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.
Dr Spencer
A gracious article by a true adherent to the scientific method. Many thanks.
If I might be so bold, as an impecunious non-specialist, it would appear to me that £50m globally in 3 – 5 year grant awards to study this key aspect of climate science might be the necessary catalyst to return science to where it should be, namely a rigorous evaluation of competing evidential claims, out of which comes partial agreement, partial controversy and partial agreement that no answer is yet achieveable with current methodologies.
I remain totally open to modifying the £50m up or down based on HONEST indications of what needs to be investigated, what levels of concurrent duplication might be prudent and what outcomes can be demonstrated through such a financial investment.
It is to be hoped that those in Copenhagen will consider THAT to be high enough on their agenda as they slosh out £100bn or more to move closer to scientific agreement in the area of the greatest intrinsic uncertainties of computer models of climate currently…….
It’s been my experience that for any given simulation, the number of user defined (preprocessing) inputs increases proportionally with a given code’s “complexity.” An increase in user defined inputs increases the probability of a “tweaked” solution.
A very smart CFD person once told me this is called the “power user problem.”
Tom (05:46:16) :
He has earlier, Tom. Search the archives or go to his web page and download his paper
This is one of the things that has long bothered me about climate models (and financial models for that matter). As someone who does a huge amount of modeling in a different field, I expect that if I’m modeling some system with complex emergent behavior, I should get the behavior to arise without directly modeling it. For example, if I am making a climate model, I should not have to model the effects of ocean currents: ocean currents should arise from my ocean model. If they don’t, my ocean model is wrong, I don’t understand the problem, and my other results are thus likely to be off, perhaps dramatically so.
Any time you have a system with simple inputs, complex outputs and high sensitivity to initial conditions – in other words a chaotic system – you have emergent behavior – behavior that is not predicted by simple observation of the inputs and the system’s characteristics, but emerges from the interactions of large numbers of “particles” within the system. Climate science appears to be such a system: the inputs are energy from the sun, energy from the Earth’s still-hot core, and tidal energy; the system is open due to radiative heating into space, which is the only output that crosses the system boundary; the environmental conditions are gravity, the fluid characteristics (like viscosity) and chemical composition of the air and water, the resistance various kinds of ground cover to fluid movement, the shape of the ground at any given point, and albedo at any given point. There may be a few other, but not many: the basic conditions of the model are simple to understand – hard to calculate and sometimes hard to measure, but simple to understand. Currents, jet streams, clouds and the like should emerge from the model regardless of initial conditions, or the model is not valid.
Once the model is validated, specific input conditions need to be determined, and the divergence of the model from reality over time has to be quantified. Then, and only then, can you start to trust the outputs of the models.
We don’t even appear to have climate models that predict known phenomena; they have to include those as part of the model. Thus, I cannot take seriously the outputs of any of the models.
The fact that invalidates climate change science is precisely those CASH FEEDBACKS, as shown here, as those from DOE to CRU.
Causation seems to disappear when you view lead and lag through an emotional filter. It is good to hear that Andrew Dessler is a super nice guy, but why isn’t he nice enough to pay out of his own pocket for his saviour suit.
…and when it comes to cooling all that water vapour feedback falls FROZEN to ground .
I’m a firm believer in KISS when it comes to doing science and I think this model clearly demonstrates that less is more, in terms of information content.
The current crop of GCM’s and linear models fail the future predictability tests – doing hind-casting is much simpler, of course, although using the synthesised CRU/GISS/IPCC global average temperature anomaly data as a benchmark means that this has no information content.
Is there a version of this presentation with some explanatory text? I would be grateful for any pointers.
Met Office’s CET hasn’t been updated since the 13th (usually 2 days behind). http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Links to unadjusted GHCN data, and an initial analysis http://justdata.wordpress.com
I was quite surprised by the result. Feel free to read my code & leave suggestions.
Sorry off topic:
Kevin Rudd the Australian PM reads out letter from a scared 6 year old too COP15 delegates.
Isn’t mental cruelty listed under child abuse?
How else could a scared naive 6 year old be motivated to write a letter without it?
