Dr. Roy Spencer went to Washington to give testimony today to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here is his presentation. While not as technical as Lord Moncktons paper at APS (since it had to be simplified for a congressional hearing), it nonetheless says the same thing – climate sensitivity is overstated by models and not supported by observational data. – Anthony
Update: See the complete testimony on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008
A printable PDF of this testimony can be found here
I would like to thank Senator Boxer and members of the Committee for allowing me to discuss my experiences as a NASA employee engaged in global warming research, as well as to provide my current views on the state of the science of global warming and climate change.
I have a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and have been involved in global warming research for close to twenty years. I have numerous peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability and climate change. I am also the U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
1. White House Involvement in the Reporting of Agency Employees’ Work
On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.
This did not particularly bother me, though, since I knew that as an employee of an Executive Branch agency my ultimate boss resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction given by my superiors.
But I eventually tired of the restrictions I had to abide by as a government employee, and in the fall of 2001 I resigned from NASA and accepted my current position as a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Despite my resignation from NASA, I continue to serve as Team Leader on the AMSR-E instrument flying on the NASA Aqua satellite, and maintain a good working relationship with other government researchers.
2. Global Warming Science: The Latest Research
Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.)
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.
2.1 Theoretical evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated
The support for my claim of low climate sensitivity (net negative feedback) for our climate system is two-fold. First, we have a new research article1 in-press in the Journal of Climate which uses a simple climate model to show that previous estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system from satellite data were biased toward the high side by the neglect of natural cloud variability. It turns out that the failure to account for natural, chaotic cloud variability generated internal to the climate system will always lead to the illusion of a climate system which appears more sensitive than it really is.
Significantly, prior to its acceptance for publication, this paper was reviewed by two leading IPCC climate model experts – Piers Forster and Isaac Held– both of whom agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue. Piers Forster, an IPCC report lead author and a leading expert on the estimation of climate sensitivity, even admitted in his review of our paper that other climate modelers need to be made aware of this important issue.
To be fair, in a follow-up communication Piers Forster stated to me his belief that the net effect of the new understanding on climate sensitivity estimates would likely be small. But as we shall see, the latest evidence now suggests otherwise.
2.2 Observational evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated
The second line of evidence in support of an insensitive climate system comes from the satellite data themselves. While our work in-press established the existence of an observational bias in estimates of climate sensitivity, it did not address just how large that bias might be.
But in the last several weeks, we have stumbled upon clear and convincing observational evidence of particularly strong negative feedback (low climate sensitivity) from our latest and best satellite instruments. That evidence includes our development of two new methods for extracting the feedback signal from either observational or climate model data, a goal which has been called the “holy grail” of climate research.
The first method separates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are uncorrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. As can be seen in Fig. 1, that estimate from satellite data is much less sensitive (a larger diagnosed feedback) than even the least sensitive of the 20 climate models which the IPCC summarizes in its report. It is also consistent with our previously published analysis of feedbacks associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations3.
Fig. 1. Frequency distributions of feedback parameters (regression slopes) computed from three-month low-pass filtered time series of temperature (from channel 5 of the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15 satellite) and top-of-atmosphere radiative flux variations for 6 years of global oceanic satellite data measured by the CERES instrument flying on NASA’s Terra satellite; and from a 60 year integration of the NCAR-CCSM3.0 climate model forced by 1% per year CO2 increase. Peaks in the frequency distributions indicate the dominant feedback operating. This NCAR model is the least sensitive (greatest feedback parameter value) of all 20 IPCC models.
A second method for extracting the true feedback signal takes advantage of the fact that during natural climate variability, there are varying levels of internally-generated radiative forcings (which are uncorrelated to temperature), versus non-radiative forcings (which are highly correlated to temperature). If the feedbacks estimated for different periods of time involve different levels of correlation, then the “true” feedback can be estimated by extrapolating those results to 100% correlation. This can be seen in Fig. 2, which shows that even previously published4 estimates of positive feedback are, in reality, supportive of negative feedback (feedback parameters greater than 3.3 Wm-2K-1).
Fig. 2. Re-analysis of the satellite-based feedback parameter estimates of Forster and Gregory (2006) showing that they are consistent with negative feedback rather than positive feedback (low climate sensitivity rather than high climate sensitivity).
2.3 Why do climate models produce so much global warming?
The results just presented beg the following question: If the satellite data indicate an insensitive climate system, why do the climate models suggest just the opposite? I believe the answer is due to a misinterpretation of cloud behavior by climate modelers.
The cloud behaviors programmed into climate models (cloud “parameterizations”) are based upon researchers’ interpretation of cause and effect in the real climate system5. When cloud variations in the real climate system have been measured, it has been assumed that the cloud changes were the result of certain processes, which are ultimately tied to surface temperature changes. But since other, chaotic, internally generated mechanisms can also be the cause of cloud changes, the neglect of those processes leads to cloud parameterizations which are inherently biased toward high climate sensitivity.
The reason why the bias occurs only in the direction of high climate sensitivity is this: While surface warming could conceivably cause cloud changes which lead to either positive or negative cloud feedback, causation in the opposite direction (cloud changes causing surface warming) can only work in one direction, which then “looks like” positive feedback. For example, decreasing low cloud cover can only produce warming, not cooling, and when that process is observed in the real climate system and assumed to be a feedback, it will always suggest a positive feedback.
2.4 So, what has caused global warming over the last century?
One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then. These results are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. A simple climate model forced with cloud cover variations assumed to be proportional to a linear combination of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index. The heat flux anomalies in (a), which then result in the modeled temperature response in (b), are assumed to be distributed over the top 27% of the global ocean (1,000 meters), and weak negative feedback has been assumed (4 W m-2 K-1).
