land it is clear that the sea is far and away the only big potential store of incoming heat.
If the average global temperatures of air above land is not rising as expected despite increased factors caused by human activities, then a plausible explanation could be that the extra heat is being stored in the sea – perhaps currents or circulation have somehow pushed it well below the surface, so that while we might have a temporary break from warmer temperatures on land the heat will eventually be released and we shall be warmer than ever in years to come. These findings make that explanation impossible.
If the Argo results are correct then the AGW crowd really do have explaining to do. Their theory tells us that all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere should be warming the planet. The surface weather in the last ten years has not shown any global warming – and if the heat is not being stored in the sea then where has it gone?
agwscoffer
you are being a little too harsh on Dr Spencer. Remember, the one about the pessimist and the realist?
Dr Spencer is a realist and unlist many of us commenters here he has been in the thick of this argumant for some time. No doubt he has been rebuffed time and time again. I fully understand his reasoning, because that’s is what it is. There are absolutely huge sums of money at stack here. Gore doesn’t fly around the world on peanuts, even Jimmy Carter’s. None of these AGW climate ‘scientists’ are going to give up easily and you are hoping a great deal if you think the climate is going to change suddenly and for long enough to convince the unscientific joe and Jane public that the media, the government and the scientisare all wrong. No, Dr Spencer is right but I don’t believe for one second that he has given up the argument.
WATCH THIS SPACE
Dr. Spencer, your basic argument is that there is more “slop” in the predictions than “consensus” climate scientists are inclined to admit. Okay fine. And in the role of “devil’s advocate” you argue only one side of that slop. That’s fine too — assuming you only wish to fulfill the role of devil’s advocate. But if you wish to fulfill the role of “impartial scientist”, and make the argument you present, shouldn’t you acknowledge the existence of the other side of the slop? If you don’t do that, it seems to me fair to suggest you are being either disingenuous or subject to your own biases. Alternatively, if you do, then at the very least you have to address the possibility that what could happen might actually be worse than predicted by the mainstream “consensus”.
You claim that “there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth.” Depending upon your definition of “solid”, perhaps so. But whatever that definition is, I think it is fair to say that by the same standard (whatever it is) there is also no solid published evidence concluding that natural causes are, either. You talk about “decadal time scales”, and ask us to rely on the possibility that the climate really isn’t as sensitive as most others suggest. Well… what if you’re wrong?
That’s the dilemma most lay people have when trying to make sense of the scientific data. I’m sure the same is true of our elected leaders as well. Either way, superimposed on the climate science are other considerations that intersect with it. We have economic concerns, and national security concerns, both of which require a far-sighted approach of a time horizon which only government policy can provide, and whose solutions dovetail to a large degree. In that respect, unless we suffer a global recession, and/or unless we develop alternative sources post haste, we are very likely facing an increased demand for fossil fuels that almost everyone of any import suggests will outstrip supply. But it’s even more than that: whether the causes for the development are perceived to be real or imagined, the fact is that a gigantic demand has developed for “clean” energy technologies. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. And to the first ones across that finish line will go the spoils. It thus appears to me that the weight of “proof” falls far more heavily in your lap and those of like mind who wish to perpetuate the status quo than it does those who advocate rapid change.
Dr. Spencer and randomengineer are right, I am afraid. This will not end peacefully or soon, even if AGW doomsayers are completely wrong.
Assume that the IPPC revises it’s estimates downwards a little, thanks to “better models”. (They have done so in the past at least twice.)
Now assume that CO2 plus land use causes warming on the order of 1 degree. (as most here suspect)
Finllay, assume the AGWers pull just one more “new factor” to depress short term warming. (EG: PDO amplitude adjustment, cooling for Chinese coal consumption, or hitherto unknown magical “heat storage” in the deep ocean.)
If these thing comes to pass, how long will it take to falsify the Catastrophic-AGW theory? Flat temperatures for 30 years will not do it. A mild drop for 15 would not convince them. About the only thing that would really change the minds of the ippc chairmembers is a temperature drop so large that it would be devastating to crops and people. (Oh wait, we had that this winter).
