Little Feedback on Climate Feedbacks in the City by the Bay
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) here in San Francisco this week is amazing for it’s sheer size: many thousands of Earth scientists presenting talks and posters on just about every Earth science subject imaginable.
Today was my chance (PDF of presentation) to try to convince other scientists who work on the critical issue of feedbacks in the climate system that some fundamental mistakes have been made that have misled climate researchers into believing that the climate system is quite sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions. A tough sell in only 14 minutes.
It was standing room only…close to 300 scientists by my estimate. There were only a couple of objections to my presentation…rather weak ones. Afterward I had a number of people comment favorably about the ‘different’ way I was looking at the problem.
And while that should be comforting, it is also disturbing. Since when in science did the issue of ‘causation’ become a foreign concept? When did the direction of causation between two correlated variables (in my case, clouds and temperature) become no longer important?
If temperature and clouds vary together in ‘sort of’ the same way in satellite observations as they do in climate models, then the models are considered to be ‘validated’. But my message, which might not have come across as clearly as it should have due to time constraints, was that such agreement does NOT validate the models when it comes to feedback, and feedbacks are what will determine how much of an impact humans have on the climate system.
Andrew Lacis, who works climate modeling with Jim Hansen, came up and said he agreed with me that, in general, the feedback problem is more difficult than people have been assuming. In a talk after mine, Graeme Stephens gave me a backhanded compliment when he agreed with at least my basic message that the way in which we assume the climate system functions (in my terms, what-causes-what to happen) IS important to how we then deduce how sensitive the climate is to such things as our carbon dioxide emissions.
The three organizers of the session were very gracious to invite me, since they knew my views are controversial. One of the three was Andrew Dessler, who works in water vapor feedback. I had never met Andy before, and he’s a super nice guy. They all agreed that there needs to be more debate on the subject.
But most of the talks presented followed the recipe that has become all too common in recent years: analyze the output of climate models that predict substantial global warming, and simply assume the models are somewhere near correct.
There seems to be great reluctance to consider the possibility that these computerized prophets of doom, which have required so many scientists and so much money and so many years to develop, could be wrong. I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data in details that are beyond even what has been done with the complex climate models…and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.
Besides, since my simple model would predict very little manmade global warming, it must be wrong. After all, we know that manmade global warming is a huge problem. All of the experts agree on that. Just ask Al Gore and the mainstream news media.
“And while that should be comforting, it is also disturbing. Since when in science did the issue of ‘causation’ become a foreign concept? When did the direction of causation between two correlated variables (in my case, clouds and temperature) become no longer important?”
And equally important, when did negative feedback become incomprehensible? Any time you have a system that remains nearly stable over long periods of time despite all sorts of inputs, you KNOW you’ve got multiple negative feedback loops. Before the digital age, this was both obvious and familiar to everyone. Now it’s a foreign and radical idea.
Frank K.
If you go to the Nasa GISS website the code for their Climate model is completely documented and accessible. I did not believe it was there myself until I found a link at Realclimate. I cannot even begin to understand the code, how it operates or if it operates properly, but I have not seen anyone indict the NASA GISS GCM models as lacking documentation or transparency.
I’m interested to hear if someone can demonstrate otherwise.
Shiny
Ed
Very interesting post. I have felt for a long while that the transformation of the study of climate into the study of climate models (as it was described more than twenty years ago in a nice book, Ice Time, by Tom Levenson) is a degradation of the scientific method. You have fingered that problem very well in your post.
A preoccupation with computer models tips the balance in the competition between the technicians of science and the thinkers in favor of the technicians. This tension always exists, it’s part of science’s history, but it is mostly the thinkers who advance things because science is, after all, about ideas. The computer give technicians super-credibility in our “digital age,” but they don’t deserve it. I’ve posted on this general topic: http://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/those-climate-models/
I share the astonishment of Frank K. (06:08:03) at the authority granted these models. I too have worked for years with computer simulations (mostly hydrologic), and it was my surprise at the confidence with which people announced results of dubious precision at GISS meetings that got me started on my questions.
I’m not sure any of this makes a difference. The climate issue seems to be under tight political control and any scientific evidence that is contrary to that view will likely be ignored.
In the Telegraph, today, Secretary of State Clinton apparently declared that:
“the science for climate change is now “undeniable” and the world must agree a deal in the next 48 hours.”
“she said the US would be willing to pay into a global fund of $100 billion (£60bn) per year by 2020 to help the “most vulnerable” adapt to floods and droughts”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6832656/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Hillary-Clinton-backs-idea-for-100bn-global-fund.html
Thank you for being a normal scientist. This is exactly what should take place. A breath of fresh air is contagious.