While this is not necessarily being presented as the only explanation for most of the warming in the last century, it does illustrate that there are potential explanations for recent warming other that just manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Significantly, this is an issue on which the IPCC has remained almost entirely silent. There has been virtually no published work on the possible role of internal climate variations in the warming of the last century.
3. Policy Implications
Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback.
While it will take some time for the research community to digest this new information, it must be mentioned that new research contradicting the latest IPCC report is entirely consistent with the normal course of scientific progress. I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor.
While other researchers need to further explore and validate my claims, I am heartened by the fact that my recent presentation of these results to an audience of approximately 40 weather and climate researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder last week (on July 17, 2008 ) led to no substantial objections to either the data I presented, nor to my interpretation of those data.
And, curiously, despite its importance to climate modeling activities, no one from Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s facility, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), bothered to drive four miles down the road to attend my seminar, even though it was advertised at NCAR.
I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated — not attacked and maligned.
And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.
REFERENCES
1. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis:
A simple model demonstration. J. Climate, in press.
2. Allen, M.R., and D.J. Frame, 2007: Call off the quest. Science, 318, 582.
3. Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation
budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.
4. Forster, P. M., and J. M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components
diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data. J. Climate, 19, 39-52.
5. Stephens, G. L., 2005: Clouds feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J.
Climate, 18, 237-273.
6. Schwartz, S. E., 2007: Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of the Earth’s
climate system. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746.
Smokey says: “When Planet Earth totally contradicts the stated UN/IPCC prediction of global warming due to CO2 emissions, rational scientists change their minds.”
However, rational scientists also understand how to correctly evaluate observational data and compare it to predictions. Alas, you do not. For example, a rational scientist would actually look and see what the IPCC models predict for the trend over an 8 year period…and those scientists would find that, in fact, one expects to have zero or even negative trends over a reasonable proportion of such periods, as demonstrated here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/tk
Furthermore, in regards to your second graph, a rational scientist would say: “Hmmm…That is interesting that they chose to plot CO2 rise and temperature behavior on the same graph. Nothing wrong with that, but I wonder what relative scaling they chose for the CO2 and temperature scales and what sort of climate sensitivity one would have to have in order to have the expectation that (over a long enough period that short-term variability is not dominating the temperature data) the two data sets would have the same average slope.”
Well, that is not hard to work out from the figure. I used the fact that a ~5.4% increase in CO2 levels across that graph corresponded to a change of 0.7 C on the temperature scale. Using the expected logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2, this gives you an implied climate sensitivity for doubling of over 9 C.
In other words, over the long term, the temperature trend would expect to follow the CO2 trend on that graph if the climate sensitivity was 9 C, a far cry from the IPCC estimate of 2 to 4.5 C!! But, in fact, it is really worse than that because the IPCC estimate is for EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity. What you are really measuring here is what is called the “transient climate response” (TCR) and the IPCC estimate for that quantity is between 1 and 3.5 C. So, in other words, the scaling of the CO2 axis relative to the temperature axis on that graph is somewhere between ~2.5 and 9 times greater than what it ought to be to have an expectation that the trends align.
Of course, if you changed the scale for the CO2 by, say, a factor of 4 (to use about the midpoint of the IPCC estimate of the TCR), then the difference between the temperature and CO2 trends wouldn’t look nearly so dramatic as it does now because it would be much clearer that the noise in the temperature data make it much more difficult to conclude that the data is or is not in agreement with the expected trend, which would ruin the deception of that graph. A deception that you easily fell for!
““If the mathematics of ln(C/C0) holds, then we’ve actually seen more like 70% of the warming we’re going to see with doubling of CO2 from 260-520 ppmv. You’ll get the most increase in warming in the first 30% of increase.”
Even ignoring the facts that the accepted value I usually see used for pre-industrial levels is 280ppmv”
See the post on Becks’ recent offering.
We do not agree on the facts. Why are you arguing about the consequences?
19th century average was 330ppm. I don’t care who’s carcass you gurney out in support of your value, the volumetric analysis of the French drying with H2SO4 under counted CO2 and their representation is narrow and minor.
Ice core data is worthless for atmospheric estimates, CO2 is soluble and bubbles’ CO2 monotonically collapse.
Joel Shore (06:52:32) , you do not seem to understand the issue. As I said, the state of climate system is multidimensional. It means that different processes and “feedbacks” are acting in a space that is bigger than one dimensional line; even the temperature field alone is split into variety of meridional and local climate zones. Each zone could respond differently to alleged radiative forcing, each zone has its own form of humidity and cloud “feedbacks”. etc. The IPCC sensitivity equation is an attempt to approximate this multidimensionality by mapping of all regions into one-dimensional variable, “global temperature”. However, in a multidimensional system the feedbacks are not acting alone one line, they may act in each own orthogonal direction in the state space. As result, there is not such thing as “net positive (or negative) feedback”, since vectors do not sum in that simple way. The whole IPCC method is mathematically flawed, that’s why it is almost impossible to “correctly evaluate observational data and compare them to predictions”. There is ambiguity in mapping of various and very different local climates into one variable. Therefore, there are many ways to match observational data with one-dimensional sensitivity equation. As both Moncton and Spencer have shown you, there is an observed discrepancy. One way to resolve the discrepancy between predictions and observation is to question the assumption about effective forcing, and obtain a fit if the practical forcings are in fact 1/3 of the theoretical IPCC value (Monckton). Another approach is to question values of temperature “feedback” and correct them for non-accounted decadal variability of other climate components (Spencer). Yet another approach would be to question the assumption of algebraic sum of feedbacks, etc. There are many ways where the primitive IPCC approach goes wrong. Unfortunately (for you), IPCC prediction is proven wrong by observational data, so I don’t understand what is your problem. Your number massaging is meaningless.
