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.
“Matt Bennett (16:33:33) : Einstein was not religious in any sense that you mean.”
What is it you think I mean?
Einstein did say, at one point in his life, “I do not believe in a personal God”. He did not say he did not believe in God at all. Because, it is unmistakable that he did.
I was pointing out something about scientific findings. Is it safe for me to say that you only like the scientific findings of people who do not believe in God?
Richard Sharpe (11:05:22) :
Have I understood what you are saying? The biosphere is more than capable of handling the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere and turns much of it into O2 (and biomass) with the aid of sunlight?
Richard, A mature forest is more or less in equilibrium: warm season growth and all year decay have an average zero CO2 balance, including what animals eat and breath. In NH warm months, about 50 GtC is absorbed by plant growth and in the cold months about the same quantity is released by (soil) bacteria, fungi,…
The moment that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase (for whatever reason), plant growth is stimulated, all other necessities (water, nutritients, fertiliser, sunlight) available in sufficient quantities. But even then, 100% more CO2 only gives 30-80% more growth, depending of plant carbon capture type.
As other necessities are often the growth limiting factor, the increase of plant growth is relative modest and currently about 1.5 GtC/yr of the 7+ GtC/yr emitted by humans… Add to that the oceans which absorb about 2 GtC/yr extra, then we are at what is observed: an increase of about 4 GtC/yr in the atmosphere…
Guys, a lot of you have missed my point but given the moderator’s tones here, I think it’s best we leave this one alone. I am all too aware of the different degrees of creationism, trust me. They all amount to exactly the same thing though – just like the different strengths of cigarette. Saying you don’t know the answer to X is just being honest. Saying you don’t know the answer to X therefore will substitute Y, in place of honest admittance of ignorance, is a non sequitur. Let’s leave it at that.
My point is perfectly proved, at any rate, by the fact that Spencer has the gall to think he knows better than thousands of specialists in this field who have reached a consensus which is in no way ‘in doubt’, however much the bunch of you like to think so in this little corner of the web.
Smokey, what did you want an answer to?
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen
—————————-Beginquote
Richard Sharpe (11:05:22) :
Have I understood what you are saying? The biosphere is more than capable of handling the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere and turns much of it into O2 (and biomass) with the aid of sunlight?
Richard, A mature forest is more or less in equilibrium: warm season growth and all year decay have an average zero CO2 balance, including what animals eat and breath.
—————————————-Endquote
Hmmmm, you are perhaps talking about a model mature forest ? 🙂
I shall not brag about extensive knowledge on e.g. the “Taiga”. Bur I assume a lage fraction of this huge terrestrial forest ecosystem can be regarded as “mature”. I am not convinced you are correct in a biogeochemical sense, though .
In addition to the fixed carbon in the standing stock biomass, the soil has accumulated carbon (Dry weight – Ash) since since last glaciation.
In addition some areas has accumulated huge C-deposits in Sphagnum spp peatlands. Admittingly a substantial fraction of the fixed carbon by Sphagnum spp is rapidly released, but much is relesed as recalitrant molecules like humic acids. A significant amount is exported out of the system throug the river catchments and winds up in the oceans as a part of the oceanic DOC (Gelbstoff). I would think both humic acid and gelbstoff has a half-life making them to carbon sinks (despite being in solution).
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Matt,
There are not thousands of specialists in cloud cover. There are only a handful and even then, there is a lot of discussion on the effect of clouds.
What is sure is that climate models don’t reflect reality about cloud cover: expecially not in the tropics:
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~rpa/PAPERS/olr_grl.pdf
Several people I have met (in virtual world) which are directly involved in clouds research are quite surprised to hear that (all!) climate models see clouds as a positive feedback for a warmer world. Most of them see warmer – more clouds – more reflection of incoming sunlight, thus a negative feedback.
And there is/was a trend in cloud cover not related to GHGs, which may in part explain the increase in ocean heat content of the oceans in the tropics and thus the increase in tenperature since about 1990. See the very readable pages at NASA from Wielicki and Chen:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/DelicateBalance/
Since the publications of Wielicki and Chen, I always wondered which was cause and effect. Less clouds causing more warming or reverse or both cause ánd effect… At least there is now a method which points to clouds as forcing of climate. The next problem to solve is what causes less clouds to form…
Thus all together, Dr. Spencer is not alone to look at clouds as a cause and not only as an effect…
Matt,
Might I suggest that the key point is leaving the man out of it, and instead address the evidence that he presents.
Evidence is king.
Enough said, if you don’t want to address the evidence that is your choice – just don’t expect to remain credible.
Matt,
“to think he knows better than thousands of specialists in this field who have reached a consensus which is in no way ‘in doubt’”
You don’t have to be a mind slave to the dictates of Authority (Consensus).
You can be a free man who thinks for himself, and reasons from the evidence.
Science is not decided by numbers, or votes, it only takes one fact to disprove a theory.
Join the Rebellion…
Whatever. What I gave was an actual link where Spencer expresses his SCIENTIFIC views, not his religious views, in regards to evolution and intelligent design. Given that there must be at least 20 posts above on that subject where people were speculating about both what his scientific and religious views were, it seemed like a post with actual evidence would be useful.
Matt Bennett (00:51:41) :
Your opinion is not that important to me Matt.
You strike me as not be well educated. I’m not trying to be insulting.
“Our critics are our friends–they show us our faults.”
~Benjamin Franklin
Graeme, JWT et al,
I will take your point on not playing the man, though however much we might like to segregate them in our minds, the “man and the ball” interact repeatedly and in complex ways in the real world and it can be informative to look at the history of one with respect to the other. Spencer’s, on several topics, is dubious which is what makes me reflexively look askance at his output.
Ferdinand, thank you for your input, I stand corrected.
JWT, it is your perjogative to see me as uneducated (laughs) but I’m not the one who thinks the work of thousands of climate specialists over several decades can just be discarded if what they tell me doesn’t fit my worldview or my politics. Neither am I one to jump at any and all conflicting evidence that fits said worldview, even if it’s based on uncorrected, outdated and dishonest data:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/
Cheers, hope everyone enjoys their lunch.
“Matt Bennett (17:53:3 but I’m not the one who thinks the work of thousands of climate specialists”
You jump all over the map. You changed the point of what was being talked about. And you did not answer my question.
This is my last comment to you on this.
JWT,
What the hell are you talking about? We were asked to refrain from entering the looming religious domain by the moderator and I’ve respected that. What question have I left unanswered for you? Can’t see how I’ve “jumped” anywhere. As I recall, your last comment paternally accused me of needing more education (which I agree with – I will never know too much and my education is the work of a lifetime). So, you tell me, where’s my response supposed to head from there if I ‘stay on the map’?
And of course you’re notably silent on the fraudulent use of outdated data…
You know the old joke about if you ask two lawyers a question you will get three different answers. Well, I’ve been reading the Lindzen post as well as the Spencer post, and I’m so confused now that I am CONVINCED the joke should be changed to “If you ask two scientists a question you will get TEN to the tenth power answers.”