Listen to what they are saying at RC now. approx quote from memory:”To deny AGW is to deny a hundred years of physics” “It’s the physics stupid.” The people controlling the movement really believe that physics compels them to believe their models. They are essentially unwilling to even tell us what evidence would make them change their opinions. These people will not be deterred by a few years of cooler weather.
Off topic: walking across the campus the other day I say two flyer’s posted back-to-back on a glass door. One was a call to action to stop global warming, the other a plea for funds to help the victims of cold in China. That was symbolic for me.
EXACTLY!!
I enjoy reading Roy Spencer’s thoughts very much. And I too was surprised by the relative pessimistic tone. I can only think that Roy is possibly overdue a vacation. It can’t be easy being out there in the vanguard and getting personally abused off all the time. Thanks for doing it Roy !
Personally I view the unabashed grab for the levers of the world economy by the AGW enthusiasts to be the scariest thing I have ever seen in my lifetime. That being so I personally stand my ground every day when confronted by AGW propaganda and am working on converting people to the opposite persuasion one by one if necessary.
We can’t let them get a free pass now can we ?
I am actually cheered by recent events. It is a rare and wonderful thing to have a front row seat while a great experiment plays out in front of us. If Joe Bastardi is correct and we have flipped to a predominantly La Nina pattern, if solar activity remains low and the earth continues to cool then it’s game set and match to us realists and the end of the game for the alarmists.
I think that victory for fact based science is in sight and that our best days are most definitely ahead of us.
With 70% of the world covered by water, and 97% of this is salt water to me this means there is one hell of a lot of pluses and minuses to consider before you could say that the oceans are heating up, or, cooling down.
With all the weather sensors we have on land and the thousands of people reading weather instruments each day we can,on land not tell what is happening 24 hour away. Now we don’t even know what is happening in the ‘Central African Republic’ hot, cold, rain, drought? ( because the only thermometer was lost up the Presidents backside) but we can tell what the temperatures are doing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean 4 miles down. I would be willing to bet big money that whoever did the calculation on ocean temp. has not even heard of ‘hydrothermal vents’ and the effects they have on keeping our planet temp. in line.
Giving a temp. reading on the worlds oceans is in par of calculating the amount of oxygen particles in a hurricane.
Globally, politicians, motivated by the AGWers, are doing their best to waste a few trillion dollars before rationality returns to climate science. As Bjorn Lomberg has frequently stated, there are many more pressing and beneficial
purposes to spend some of this money now.
There are many places where there is insufficient water and many more where the water is unsanitary. See:
http://www.physorg.com/news125161487.html
that demonstrates the urgency of problem and scope of the need for adequate supplies of potable water.
It should be obvious that AGW is a misplaced priority.
‘Remember y2k anyone?”
I’m still finding it dificult to believe that, even IF there was a real problem there, not ONE single line of coding out of- what, tens of trillions?- was missed, Anywhere.
I did however enjoy it when the very first nation to be reached by the time change, turned out All the lights for couple-a-three seconds, before they started the fireworks.
Rico (12:19:45) says:
“You talk about “decadal time scales”, and ask us to rely on the possibility that the climate really isn’t as sensitive as most others suggest. Well… what if you’re wrong?”
What if a massive earthquake hits LA?
What if a 1km meteor hits NYC?
Answer: we adapt. We will have time. A wealthier society in the future will be better able to adapt to changes than a poorer one. 4 hurricanes hit Florida with almost no one dies. 1 cyclone hits bangladesh and 1000s die. Wealth is the difference.
The idea that we should engage in a massive social engineering experiment because some models same we might have a problem 100 years from now is ridiculous.
BTW – “clean” energy from a CO2 perspective is often extremely dirty in other ways. Look at nuclear or the toxic waste produce whenever a solar cell or lithium battery is produced or discarded. So the “clean” argument argument is a non-argument.
Pablo: If Joe Bastardi is correct and we have flipped to a predominantly La Nina pattern, if solar activity remains low and the earth continues to cool then it’s game set and match to us realists and the end of the game for the alarmists.