Gary Gulrud says: “We do not agree on the facts. Why are you arguing about the consequences?”
Well, you are right. If you don’t believe in the accepted CO2 measurements, [Sorry Joel, the personal attacks have to stop on both sides~Charles the moderator]
Dr Spencer and Dr. Lindzen have both empirically measured the lack of GCM model conformance to Warmist dogma.
What has been lacking is a theoretical basis for why these empirical observations are producing these values. That is why the Theory of a Sataurated GHG Atmsophere by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi is so revolutionary. And so threatening to the
Warmists. The ex NASA sientist, just like Dr. Spencer has been using the data from the NASA satellites to give us a better understanding of the Earth type atmosphere.
And like Dr. Spencer, Dr. Miskolczi has been attacked with the characteristic ad hominems, by the usual claque of Pharisees and Scribes. Gavin Shmidt, Eli Rabbet, Brendan Robertson et al. have all attacked Dr. Spencer as they did to Dr. Miskoczi.
These apologists for Dr. Hansen and the Reverend Profit Algore will soon have to get real jobs, instead of operating a gratutitous insults machine, the usual output from RealClimate.
The scam draws to the inevitable conclusion.
leebert says: “Even Schwartz proffered the caveat that his original effort was incomplete and welcomed critique. It was a first-shot, and it’s not the results but the overall methodology that Schwartz is trying to develop.” Yeah…Well, there is nothing I disagree with there…and yet, that didn’t stop lots of folks from saying that Schwartz’s result was the definitive nail in the coffin of AGW. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the same people who said that are those who now say, for example, that Miskolczi’s paper is.
leebert says: “The continued studies into the lower-than-expected relative humidity in the mid- and upper-troposphere were yet another indicator that there are problems in the bulk formula analysis approach of the current computer models.” Not sure what data you are referring to…but Brian Soden has done some nice work showing that the expected water vapor signature is there: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5749/841
leebert says: “Taken along with the inexplicable lack of the tell-tale AGW ‘hot spot’ predicted by the climate models and we know that the troposphere is doing something unanticipated.” Well, the hot spot is not due to AGW but rather to moist adiabatic lapse rate theory that is expected regardless of the forcing (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ ) and is in fact seen for temperature fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales (see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;309/5740/1551 ). It is a bit of a mystery why it is not seen in the data for the longterm multidecadal trends but given the problems with the data (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/langswitch_lang/in ), this is by no means conclusive evidence that the models are wrong.
leebert says: “Case in point: We just discovered that neutrons are in fact mutually attractive, and this new proof nucleon-nucleon attraction is going to upset a great many articles of faith in the standard model. Other examples abound in describing the dangers of hubris in science and yet we continue to see the human factor conflating evidence for self and empiricism for ego. Karl Popper called it, but who listens to him?”
I guess I am not keeping up on my particle physics but I seem to have missed this story on the neutrons and a quick web search failed to find it? (Also, the existence of the nuclear force binding the nucleus together has been known for a long time.) Could you give me a reference?
As for revolutions in science, sure they do happen from time-to-time. But, the current scientific viewpoint is still the best that we have to go on to make decisions…and we are far better off going with the current science than ignoring it when we don’t like its conclusions. And unfortunately, I think that for every person who really does make a revolutionary discovery, there are at least a hundred…if not a thousand…who mistakenly think that they have.
John McLondon (05:51:51): instead of criticizing AGW, it would be good if the critics could also explain what kind of data (or what minimum criterion) are they looking for to settle the case against AGW or for AGW.
I can’t speak for anyone but me, but here is what needs to be done to make any real progress convincing me:
Start at the beginning — why should anyone believe that changes in climate are not entirely natural and would have occurred with, or without, the presence of man? There was a Medieval Warm Period. There was a Little Ice Age. Man did not cause either one. (And no, it is not up to me to prove there was a MWP or LIA – I am not the one trying to rewrite history. AGW advocates often want to shift the burden of proof and thereby fail the first and most key minimum criterion – I have to trust the messenger.) AGW advocates are required to prove that the same, unknown, natural forces are not responsible for modern climate change and they simply have not done so. So far, all we have a host of statistical 3-Card Monte associated with the hockey stick and follow up attempts to resuscitate the hockey stick corpse. Further attempts based on tree ring growth will continue to be seen as a brazen attempt to deceive. AGW advocates will have to come forward with something that at least rises to the level of common sense.
Second – in another post you said: I see so much criticism on peer-review process. It is best process we have to keep a level of standard and integrity in the published literature. As with any other great systems created by imperfect human beings, most often it works fine. It is easy to criticize the process, but it is difficult to come up with a different better process to achieve the same objective.
Here the two subjects intertwine. The minimum required to change my mind is replication — not peer review. The two are galaxies apart. Peer review is just too low a standard and is not suitable for a scientific argument that politicians are elevating to be more important than basic human freedom. Replication is closer to the minimum requirement. To meet it AGW advocates are going to have to join the real world of complete disclosure, archiving all their data, and fully independent replication of all results.
