Set Phasers on Stun
March 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’ve been receiving a steady stream of e-mails asking when our latest work on feedbacks in the climate system will be published. Since I’ve been trying to fit the material from three (previously rejected) papers into one unified paper, it has taken a bit longer than expected…but we are now very close to submission.
We’ve tentatively decided to submit to Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) rather than any of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) journals. This is because it appears that JGR editors are somewhat less concerned about a paper’s scientific conclusions supporting the policy goals of the IPCC — regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, JGR’s instructions to reviewers is to not reject a paper simply because the reviewer does not agree with the paper’s scientific conclusions. More on that later.
As those who have been following our work already know, our main conclusion is that climate sensitivity has been grossly overestimated due to a mix up between cause and effect when researchers have observed how global cloud cover varies with temperature.
To use my favorite example, when researchers have observed that global cloud cover decreases with warming, they have assumed that the warming caused the cloud cover to dissipate. This would be a positive feedback since such a response by clouds would let more sunlight in and enhance the warming.
But what they have ignored is the possibility that causation is actually working in the opposite direction: That the decrease in cloud cover caused the warming…not the other way around. And as shown by Spencer and Braswell (2008 J. Climate), this can mask the true existence of negative feedback.
All 20 of the IPCC climate models now have positive cloud feedbacks, which amplify the small about of warming from extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But if cloud feedbacks in the climate system are negative, then the climate system does not particularly care how much you drive your SUV. This is an issue of obvious importance to global warming research. Even the IPCC has admitted that cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in predicting global warming.
Significantly, our new work provides a method for identifying which direction of causation is occurring (forcing or feedback), and for obtaining a more accurate estimate of feedback in the presence of clouds forcing a temperature change. The method involves a new way of analyzing graphs of time filtered satellite observations of the Earth (or even of climate model output).
Well…at least I thought it was new way of analyzing graphs. It turns out that we have simply rediscovered a method used in other physical sciences: phase space analysis. This methodology was first introduced by Willard Gibbs in 1901.
We found that by connecting successively plotted points in graphs of how the global average temperature varies over time versus how global average radiative balance varies over time, one sees two different kinds of structures emerge: linear striations, which are the result of feedback, and spirals which are the result of internal radiative forcing by clouds.
But such a methodology is not new. To quote from Wikipedia on the subject of ‘phase space’:
“Often this succession of plotted points is analogous to the system’s state evolving over time. In the end, the phase diagram…can easily elucidate qualities of the system that might not be obvious otherwise.”
Using a simple climate model we show that these two features that show up in the graphs are a direct result of the two directions of causation: temperature causing clouds to change (revealed by ‘feedback stripes’), and clouds causing temperature to change (revealed by ‘radiative forcing spirals’).
The fact that others have found phase space analysis to be a useful methodology is a good thing. It should lend some credibility to our interpretation. Phase space analysis is what has helped us better understand chaos, along with its Lorenz attractor, strange attractor, etc.
And the fact that we find the exact same structures in the output of the IPCC climate models means that the modelers can not claim our interpretation has no physical basis.
And now we can also use some additional buzzwords in the new article…which seems to help from the standpoint of reviewers thinking you know what you are talking about. The new paper title is, “Phase Space Analysis of Forcing and Feedback in Models and Satellite Observations of Climate Variability”.
It just rolls of the tongue, doesn’t it?
I am confident the work will get published…eventually. But even if it didn’t, our original published paper on the issue has laid the groundwork…it would just take awhile before the research community understands the implications of that work.
What amazes me is the resistance there has been to ‘thinking out of the box’ when trying to estimate the sensitivity of the climate system. Especially when it has been considered to be ‘thinking in the box’ by other sciences for over a century now.
And it is truly unfortunate that the AMS, home of Lorenz’s first published work on chaos in 1963, has decided that political correctness is more important than the advancement of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Leebert
Even with thousands of data points and meticulous QA/QC our sucessful geostastical ore reserve models were judged to be sucessful if they were within 10% of the subsequently demonstrated reality, tonnage and grade recovered from the mine as detrmined by the processing mill.