If Joe is wrong, then what? And even if he’s partially right, what about supply vs. demand? What about who we’re getting the supply from? What about the cost of that supply relative to the supply of other sources? If contemplated in a different way, how much of those “other sources” could be supplied domestically and how much not, according to one or another economic model? I have to say that unless one embraces the most optimistic scientific scenario (which is to say, GHGs don’t matter) while rejecting all others, AND unless one embraces the most pessimistic economic scenario (which is to say innovation cannot have any effect) while rejecting all others, AND unless one embraces the most optimistic national security scenario (which is to say the current turmoil in the Middle East, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and elsewhere will all subside really quickly) while rejecting all others, things don’t look good. To repeat… unless you embrace ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS, not just one or two, then what?? Well, in short, it isn’t game, set, match. And if you think it is, you aren’t much of a realist.
whether the causes for the development are perceived to be real or imagined, the fact is that a gigantic demand has developed for “clean” energy technologies.
And by “clean” energy you mean what, exactly? I’m guessing you mean, as all AGWers do, non-C02 producing. And this “demand” you speak of is driven by – of course, AGW propaganda, “carbon trading” carbon credits” and a whole host of scams being perpetrated by the AGW fraud.
the weight of “proof” falls far more heavily in your lap and those of like mind who wish to perpetuate the status quo than it does those who advocate rapid change.
Wrong, Rico. The AGW hypothesis is so riddled with holes now that it’s a joke, scientifically. As far as your “status quo” and “rapid change” goes, that’s just politicospeak, and means about as much from you as it does from any politician.
However on reflection I realise that I was competely missing the point and this story really does seem to be extremely important. In fact it could be the most important piece of research yet against the AGW theory.
I totally agree.
These findings make that explanation impossible.
It’s actually more than that, in my opinion.
Per Warren Meyer, one can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get an upper bound for climate sensitivity to CO2 simply by looking at the total increases in temperature and CO2 over the last 100 years or so. The resulting upper bound (which assumes that all temperature increase is due to CO2) is quite low.
Alarmists get around this problem by hypothesizing a “thermal inertia,” i.e. that a lot of the extra heat is deposited in the oceans to come back and haunt us 30 or 40 years down the road. If the oceans are not warming, it suggests — at a minimum — that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2. Which means there won’t be a catastrophe.
Which means there won’t be a catastrophe.
Even assuming that warming over the past 100 years was all due to CO2
‘Remember y2k anyone?`
Yeah, that was the last time anything I submitted was posted. Just kidding.
I’m new here. And maybe it’s just me. But there does seem to be a very long lag between what is submitted and what is posted. Wattsupwiththat?
I appreciate all the work of Dr. Spencer and his crew, dealing with the satellite data. Thanks also to Anthony and his project for trying to get ground stations to comply with minimal standards. Anthony, do you know anyone who is involved with the ocean heat monitoring projects? How about a guest editorial from someone who covers that angle?
It seems to me that trillions of dollars and the future of Earth’s economy rest upon what the next US President decides to think and do about “climate change.” At this time, the science is largely–but not completely–irrelevant. George Bush listens to Lindzen and a few other scientists, and Bush is the only thing currently standing between total holy-warmer-mania and the taxpayers of the developed world. If the next POTUS decides to go with the flow and join the climate orthodoxy, the science becomes completely irrelevant.
REPLY: Maybe Kennth Trenberth…I’ll ask.
The problem is that those who believe in AGW are so anxious for their belief to be shown to be true that they are willing to distort the historical climate records and the results of their studies/models.
Those of us on the other side of the debate are just as anxious for our side to be proven true. The debate has become an US versus THEM tribal conflict with lots of emotion thrown in.
It seems to be basic human nature in that the US versus THEM instinct and the desire to be proven right is just so innate in our reactions and in this debate that it has overwhelmed whatever facts are actually available and whatever facts are actually proven to be true.