(BTW, in my mind one of the most laughable things that AGW advocates throw around is that only climate scientists can peer review a climate paper. Apply that same logic to “only astrologers can provide peer review for astrology” and think about whether that would convince you. Lots of people are educated in chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, physics, computer modeling, math, statistics, meteorology, and the like. My experience has proven to me that if someone really knows their stuff they can explain it to bright people in very understandable terms. Cliques are not required to communicate clearly and are not in the best interest of high quality science.)
Third – AGW advocates have to drop all posturing about computer models. You said: By the way, computer simulations are not all that bad. Companies like Amgen use computer simulations to develop new drugs, it is actually very effective.
Yet, nobody is asked to swallow what a pharma company produces without actual proof that it is efficacious and that the side effects are known and worth the risk. Double blind studies, placebos, and a host of other techniques are used to establish proof and even that is not enough in every case.
In the case of GCMs, let’s cut to the chase. The Starship Enterprise had a computer that knew all. Real computers are programmed by somebody and all they do is run the program. The program might be crap or GIGO might apply. The minimum requirement to change my mind is a readily-available full-scale exposition of sample calculations and validation of all the code in an open source environment. The minimum supporting document would state all assumptions; methods used to establish, test, and parameterize each variable; and a straight forward description of every underlying hypothesis and how & why the attempts to falsify each hypothesis failed.
Perhaps by now you think I am demanding too much. I ask you to consider the context. The whole Enron scandal probably cost less than $50 billion whereas AGW advocates are pushing policies reasonably expected to cost many trillions of dollars. (Not to mention countless lives lost to food shortages, etc. brought about by the current rush to approach this supposedly vast problem in a half-vast way.) In my mind AGW advocates are going to have to comply with standards commensurate with their plans to set off a whole series of 50-Enron bombs. Tough noogies if that is a high standard—it matches the stakes at hand. After all, Enron is just one of many proofs that large scale frauds can and do happen. I think it would be reckless to accept less than ‘trust but verify’ in this situation.
You don’t have to shout. I think 843 words in bold is a bit much.
jc stout raises the same questions that are repeatedly asked of the AGW promoters — and which are never adequately answered, if they are answered at all.
I would like to read a response to Mr. Stout from John McLondon, or Joel Shore, or any proponent of the AGW/disaster hypothesis specifically explaining their position on each point raised above.
But I don’t think they will take up the challenge. Why not? Because their answers, if limited to actual, reproducible, verifiable science [such as they can provide], will make it clear to everyone that their AGW/catastrophe hypothesis has abjectly failed.
Rather than put forth a falsifiable AGW hypothesis and defend it, they continuously mount really scurrilous <ad hominem attacks against serious scientists like Lindzen, Monckton, Spencer and other reputable scholars who have a different point of view, and who provide verifiable facts to back their positions.
When one side is forced to resort to tactics that would never be permitted either in a moderated debate or in a peer reviewed paper, they have lost the argument, and everyone knows it.
Reasonable people can point out errors or unanswered questions regarding the science. But there is no reasonable way to debate “He’s lying,” or “He’s a shill for Exxon Mobil.” That type of truly reprehensible arguing — which we hear constantly from the AGW promoters — shows only that they are desperately trying to contain an argument that is not going their way.
I’m not a scientist…just an average guy being asked to accept completely destroying our economy, losing my job, and totally disrupting my way of life because the world is going to end otherwise. So I’ve been watching these AGW discussions with something more than academic interest.
What I’ve gleaned to date;
(1) We’ve had maybe 1C temperature rise to date (debateably), none for the last 7-8 years, and most of that’s been lost this last year.
(2) That the proponents of AGW have engaged in widespread dishonesty by falsifying data (hockey stick, NASA temp charts, etc.) to “prove” their case. (3) That there is no consensus, and there has been little actual debate on the subject, with critics of AGW being muzzled, scorned in the media, and have had funding cut, their jobs threatened (or lost), and generally being marginalized on a systemic basis.
(4) Let’s not forget the poor polar bears…and the summertime pics showing them adrift on an ice floe, and how the real experts say they’re thriving.
If the world was about to self-destruct over AGW shouldn’t we be seeing some actual, quantifiable warming? If AGW is real, and requiring life-altering measures to prevent it, shouldn’t the proponents be able to scientifically prove it? Instead of fluffing data, engaging in media witch hunts, and getting scientists fired for disagreeing with it?
Am I missing something here? Because all I’m seeing is a marriage of far left environmentalists (who think we oughta all go back to painting ourselves blue, hunter/gathering, and being one with the Earth), demagogues/bloated plutocrats (like Al Gore who are making a fortune off of selling AGW), and so-called scientists like Hansen who are likewise making a killing personally and professionally off of AGW. Oh, and let’s not forget the UN, who on the strength of the IPCC report immediately demanded billions of dollars in AGW “reparations” from the US.
Jon (08:11:40) : You are right on with your above comment, but I’m afraid that FTrouse (01:25:16) put it very well indeed. In fact, that exposition is almost enough to make me despair, it is so very accurate. Certainly, the central gods of AGW are never going to admit anything, so we can but hope that, as there is more evidence, solid,hard. un-refutable evidence of the falsity of the whole scare, then, gradually the surrounding support, the camp followers, the easily deluded media, in fact pretty well everybody bar the unrepentant watermelons, will fall away and leave the main core hanging in the winds of a real world.
Only then will this whole ridiculous charade be exposed for what it is, hysteria.
If I have set it down it is because that which is clearly known hath less terror than that which is but hinted at and guessed.SirArthurConanDoyleSir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles
jeez, my apologies for the bold text. I screwed up in an attempt at blockquotes. As a suggestion and not an excuse — In case some other fool is going to make my mistake you should know that, without a preview, by the time I knew my error there was no way to pull it back. Also, once I saw my mistake in the “waiting for moderation” queue I couldn’t find an email addy to request the post be held for repairs.