Glad to here that Andrew Dressler is “a super nice guy”. I recall his blogs from a few years ago often had the same tone and quality of some of the crutape letters. In other words, he was sarcastic and dismissive of anyone suggesting that increasing CO2 was not a dire emergency.
It may well be that he is becoming more open minded, but if I were you, Dr. Spencer, I would watch your back…just in case.
Models are used in my field. Like climate models they are tuned to existing conditions and then run off into the future to gain insight into “what if”.
Very few policy makers understand what a model does or how it works internally, and a clever modeler can easily hide an agenda within the model code, fudge factors or assumptions.
While these models don’t have trillions of dollars resting on their output, policy makers often make important decisions based on their results. All too often when shown that a simple approach to the problem addressed by the models provides a quite different (and often less costly) approach, the policy makers will defer to model simply because it is complex. Their reasoning being that the complexity allows for a more thorough analysis.
Dr. Spencer’s simpler model, which directly addresses the core issue, is similar to above example. By not being complex, the policy makers are able to dismiss it because it doesn’t have enough complexity to address the more complex issue of climate.
I like Roy’s work but am a little uncomfortable with the use of cloudiness alone as a major negative feedback in itself.
Clouds being made up from condensed water vapour and the presence of that vapour being a consequence of a combination of sea surface temperatures (mostly) and the rate of evaporation I feel the need to take a further logical step.
I would expect changes in levels of cloudiness to be a direct consequence of changes in sea surface temperatures and then a subsequent ocean driven change in the speed of the hydrological cycle.
That idea has an impact on Svensmark’s hypothesis as well because he selects changes in cosmic ray intensity as a cause of changes in cloudiness and thus comes around to Roy’s ideas from that direction.
I imagine that cosmic rays might have an effect but I cannot see them being the driver of the observed multidecadal shifts in sea surface temperature trends or the resulting sea driven changes in overall cloudiness.
Nor the cause of the ITCZ apparently having been on the equator uring the LIA as some have suggested it was.
Mere variability in cloudiness would not be enough shift air circulation systems latitudinally in such a profound manner.
I’m still forced to the conclusion that the primary cause of temperature changes in the troposphere is changing rates of energy release from oceans to air over a number (at least 3) of cyclical changes in the rate of ocean energy release on different timescales.
Nothing that I see in climate observations seems likely to trump the effect of such oceanic changes and all those observations (including changes in cloudiness) would follow naturally from such oceanic driving forces.
As previously suggested, keep it simple.
The temperature regime above the stratosphere seems to be driven by entirely separate mechanisms as the SABER satellite is showing us.
edward (06:23:22),
Here’s a blink gif of the NASA/GISS “adjustments” of the raw temperature data: click
[It takes a few seconds to load.]
GISS always shows more rapid and greater warming than the actual recorded temperatures; their adjustments never show more cooling.
And if you get your info from realclimate, you will be misinformed.
Heavy Snow is forecast in the UK on Friday…thank goodness that nature does not listen to the whims of prideful men who believe we control our climate (Cnut was right)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8416010.stm
Heavy Snow should be just in time for the end of COP15 – people can read about the warming propaganda whilst stuck at home because of snow drifts…what irony.
Will the media try to downplay the weather? Will the snow be relegated to the back pages of news, as the media pretends it is not cold?
Dr. Spencer will cause most people to pause as soon as he asserts what seems to be an alternative reality: clouds cause temperature change instead of temperature change causes clouds. He should stop doing this. For most people there is only one reality.
And that is: The sun warms the surface and the temperature change causes evaporation. The warming and evaporation causes convection which results in clouds forming at the altitude where adiabatic cooling causes saturation. The clouds cause a radiative effect, often cooling. Since clouds move with the atmospheric circulation, they may have their radiative effect at a location different from where they were formed.
Now, the clouds may move from place A where they are formed to place B where they have their radiative effect, but does this give the appearance of a reversal of cause and effect? It should not. It is simply part of the process at work here.
Dr. Spencer must stop asserting that we have confused cause and effect. He must rethink his concept of what is going here so that it includes all of the processes involved.
Dave UK (06:20:58) :
Your Brown is someone who believes that as long as he is leading the world you will vote for him. He does it all the time. Look, look at me I’m leading the world. It doesn’t seem to matter to him that it might be over the edge of a very high cliff. He is a lemon or is it leeming.? 🙂
“Check the math!”
When so called “scientists” can’t check their own math (or computer programs) their theories and knowledge aren’t going to fly very far. Are they? (Well.. unless they have a bunch of politicians, investors, and media types behind them for any number of dubious reasons.)
Climatologists, etc., who must rely on “experts” called computer programmers to do and check their math aren’t really scientists by the classical definition. Are they?