In my opinion Kevin Rudd may as well have read a statement written by a torture victim.
The rights and wrongs of AGW are one thing but to USE and SCARE kids is plumbing new depths for the warmists.
I am predominantly a groundwater geologist, which, similar to climate systems, involves modeling fluid flow systems. My own experience is similar to Roy Spenser’s. I recently developed a new method for modeling groundwater flow in complexly fractured bedrock aquifer systems which is based on a relatively simple principle and comes from a completely different perspective from the existing models, all of which are not only expensive and almost impossible to run and calibrate, but they also NEVER produce field verifiable results.
My most recent model is simple, inexpensive and has been verified by making predictions which have been tested in the field and confirmed. I presented a paper at the GSA meeting in Portland this past Ocotber and had the same kind of responses as Spencer – some good positive comments, a general lack of enthusiam by the big computer based modelers – overall some encouragement but a lot of missing the point.
It seemed to me that even practicing scientists seem to like to bung some figures (mostly assumed) into a box and get a result out the other end. My model, although simple in concept, requires knowledge of the system and REAL data and it makes verifiable predictions. Hmmmmm. Many people liked the idea but came up short because it would have required them to go out in the field and get DATA to use as input rather than assumed numbers.
I did get an invite to submit a full paper to Environmental and Engineering GeoSciences out of the short presentation however, so that’s something.
Keep plugging away Roy and remember Occam’s Razor.
New paradigms do not come from conformists.
For those that want to read the Abstract of the paper that is the basis of Dr. Spencers presentation here is the link to Dr. Spencers Site, it explains what you are seeing in the PDF:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Good work Dr. Spencer !!!
Sounds like many other scientists are waking up. The fact that Dr. Spencer got positive comments from others shows that the reluctance to break stride withe the AGW crowd is loosening.
People everywhere sense the wall beginning to crumble. Onward!
??? internet sceptical prohibition ???
http://motls.blogspot.com/
LUMO blow out lamp ???
The following email from Climategate gives a candid look at how J Shukla, an IPCC Lead Author for Chapter 8 (Climate Models and Their Evaluation), views the utility of current climate models. Interestingly, 90+% of the chapter discusses technical details of models and comparisons between models, but says almost nothing about how well models compare with observations (ie the scientific method).
In Item 2), the phrase “model fidelity and model sensitivity are related” comes from a Shukla paper that shows that high sensitivity models do a somewhat better job of reproducing CRU’s 20th century seasonal temperature record. Does this mean “model democracy” will lead to the abandonment of low sensitivity models?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=861&filename=1202939193.txt
From: J Shukla
To: IPCC-Sec
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
Cc: [Many names. probably AR4 WG1 Lead Authors]
Dear All,
I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
“There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action”.
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action”
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.
It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.
It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
“greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance”.
2. Is “model democracy” a valid scientific method? The “I” in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.
3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?
Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.
Regards,
Shukla
I’ll talk about the philosophy later, but if you need more complex, try adding all the known cycles and amplitudes together, then use the software used to find planetary orbits around other stars for fits for additional cycles. Add that in. It will be more complex 😉 and it just might be very useful.
It was standing room only…close to 300 scientists by my estimate.
As it is here on WUWT, with perhaps more scientists but plenty of room.
Good KISS model. Let me suggest, however, that the presentation lacks contorted, Machiavellian “tricks” that are a prerequisite for peer-reviewed publication.
/sarc
Chris Rowan’s comment is actually quite profound.
If people really thought the Earth was facing an impending climate catastrophe, and got credible evidence it was not, they would greet the news with joy.
Instead, we see the reaciton Dr. Spencer gets.
That is a big ‘tell’ that those promoting AGW really know that things are not any where close to as bad as they claim.
Thank you Dr. Spencer for keeping objectivity in climate science. What you are observing among your “peers” is politically motivated subjective research. They are searching for “positive feedback” that would create an unstable run away process that they can blame on CO2. In engineering, Feedback is a control mechanism that puts limits on the the output. It promotes stability.