Again, my apologies. Shouting was never intended I just screwed it up.
Reply: That’s OK, it was late, I was trying to sleep and it was so loud.~charles the moderator aka jeez
Where are the ad hominem attacks? I see lots of ad hominem attacks against Hansen and Gore on this webiste. Against Lindzen, Monckton, and Spencer, I see mainly attacks on their scientific points. In fact, most of our scientific points in this thread have gone completely unanswered despite the fact that there are many more of you than there are of us on the website.
You mean like putting out a completely deceptive news release regarding an article published in a newsletter? Yes, I agree that is an indication that Monckton and associates have lost the argument. It is pretty desperate when you want to claim that an article in a newsletter that contains elementary mathematical and scientific mistakes is a major peer-reviewed article in a learned journal that gives a mathematical proof.
You mean like producing and then promulgating deceptive graphs, such as the ones that you posted and I deconstructed above, which carefully cherrypick the data sets that they use and the time periods they look at and the relative scaling of the temperature and CO2 axes in order to mislead? Yes, I agree that this is an indication that the skeptics have lost the argument.
Whoops…Messed up the coding for those last two paragraphs which should again be my words rather than being further indented.
jc stout (11:06:44) : As a suggestion and not an excuse
— In case some other fool is going to make my mistake you
should know that, without a preview, by the time I knew my error there
was no way to pull it back.
Yeah. It’s a real nuisance. There’s one person here who habitually
makes entire posts in italics, perhaps because of a lack of preview.
I’ve been using Nvu ( http://www.nvu.com/ ). I do a cut and paste into the HTML source page. There are other WYSIWYG html
editors too. Also there’s at least one check web page:
http://jmarshall.com/easy/html/testbed.html .
One problem is that WordPress comment entry forms don’t completely conform to W3 standards so what works in the WYSIWG may not work in the
post and vice versa. Nvu has a tendency to want to insert font changes for things like italics. So I find myself editing from the HTML source page instead of the “normal” page. Also, WordPress insterts a BR tag for CRLF but makes viweing in Nvu bothersome and Nvu has a tendency to “fix” your
HTML (like removing “extraneous” CRLFs).
Better than nothing though.
JC:
Let us just start with the general background. I do not post to change anyone’s mind – these are simply discussions to provide information pertinent to a specific aspect – in the process I usually learn a thing or two. If one finds the information to be convincing, he/she can change his/her mind. The level of evidence required to believe in something differs from person to person depending on the topic. That is why I really do not have any real problems with those who criticize AGW. (The following is not intended to make fun of your position, but to make a point) There are people who do not find the evidence to be convincing to believe that (1) childhood vaccines do not cause autism, (2) the earth is round, (3) men ever landed on Moon (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm ), etc. I personally do not find it to be unusual (and I will even give them the benefit of doubt that it is possible one day they may be proven to be correct), but based on our current scientific knowledge I would claim that their belief is irrational. Also, I have always advocated for full disclosure of information that are critical in order to make a decision.
“why should anyone believe that changes in climate are not entirely natural and would have occurred with, or without, the presence of man?”
Because now the significant input variables are not all natural, unlike the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. We are introducing CO2 at a rate that in less than 100 years we will reach the CO2 level occurred 50 million years ago. I am not aware of any serious questions on whether CO2, methane, CFCs, water vapor, etc are GHGs or on their relative potential for greenhouse effect. As far as I know main question is on how our earth deals with increased CO2, overall with positive or negative feedback.
“AGW advocates are required to prove that the same, unknown, natural forces are not responsible for modern climate change and they simply have not done so.”
Exactly how can we do that? This is a large scale experiment. May we can stop using fossil fuel immediately for 10 to 20 years and then use 10 times as much fossil fuel as we are using now for another 20 years, etc. and see whether there is an effect. But this is not practical. Can you please suggest another experiment that we can do?
“Peer review is just too low a standard and is not suitable for a scientific argument that politicians are elevating to be more important than basic human freedom. Replication is closer to the minimum requirement.”
OK. I am all for it, as I mentioned in my last paragraph. But how do we replicate phenomenon like global warming? Please suggest a practical way to do that.
On a related topic, most scientists now believe in the Big Bang theory. How exactly can we replicate that, if replication is taken as a minimum requirement?
“AGW advocates are going to have to join the real world of complete disclosure, archiving all their data, and fully independent replication of all results.”
I have no disagreements here, except the last part, unless you can suggest a replication experiment.
“…that only climate scientists can peer review a climate paper..”
I do not know who said that. At some level there are lots of overlap between different disciplines, and scientists from other disciplines with appropriate background knowledge can easily evaluate climate science. They have already done so. All the national academies all over the world, almost all Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine (except one as far as I can tell) support our current AGW understanding.
“..AGW advocates have to drop all posturing about computer models…”
OK. Then please propose a way to use our basic cause-effect relations like Newton’s law, gas laws, other laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, etc to deal with large number of data and large number of inputs for a very complicated phenomenon to isolate the effect of one input parameter on the output.
“..The program might be crap or GIGO might apply…”
That depends on you definition of crap, I believe. Sometimes there are idealizations and approximations in our simulations, those could result in some errors. But we use computers for designing structures, predicting planetary motions, designing chemical plants, etc etc. as log as we use appropriate laws correctly, the outcome will be correct. As we know more about the mechanisms, they will improve the programs also.
“..whereas AGW advocates are pushing policies reasonably expected to cost many trillions of dollars.”