Edward:
“If you go to the Nasa GISS website the code for their Climate model is completely documented and accessible. I did not believe it was there myself until I found a link at Realclimate. I cannot even begin to understand the code, how it operates or if it operates properly, but I have not seen anyone indict the NASA GISS GCM models as lacking documentation or transparency.”
I do applaud GISS for making their code (or some form of it) available – but their documentation is BS. For example, here is a paper from the GISS website that purportedly provides code documentation:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Schmidt_etal_1.html
Please examine this paper and tell me what specific differential equations the code solves. in fact, count the total number of equations in this paper (you can do so on your fingers…).
In numerical analysis, it is NOT enough to simply “describe” your modeling – you must actually show your work! That’s what real documentation does – it describes your work in great detail, enough so that other researchers can replicate your findings. This is impossible with Model E in it’s current state.
If others can discover what equations Model E is actually solving and write them down for us, that would be a monumental step forward. We could then begin to discuss the numerical algorithms that are being used to solve these equations.
As it stands, Model E is a poorly documented junk FORTRAN code…
Maybe someday G.S. will retire from blogging and actually address this issue seriously…
Dr Spencer
Your work in this area always demonstrates balance and integrity. It is good to know that the true scientific principle of asking questions is alive and well.
Well, it is good that the presentation seemed to be accepted. I had noticed this presentation, but not put any effort into comprehending it – I am not more inclined to take another look, but I get the impression that this is quite a specialised area. It will be difficult to reach a conclusion about it’s likely accuracy without much more background information. I would certainly appreciate more of a follow up on this if it is going anywhere.
Thank you for your service to humanity – to Science – to Truth.
edward,
I did and found “ModelE1” at
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
further down:
However, that link leads to a blank page.
In any case, there is over 4 megabytes alone of fortran source code (might take good analyst a year to learn if said analyst was well versed in the science) with references to header files not in this distribution. And then there is the matter of the data used for starting conditions.
Now wait for it…
I understand and agree! You are talking about occam’s razor: “When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”
The IPCC’s complex models rely upon many free parameters. In July 2009, Geophysical Research Letters published a study by Reifen and Toumi, “Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?” which found that each IPCC model could only predict the period of the 20th Century that it was designed to predict. When applied to a different period without changing its parameters, it did no better than chance. In other words, these models predict nothing.
You can read that study here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf
@Dale Rainwater Spencer
nice to hear that you are nicely getting along with Andrew Dessler. You have quite different opinions in some areas (cloud feedbacks or dominating negative feedbacks, in general), in other areas similar (strong positive Water vapor feedback, for example, as I read). That is science about, isn’t it?
Is it possible to include your ideas of cloud feedback into a GCM and do some testing? Normally, the different physical models of climate processes are tested separately and together. So, if you work together with others, may be some things could be improved. What do you think, is this possible?
A question: how many scientists in your session mentioned Al Gore? I mean, you are one. Any others?
dearieme (06:00:38) :
“..and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.” Spot on: I spent too many hours of my career listening to talks on mathematical models by twerps who, when asked why their work should be viewed as being superior to what had gone before, would say it was because their models were more “sophisticated”. Partly, I suspect, this just reflects a typical character defect of the sort of p[eople who get absorbed by mathematical modelling, but partly it was a lack of good judgement caused by their narrow experience – typically they did no experimental work.
Not for nothing did the word “sophisticated” originally mean “adulterated”.
IanM
Is there something wrong with NSIDC Sea Ice Index for yesterday? At present Standard View – Arctic – Daily – Extent shows data for 15th Dec http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ if you try to enlarge (click on the picture) the enlarged view shows data for 16th Dec http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png which appears to have a section in grey rather than white, with the grey area considerably larger than the previous day’s extent. Provided that is that the grey arearepresents the extent.
Apologies if links do not work, new to this
Reference?
“I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data…”
Anyone knows where this simple model is described in details?
Dr. Spencer,
Just let us know when you’ll release your raw data.
We want to take a look at it ourselves.
Thanks.
I keep wondering why nobody seems to deal with these problems more like a signal processing problem. Looking at 1st order effects seems .. backward .. equivalent to using “using stone knives and bear skins.”
I mean, many of these sorts of systems have multiple phase delays to the looping components (i.e the oceans would have very long delays while the gases in the atmosphere very short delays) I would expect that there is some sort of impulse response to the system that could account for the phase delays or lags. The components could then be separated from the impulse response based on lag and their magnitudes examined.
Frankly, my observations of “climate science” gives me the impression that these scientists have missed the last few decades of engineering advancement. I suggest that you folks find a signal processing guy with experience in signal cancellation.