Given the known faults with the land based weather recording system and the subsequent data adjustments by the authorities the results must be questioned.
Paddy:
It is quite easy to fool these measures. Foreing countries just apparently will fulfill those requirements, like having each an Enviromental Ministry or Secretary, issuing the most convenient and appropiate laws which they will never enforce. In the end: “just roses, roses”…everyone happy.
Then you’ll probably ask: Who will surely pay for this nonsense?: YOU, as the europeans who are already paying it.
Next question: Who will suffer the most, the consequences of an eventual Maunder like minimum?. Answer:YOU
Where is there a civilization about to fall?. Answer: Up there in the north.
WUWT is one of the few places were this nonsense is opposed, so keep backing it, it is the a friend’ s advice.
Tom in South Jersey (07:17:14) :
And just to add clarification on your observation. We can discount H2O as it will precipitate out and not over the long term increase the total volume of the atmosphere.
The oceans have a mass many times that of the atmosphere. They are also subject to even more extremes of temperature and pressure. You would have to increase the mass of the atmosphere by a very large amount to have any measurable effect on its ability to hold dissolved CO2. The increase in temperature by the increased mass of the atmosphere would have a much more profound effect.
Not really. 🙂 As I explained, if you increase the mass of the atmosphere by so much that it effects the pressure of the the oceans, then you are in big trouble for other reasons.
The green house effect is a misnomer. Our atmosphere only delays infra red radiation (IR) (heat) as it radiates back into space. If you increase the gases that hold IR then you delay the the IR longer. Having said that CO2 is a very small player in our troposphere. It is about 380 parts per million. Even if you doubled it, it would not add much to the total mass of the atmosphere and would be drowned out by the negative feed back by the most important gas H2O.
Actually, by 1500 all the western hemisphere was growing trees on land which the natives had been clearing with fire (most of the natives killed by disease). European colonists started cutting 1600-1800. In early 1900s steam sawmills took another big bite. After the Dust Bowl, more U.S. farmers added trees to their fields. And as the cities grew so grew the urban forests, including trees spreading across former farmland as suburbs grew. So it’s kind of complicated.
Dr. Spencer,
Have you uploaded a copy of your paper to the physics pre-print server?
http://www.arxiv.org
It’s a very good way of disseminating new work and result pre-publication.
From one Yooper to another, thanks Dr. Spencer for the update.
[corrected e-mail re above comment]
On a different note, your post reports difficulty publishing a paper, e.g. three rejections. I’m curious, do you think blogging about difficulties publishing a manuscript would affect your professional reputation in any way? To be sure, everyone gets rejections during the course of their career, but would discussing it in a blog affect how potential employers percieve the blogger?
“Aron (03:05:44) : Because of that, we get these activists who bring up Spencer’s religious beliefs (creationism/intelligent design)”
I don’t know what Dr. Spencer’s views on these things are for myself. But these things mean nothing. The only thing that matters is can his work be verified.
Do you feel the same about those who say there is not a God and that we are just a collection of carbon? Does their viewpoint alter what we should think of their work? In their case also it comes down to whether their work can be verified.
There is no need to make an issue of someone believing in God or not. We shouldn’t be concerned about what an activist thinks.
BTW, Einstein believed in God and that he was intelligent :
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
~Albert Einstein
“Phase Space Analysis of Forcing and Feedback in Models and Satellite Observations of Climate Variability”.
Damn!
The title alone ought to be enough to pique the interest of the scientifically inclined mind.
But I especially like — when researchers have observed that global cloud cover decreases with warming, they have assumed that the warming caused the cloud cover to dissipate. Now that’s another wonderful example of confirmation bias.
Let’s see what happens when this paper gets (hopefully) published.