With the oil price as it is now, it will cost us trillions of additional dollars anyway, and I am becoming less and less concerned about AGW with increasing oil price. It would make economic sense to find other cheaper and hopefully better energy source as quickly as we can, rather than having so much dependence on fossil fuel. It is generally understood that China wants to go to moon to extract Helium –3 for fusion rectors (we still are little away from fusion reactors being a reality, but when there is a will, there is generally a way, when we have the row materials). There are other options like converting CO2 to gasoline ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html ) that will be competitive at $ 3.40 a gallon. Sooner or later we have to find alternate fuels, why not do it now when we have sufficient oil reserve, rather than looking for one with diminished reserves? That is all what I am advocating.
But coming back to your implication that it will be very costly, the history is full of such statements. When SO2 was used as a refrigerant and when we found it can cause acid rain, some said the same thing – it will be costly to replace it and the comfort of life as we know will go away if we ban SO2. But then came CFCs, and years after the understanding what CFCs are doing on ozone. The same type of arguments came again (CFC is not causing ozone depletion and replacement will be costly and living standard is going to go down), now we have new CFC replacements and some day we may find that the new one is causing some other problems. Then we will have to look for something else. That is the nature of progress.
“Perhaps by now you think I am demanding too much.”
No, I do not. But you will have to come up with some suggestions on designing experiments for replication, and substitution for computers. If there are such possibilities for replication, we would be (or should be) using those possibilities already.
I hope I have addressed all the main issues; hopefully I have not missed many.
Smokey,
I do not use ad hominem arguments (at least I hope I do not). But sometimes credibility is important. Personally I find Christy to be a credible scientist; unfortunately I cannot say the same with Spencer. But that is not the basis for an argument, it is the basis for whether or not I believe in what they say.
AGW is just another theory Smokey, life is just too short to get carried away with such theories. There are many many such things that could potentially affect our lives, where we do not have any control over. So, I hope both sides will try to keep a good perspective on this.
John McLondon (13:14:04) :
Thanks for a thoughtful response. However, I think you have taken my statements too literally. Perhaps you need some background on why I would raise the replication question. You asked:
“Exactly how can we do that? This is a large scale experiment. May we can stop using fossil fuel immediately for 10 to 20 years and then use 10 times as much fossil fuel as we are using now for another 20 years, etc. and see whether there is an effect. But this is not practical. Can you please suggest another experiment that we can do?”
What I intended is a systematic program whereby each and every foundational study is independently replicated. I hope nobody is actually daft enough to ask for a replication of reality, but I don’t blame you for not assuming in that regard.
For your consideration, over at Climateaudit.org, Steve McIntyre has been trying to independently audit – not replicate – many of the works that end up in IPCC documents. As I interpret Mr. McIntyre’s writings, he continually runs into a good ole boy network that plays games with the availability of data, methods, and code at such a level as to make an auditing function – not a even replication function – generally impractical to do. If AGW advocates want me to believe in their work they need to not only support an auditing function, they need to support a systematic, clique free, replication program. AGW advocates are the ones who have stated how high the stakes are – all I am doing is requesting the level of proof (based on preponderance of evidence, not formal math) commensurate with the stakes established by others.
“OK. I am all for it, as I mentioned in my last paragraph. But how do we replicate phenomenon like global warming? Please suggest a practical way to do that.
On a related topic, most scientists now believe in the Big Bang theory. How exactly can we replicate that, if replication is taken as a minimum requirement?”
I will take it that neither of us is a fool. I am willing to infer much about the big bang theory from dimensional similitude starting with F=G*m1*m2/R^2, and resolving the units of G. It certainly implies volume changing with time to me. Red shift is convincing enough to me too.
But since you brought it up, it is worthwhile to point out why some things are good enough to me and others aren’t. My econ prof taught me more about theories than all my science classes combined – and according to him – theories are a simplification of reality because reality is to complex to reproduce (which I believe you and I agree upon completely based on the thrust of your argument) and that one judges theories based on their ability to explain what we do see and predict what we will see. In short, I will continue to believe in the big bang theory as long as the astronomers that are suggesting I do so keep correctly predicting the location of previously-unknown planets, etc.
Failing to predict reality is where AGW advocates keep coming up short. Convincing me is going to take some high quality (known in advance) predictions of reality that turn out to be true. On this point, you may want to check in on: http://rankexploits.com/musings/ . Lucia keeps her statistical and math skills at a much higher level than I, but no one seems to be blowing holes in her statistical arguments about verifying or falsifying trends within certain confidence limits. You won’t need to reproduce reality to convince me, just a solid record of explaining and predicting reality.
“Sometimes there are idealizations and approximations in our simulations, those could result in some errors. But we use computers for designing structures, predicting planetary motions, designing chemical plants, etc etc. as log as we use appropriate laws correctly, the outcome will be correct. As we know more about the mechanisms, they will improve the programs also.”
OK. Suppose I was assigned to design the superstructure of a bridge. I would employ the tools you describe and I would write a Design Study Report with appendices containing all my calcs, along with references to appropriate design standards and methodologies. I would also include a statement of my assumptions and a companion list of recommendations. One of my assumptions would be that the substructure being designed by another engineer is suitable for the applied loads, and we would communicate in detail about those assumptions. I would also assume (with some healthy safety factors) that structural corrosion and scour at the bridge piers is not a problem and recommend a detailed program of how to regularly check for corrosion, scour, etc, in relation to my complete list of assumptions. Engineers have learned the hard way that it is long-term changes about our assumptions that get us in trouble far more often than our calcs. In my reading about AGW I have not seen much evidence that AGW advocates understand the enabling power and consequences of assumptions very well and they do not seem to me to rigidly document and monitor their assumptions the way that good engineers do. The lackadaisical approach I perceive is one of the reasons I may be harder to convince than some others.