From my study of climate data, I believe that water in all it’s forms is the earth’s thermostat that regulates the global distribution of temperature. CO2 is just going along for the ride. The energy transfer in the processes of evaporation, condensation, freezing, and thawing is orders of magnitude greater than the absorbtion of a couple of IR vibrational frequancies of a relatively low concentration of CO2. The tail isn’t waging the dog.
**********Stephen Wilde (06:36:23) :
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.
*******************
As a simple thought experiment, how much energy would the ocean absorb if the Earth were totally enshrouded in clouds? Eventually, there would be negligible ocean heat (internal energy for you physicist-types ). The ocean can’t fundamentally drive temperature, but it can store from the Sun and release it later. Ultimately, ocean heat comes from the Sun and clouds can shield the Earth from its radiant energy. Therefore it seems clouds could be very important moderators.
As a small businessman for some 25 years, I’ve experienced all too frequently the Groupthink of Big Biz. That’s not to denigrate their value to us all where economies of scale and large complex systems need a complexity and organisation SMEs clearly lack in capacity and capability. Think steel mill, car plant, oil refinery or power plant here. Nevertheless they ultimately face the same taskmaster as we do and forget that and the consequences are the same, albeit on a greater immediate scale. As well we both share the risks of becoming a Kodak in a digital camera world. The difference is they can become too convinced of their own importance, particularly as they have the ear of Govt and a larger, cosier Groupthink can develop beyond their corporate walls. Whilst Big Biz would initially share SME’s overall skepticism to Big Govt on the workability of a global ETS and a public sector vision splendid or Grand Plan, that antithesis has dissolved over time as the political impetus grew. Big Corpora is now totally convinced that global emissions trading is the way forward for them, having leapt the initial uncomfortable leap of faith hurdle surrounding AGW theory and its deliberately conflated prescriptive medicine. In any case they have long been convinced an ETS is the best of a bad lot and are largely on board with the new Groupthink. They are all too big to fail now. Gruesome Greaseum has long ago absorbed Big Oil and all the other Mr Bigs, including Big Media and now represents a formidable alliance.
However as this formidable edifice grew, rest assured SMEs have remained true skeptics with each large Corporation that jumped on board the bandwagon. The sight and sounds of the moral posing of their mission statements and ludicrous green accounting shenanigans simply hardened that stance. It’s particularly galling in the white collar service sector. Hardly a day has passed without some legal, accounting, computing or media company going ‘carbon neutral’. Basically add up the power bill and the comapny car petrol bill and then go looking for some cheap offsets. Never mind the implicit carbon in everything from the building, fixtures and furnishings, computers, office supplies, company cars, etc. Somebody elses problem, along with their share of the power stations, factories, roads, rail, telecommunications, transport and Govt infrastructure that makes their little slice of the action truly function. Nor could they even begin to contemplate accounting for their share of their employees’ carbon footprints attributable to their share of their working hours. What you mean the food, clothing and shelter alone attributable to employees’ working lives?
We in small business don’t have the time or inclination for such mental masturbation and neither do our workers and I’d remind you that we far outnumber those in Big Biz who do indulge in it. That’s where those unconvinced poll numbers really come from and that’s the great benefit and lesson of Jones, Mann, et al now. They demonstrate the pure folly of belief in some overarching, unelected elite to guide us all from the commanding world heights. Then as if to reinforce the very point, we see the caravan of true believers in this new world order demonstrate how they can’t even organise a decent piss up in a brewery at Hopenchangen. Hold your breath now for MessyCo all you little people!
There’s nothing the little people like better than a bunch of self-important, pompous gits deflating rapidly before their very eyes and we do have the power to help pull the plug on these inflatables. Do what I did and click that donation button here and elsewhere as you think appropriate and send a message to them all, the mouse is beginning to roar and understand mice roar best when employed full time at it. (Disclaimer: No relation or business association but I can’t honestly deny a strong vested interest)
Stephen Wilde (06:36:23) :
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.
*****
It is my understanding that the sea temperature is quite constant. Increased radiation received is matched by increased water evaporated, with consequent transport of latent heat toward the poles and into space (gross simplification!!), and no change in water temperature. What I have read indicates that open tropical seas don’t exceed 28-30°C.
IanM