Spencer is doing good work, but why is everybody ignoring the most obvious negative feedback? That is photosynthesis. Physical chemistry states that if you increase the concentration of the reactants the rate of the reaction is increased. Photosynthesis takes energy from sunlight, CO2 and water to make biomass that contins the energy from the sunlight. This stored energy lessens the energy available to warm the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the rate energy from sunlight is stored in biomass and cools the atmosphere. Doubling the concentration of CO2 increases the concentration of the reactant CO2 100% but only increases the GHGs by 2%. This cooling effect is real and somewhat easy to quantify while the cooling from GHGs may or not be real and is difficult to quantify.
Just keep on worrying about this newly concocted CO2 or whatever science you invent, nature (read it=common sense) will render them fruitless.
This seems to me like your intellectual worries about, for example, the human rights of the Tibetan people…Come on!, you are being fooled again: those guys and the chinese love each other, that’ s like meddling in a couple’ s fight, you are the only ones to lose your precious “dollars”in such an endeavour.
Now, you will come with a lot of dollars to make us follow Al Gore or Mad Hansen ideas, or even his highness prince Charles theories. Nobody will oppose them, for sure, as long as you add some dollar “tips” to them; in doing so, Al Gore and Mad Hansen freaks will feel happy…the trouble is that they will do it with YOUR MONEY.
Don’t believe it? See:
If it were implemented on a large scale–say $1 trillion–the SDR scheme could make a major contribution to both fighting the global recession and fulfilling the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals
“Alternative energies and energy savings could serve as that motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in them”
Reference link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-soros/a-plan-for-economic-recov_b_166518.html
re Ohioholic (20:49:25) : and
Tom in South Jersey (07:17:14) :
I was a little hasty when I wrote my first answer at John (00:13:37) :
The previous answer is correct if the CO2 is added to the atmosphere, eg from volcanic origin, as correctly noted by geophys55 (03:26:50) : If the CO2 is from combustion of fossil fuel then one mole of CO2 requires one mole of O2, so for a 50ppm increase in CO2, there is a 50ppm reduction in O2 theoretically reducing it to 199,9950ppm, with no change in the other constituents. Combustion of biofuel is the same in the short term, but in the long term the CO2 is re-converted back to O2 (very simplistic but roughly correct). But of course it is not that simple in reality as there are lots of other processes happening as a consequence of the “equilibrium” shifts that will moderate the changes. But as a first approximation it is close enuf.
Dr. Spencer if you are reading these comments, have you considered asking Climate Audit to take a pre-publication look at your paper? It may turn up problems or add some overlooked items. They have done a few pre-publication open peer reviews that were very helpful.
Do you mean you can’t use a computer model to validate an hypothesis? Only real-world observation counts? And you want to compare the results of the model with the real world, as if it’s some kind of ‘prediction’?
This is ‘post-modern science’, man. Get with the program. Don’t confuse the issue with things like validation, repeatability, predictions or facts.
“Tom in Florida (04:42:50) :
Watched a show on Science Channel last night called “Snowbal Earth”. They made a claim that “rain cleanses the air of CO2.” They then showed a graphic of a browish air with a rain drop passing through it with blue air in the path behind the falling rain drop (I suppose to create the image of “cleansed air”).
Is this an oversimplification of the process or is it just wrong?”
Rain cleans dust out of the atmosphere. It could absorb water soluble gases as well. The assumes that the amount of CO2 in the raindrop when it forms is less than the equilibrium it would reach from falling through the air, thus in its fall it would suck up a little more. I have no idea how big an effect this is if any in the influence of the total CO2 content of the atmosphere.
I missed the Snowball Earth show but the Snow show was really good about GW not mentioning it until near the end in relation to glaciers in Europe, not mentioning it at all would have been better.
Dr. Spenser is quoting “make-it-up” wikipedia?? WUWT?
Continuing the thread of ‘changing perceptions of the global warming threat’, I picked up the following at http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5922/1655
An abstract in Science 230309 claiming that ‘the best 12 models now say the Arctic will be ice free in summer by 2037’.
Well, that’s 24 years later than Al Gore said it would arrive last year……
In another year, maybe it’ll be 60 years off…
Which is as good as saying: ‘we’ve not got a clue, but we’ve got to publish something, haven’t we?’