“I am becoming less and less concerned about AGW with increasing oil price. It would make economic sense to find other cheaper and hopefully better energy source as quickly as we can, rather than having so much dependence on fossil fuel.”
That argument would hold more water with me if mindless environmental voting was not a large component of the artificially high prices in the first place.
Now it is my turn to ask you for a more realistic grasp on what is practical. How is it that so many people seem to disbelieve in clean oilfield and offshore production technology that survives hurricanes every year, but they do believe in affordable alternative energy sources that not even one person has been greedy enough to market? Why do so many people seem to believe that the laws of thermodynamics can be over-ruled by artificial taxes that will direct the money to an unstated destination for an unstated purpose? Why do so many people believe that I should distrust those folks with the ingenuity, fortitude, technological excellence, and financial sophistication required to sell me cheap energy in the first place, and I should place all my faith in people who have never (other than through subsidies) lowered the price of a single good I buy? Put another way – you asked what it would take to convince me – AGW advocates have a long way to go just to overcome their mindless demonization of energy companies and the science they can produce. When they get back to that level playing field, then they can start to demonstrate some excellence so that I can feel good about placing my faith in them.
I noticed someone mentioning Einstein. Einstein was a Charlatan. Here’s absolute, indisputable proof.
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm
Some information of the alledged plagarism of Einstein:
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7406337/page/2/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/
News: Einstein — Genius or Plagiarist? – 5 Dec 04 (bottom of page)
http://www.energygrid.com/science.html
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/Climate.htm
I’d like to applaud EVERYONE who has contributed to this discussion (which I have not made it completely through yet). It is clear that many of you have a excellent understanding of where I’ve been going in my research, and frankly, I’m happy to see that ANYONE “gets it”. (AND I’m also praising those who have advocated caution regarding my most recent results, which are only a few weeks old and haven’t been written up yet.)
Yes, there are still uncertainties, and I’m working on them. It’s interesting to me as an observationalist that much of what I have found recently would not have been possible without a simple model to figure out what the satellite data are telling us. Maybe one could say, “models don’t kill creativity…people kill creativity”.
My greatest hope is that one or more modelers that now ascribe to the IPCC party line will have enough of an open mind and curiosity to enter the “forbidden zone” and see for themselves.
-Roy
REPLY: Thanks for dropping in Roy. Getting the word out throught he blogosphere is only one step. For it really to reach those that might take note, public opinion must be swayed. A good start to all this is to do simple things, like write letters to the editor of local newspapers, and to magazines that publish such stories.
Dr Spencers testimony was without fault. Being that he was being questioned by a predominately eco-liberal commitee, he did a great job.
The Pro AGW’s use anything, anything at all, to dis-credit Dr.Spencer.
Interesting that NCAR people didn’t show up to his intriguing seminar in
Boulder. It was advertised, but they chose to not be influenced by such a brilliant Meteorologist. There were several very well informed Scientists as well as students that attended. All feed back was/is possitive.
Shall we follow the lead of a non-scientist ex-VP and a Nasa Modeler that’s paid off my the elite?
Use ethics and integrity to make sound judgements. It’s the only way to live and learn from now through future generations.
John McLondon, we can agree on something! Well, almost:
If you replace “theory” with “unproven hypothesis,” then we can completely agree. For only if a hypothesis can withstand falsification, is it then on its way to becoming an accepted “theory.”
I and others here are not alone in thinking that the AGW/planetary catastrophe hypothesis fails the smell test. It has been falsified repeatedly, and even the impartial Earth refuses to cooperate with the AGW/CO2 predictions. The general public may swallow AGW hook, line and sinker; propaganda such as polar bears stranded on ice floes is effective. But those who specialize in closely related fields know better: click
jc stout (15:12:15) :
Again, I hope I am addressing the main issues.
“However, I think you have taken my statements too literally. Perhaps you need some background on why I would raise the replication question.”
Yes, I did. I usually I take what the other person explicitly stated than what he/she implied. Also, I believe Bob Carter made similar comments requiring for testing of the hypothesis (not components; but the whole hypothesis), and he and others don’t exactly tell us how to do that.
“What I intended is a systematic program whereby each and every foundational study is independently replicated.”
That is certainly a fair requirement. But if you argue this way, I am afraid you might dilute your main thrust, since I believe your new requirement has already been satisfied. I think every one of the components in climate analysis ( http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5811/scan00011fq5.jpg ), taken independently, is repeatable and well established – conduction, convection, radiation, compressible flow, droplet nucleation, melting, Henry’s law, Coriolis forces, etc. (if I am missing anything that is not repeatable please point it out). If I understand it correctly, the main issue is the complex interactions (at various levels – second and third order interactions) between various components and we cannot impose a repeatability requirement there. But if repeatability is needed, we have to require that at total system level where the total complex interactions occur, than the components level. But we cannot meet this requirement.