But science and the scientific method was designed to stop our basic human nature from overwhelming the FACTS. The double blind placebo controlled studies with “do not harm above all” in the health sciences has been spectacular successful because it recognizes basic human nature can sometimes lead us down the wrong path. This principle has taken the health sciences from the bleeding of the 16th century to the truly effective health system and truly effective health treatments of today.
Roy Spencer’s article is really a double blind placebo controlled “do not harm above all” statement in regards to climate science. Too bad the AGW crowd cannot hear the message. Too bad the scientific method is not the first principle used in climate science (since basic human nature has overwhelmed it.)
Time for a placebo.
Anthony,
Kennth Trenberth is firmly in the AGW is a catastrophe camp and would likely insist that the ocean temps are wrong and need to be ‘corrected’ like the surface record. I would much rather hear from Josh Willis who produced the orginal report.
Rico says:
“What about who we’re getting the supply from? What about the cost of that supply relative to the supply of other sources? If contemplated in a different way, how much of those “other sources” could be supplied domestically and how much not, according to one or another economic model?”
You are mixing up issues again. The US environment CO2 regulations are likely to increase dependence on foreign oil because the supplies in tar sands and oil supplies north america are too ‘dirty’.
If energy security is the issue then coal and nuclear is the way to go. Forget about GHGs.
Even renewables like solar would require massive imports from places like China since they are so expensive to make.
Do you want to bring down the CO2 induce global warming house of cards?
Check out http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com
Stockholders lawsuit against corporations buying and/or selling cabon credits. Is there an Enron or another Bears Stearns waiting to happen?
Lawsuits against government trying to regulate CO2 emissions based on bad data. Check out http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
Raven, part of the problem with Bangladesh is that there is so much low-lying area in the Ganges Delta that is cultivatable that people populate it illegally. Then, thousands die when the waters predictably rise. There is another similar area on earth with predictable cyclical natural holocausts, and that is the south edge of the Sahara, where a few seasons with more moisture leave a new population vulnerable to the next drought. I thought these were the only two places on earth with regular natural calamities until someone mentioned floods in the Chinese river valleys. The press of population will, even against law and sense, populate vulnerable ecological niches. It’s too bad.
========================================
Another one may well be cyclic climate change. If we are headed into decades of cooling, millions may starve and freeze. Even a 5% die-off of the human race is 350 million people, and the silly elites pushing carbon capping are deluded to think they can dodge the effects of such a holocaust. If carbon, which could slightly warm, and voluminously feed people, is unnecessarily encumbered, there will be hell to pay.
Already carbon capping schemes are straining relations between developed and undeveloped nations. Why shouldn’t diplomats be the most sensitive to the oncoming understanding that the globe is cooling, and that the role of CO2 in climate has been tragically exaggerated. There are already casualties of this mass delusion, but I am hopeful that the worst effects of unnecessary demonization of carbon will be avoided.
It is ironic to be hoping for a cooler world and a more fragile niche for humans, merely to avoid the insanity of carbon capping. Why couldn’t we figure this out without the need for the world to get cold to convince us. It is dismaying, indeed. What scientists we have turned out to be.
===================
All i can say is if we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ….. it’s a universe full of pushers. The over-riding question relates to what drives changes creating derivatives so just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product of the process? Most people in the AGW debate (Roy included) cannot see outside the troposphere and hence see only the product.
The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy. Whilst we can study sun spot numbers I find that it is the aa index of geomagnetic activity that gives the best indication of what has happened since 1884. Does it occur to anyone that poor old sunnyboy is, to use the current parlance, guilty and the sinner but hasn’t been put on trial yet?
Our production of CO2 is puny in the scheme of things but this means little to try-hards who believe they are the weather maker or opportunist bankers or spivs wanting to make big money out of thin air.
RE: Kim ‘s comment. It is truly sad. Right at the point where the future was on the verge of opening up, in a way that would have accelerated quality of life, as we always do, us fallible humans lost our nerve, and started to worship trees and rocks like primitive societies. We imagined a fragile Earth. We will be stuck on the rock for a very long time, based on the fact that advancement is slowing. Woe unto us, if we are still stuck here, as the interglacial ends. Or worse …