Thanks for the efford Dr. Spencer. I look forward to reading your eventual publication. The fact that science won’t consider a phase space analysis of causation is pretty strong evidence by itself.
I would love to see your results, holding them from the light of day is really questionable when so much junk science gets past review so easily.
Also, as a personal curiosity, which gas is CO2 displacing when it is added to the atmosphere?
If you meant ‘displace’, then the question has been answered by ‘all of them (the gases in the atmosphere)’.
If you meant ‘replace’ then the answer is Oxygen. Since oxygen is consumed when CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels.
Wally, rain drops form and ‘hover’ at low temperatures, 4 degrees being the mean. At this temperature the solubility of CO2 is the highest. Raindrops do trap CO2. There is less trapped in snow drops.
You know that most raindrops don’t reach the ground. The little one evaporate. The big ones shrink and cool. The friction of the rain drops passing through the air displaces water molecules from the surface. Of course the water molecules at the right-hand side of the Boltzman’s distribution are the ones that evaporate first. As the rain drop falls through the gravity well, the fast molecules are stripped and the raindrop cools. This is why rain is not hot, as one would assume if its potential energy were converted to heat.
gorzabore-Wiki isn’t so bad with most things, especially non controversial and esoteric technical stuff like this.
Rhys Jaggar-What twelve models? Who says they’re “the best”? But what metric?
tallbloke (22:10:53) :
Keep at the journals Roy, they can’t ignore good research forever and keep any shred of credibility. History will judge some editors sharply.
Here are the chief editors. History will want to know.
The Journal of Climate
Andrew J. Weaver Chief Editor School of Earth/Ocean Sciences
weaver@uvic.ca term expires 2010 Univ. of Victoria
The Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Robert M. Hardesty Co-Chief Editor NOAA/ESRL
mike.hardesty@noaa.gov term expires 2011 Chemical Science Div.
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305
Peter Chu Co-Chief Editor Naval Postgraduate School
chu@nps.navy.mil term expires 2012 Dept. of Oceanography
833 Dyer Rd.
SP-235
Monterey, CA 93943-5193
The Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Robert M. Rauber, CCM Chief Editor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
rauber@atmos.uiuc.edu term expires 2011 Dept. of Atmospheric Science.
105 S. Gregory
Urbana, IL 61801-3070
The Journal of Hydrometeorology
Ana Paula Barros Chief Editor Duke University
barros@duke.edu term expires 2010 Pratt School of Engineering
121 Hudson Hall
Box 90287
Durham, NC 27708
The Journal of Physical Oceanography
Michael A. Spall Chief Editor Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
mspall@whoi.edu term expires 2012 Clark 311A
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Terms Expiring 2010
The Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Ka-Kit Tung Chief Editor University of Washington
tung@amath.washington.edu term expires 2011 Box 352420
Seattle, WA 98195-2420
–Mike Ramsey
geophys55 (03:26:50) :
I like your view. I’ll restate it to say that CO2 doesn’t displace anything, it is just a carbon hitch hiking on an O2 molecule (so to speak).
******
David J Ameling (11:04:03) on “…Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the rate energy from sunlight is stored in biomass and cools the atmosphere.” and Wally (13:06:14) and DocMartyn (15:42:43) on rain drops trapping CO2….
I’d like to not have to just imagine that folks who do this stuff for a living, haven’t already calculated all these effects, which seem to be negative feedbacks, but the more I read (in my spare time) the more I get the sense that I will have to settle for imagining that they have done all these calculations.
Seriously, the calculation of the effective CO2 transport from the atmosphere to the ocean* for an average raindrop life-cycle piques my interest as it may be quite solvable. It reminds me of the physics/math that allows for calcualtion of the teardrop shape of a raindrop in freefall subject to surface tension and gravity.
(*I presume that rain falling on land is a different case than rain falling on water as much of it may quickly evaporate and return it’s precious cargo to an undissolved state)