“As I interpret Mr. McIntyre’s writings, he continually runs into a good ole boy network that plays games with the availability of data, methods, and code at such a level as to make an auditing function…”
I have been to Climate Audit probably just two or three times in all these years (probably fewer to Real Climate). So, you will have to please tell me exactly what the issue is. I do not keep up with all the details of climate debate, but it is my understanding that Hansen has published a paper describing the corrections he makes, but the computer code was not available for a very long time. If my recollection is correct, he has made that available under pressure from McIntyre. I also believe that simulation codes are available to anyone who wants it (here is one source: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/ anyone can play with it and find if there is anything wrong with it). So I do not know what other issues are involved here that you are concerned about. But as I said many times, this is not an issue I will defend, I believe in making such things available to everyone, because it will make the code even better. Like any other open source codes, when more people look into it, the chances are better for finding any possible errors. Peer-reviewers are very picky on having all the details in the paper. Talking about peer-reviews I saw that you avoided elaborating on your criticisms on peer-reviews, and gave the repeatability condition (which are not mutually exclusive most of the times). In fact peer-reviewers make sure that components used in any work are in itself repeatable.
“I will take it that neither of us is a fool. I am willing to infer much about the big bang theory…”
Exactly, I agree, my objective there was to disagree with the minimum criterion (as you explicitly stated it) of repeatability. Inference with known tools, like Doppler effect or background microwave radiations or whatever, done properly, is enough for good science.
“Convincing me is going to take some high quality (known in advance) predictions of reality that turn out to be true.”
Sure, this is a very complicated area. I understand the bitter debate about climate sensitivity – where I believe models say 3 deg C +- 1.5 deg for doubling CO2. I believe Lindzen and others have also done a first order approximation (essentially with backbody radiation) and came up with about 1 deg C. But when you take the complicated feedbacks, the answer can be given only within a range. On that range, Hansen’s prediction (the middle one – curve B – I am assuming that you have seen it) was very good. Also what would be your response to the Youtube version?
“Engineers have learned the hard way that it is long-term changes about our assumptions that get us in trouble far more often than our calcs. In my reading about AGW I have not seen much evidence that AGW advocates understand the enabling power and consequences…”
Well, Engineers had so many opportunities to study that. With slow changing climate, we do not have that much opportunity to study precisely the effect of each variable.
“That argument would hold more water with me if mindless environmental voting was not a large component of the artificially high prices in the first place.”
Well, yes. But it looks to me that oil price is going up, driven by speculators, increased demand, or uncertainties associated with supply from strange places on the globe, etc. The U.S. doesn’t have that much oil reserve (unless unusually new technologies are developed for oil shale and Bakken), and what the Congress do may not have much of an impact.
Oh, on the last paragraph questions, I am afraid many of the questions are not clear to give answers. They are also highly political issues, where I do not have much interest to begin with. So, I will give just a one time broad answer, but I would not want to elaborate.
“How is it that so many people seem to disbelieve in clean oilfield and offshore production technology that survives hurricanes every year, but they do believe in affordable alternative energy sources that not even one person has been greedy enough to market?”
I do not know, even the Republicans in Florida are objecting to that. It is mainly self-interest. Just like people in Nevada are refusing to accept nuclear waste. Just like the Republicans in Florida, who are generally unfriendly to environmental laws, are using the Fish and Wild life Protection Act to get more water (to feed the rare fish) from Georgia in their water dispute with Georgia and Alabama.
“Why do so many people seem to believe that the laws of thermodynamics can be over-ruled by artificial taxes that will direct the money to an unstated destination for an unstated purpose?”
???? Thermodynamics and global warming do not have to be on the opposite side.
“Why do so many people believe that I should distrust those folks with the ingenuity, fortitude, technological excellence, and financial sophistication required to sell me cheap energy in the first place, and I should place all my faith in people who have never (other than through subsidies) lowered the price of a single good I buy? Put another way – you asked what it would take to convince me – AGW advocates have a long way to go just to overcome their mindless demonization of energy companies and the science they can produce.”
We can assign predicates like ingenuity, fortitude, etc. to almost any technological company. In fact the technology involved in solar cells, controlled nuclear fusion, etc are a lot more sophisticated than oil drilling.
I do not know anyone (other than the radical left) demonizing oil companies, oil companies are just like any other company in search of improving their bottom line. But it is clear that they have an interest in keeping oil price high which improves their profitability. But not all oil companies are against the AGW theory. Back from 1997 the British Petroleum had accepted the AGW understanding (http://dieoff.org/page106.htm ).
But placing trust in a company? Not a good idea at all. In my opinion companies would do anything to increase their bottom line, as long as they know that the chances of getting caught is low. Dumping toxins in rivers and ground (otherwise we wouldn’t have the so called superfund cleanup sites -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601–9675) ), sending it and dumping it in developing countries, telling that nothing is wrong with smoking, pumping out lots of mercury saying that it is OK, exposing employees to unnecessary exposure, misinterpreting clinical data to sell drugs, delaying the disclosure of potentially bad clinical trial data (see how long it took Merck to disclose the trial results, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/15drug.html ), avoiding FAA inspections on planes suspected of bad record keeping or bad maintenance, etc… The list is long. Very long. I am not an environmentalist, but you don’t want to know how many people suffer from health problems caused by environmental conditions. Take a simple (hopefully a harmless) example, we do not know exactly what it does (bad or good, probably bad), but every one in the world somehow carry PFOA in their blood, which is a chemical used for making Teflon (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20050113/is-teflon-chemical-toxic-epa-seeks-answers ). That is how the environment works. We have to be careful with environment and companies.
No no, we cannot trust profit oriented companies, unless their product and prices are somewhat regulated. That is why we have anti-trust laws, food and drug administration, FAA, etc.
One can ask a different question also. Why are so many people so interested in keeping fossil fuel as the main energy source and discouraging the use (or even the research) of any alternate energy source?
To educate educators! But the first ones must educate themselves! And for these I write.FriedrichWilhelmNietzscheFriedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche