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.
It’s pretty sketchy, but interesting. I think that it would be a very good idea for Dr. Spencer to collaborate with someone in the electrical engineering dept. to determine the real meaning of the loops and striations. What it seems to be saying to me (not completely understanding what he’s saying in that sketchy PDF) is that there are a couple of second-order processes with different time constants. But possibly not. He really needs to go over this in detail with a signal processing expert, and get to the bottom of exactly what order of process and time constants this implies. That, in turn, might suggest the nature of the processes themselves.
boballab – much appreciated
OK, having read his website, scratch the last comment. He’s already there.
It seems like he’s discovered what EEs knew 100 years ago – that the product of two cyclical variables integrates out to a higher value when they’re in phase, and goes to zero when they’re 90 degrees out of phase. I’d say this is a productive line of inquiry. It explains in fairly straightforward terms how a phenomenon can appear to have a high feedback, but in the long term, not amount to much.
Which leaves a lot of 20th century warming unattributed.
Many years ago the USNRC started to produce codes for use to compare with the vendor codes used by the nuclear industry. The USNRC codes were supposed to be ‘hands-free’ (I can’t remember what the exact term was) in that all the eqautions were in the codes and everything was solved from first principles. Thus the user defined the problem to be analysed, set the code running and out would pop the results. They soon realised that the codes could not replicate the results from experimental facilities. Very soon the codes were full of ‘user-inputs’, so that the codes could be tuned to every situation. This made it very difficult to validate the codes and ensure that the codes would be used correctly. Sounds like the climate models are going through the same process, only an order of magnitude more complex and without experimental facilities to validate against, it is an impossibility.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Spencer.
I’m interested in commentary the Richard Alley lecture: “The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History” Preferably, something beyond “he’s a fraud”.
OT James Delingpole’s first major Climategate story makes review of the year.
What a gent – he came second to a virgin 😀
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/review-of-2009/6789700/Telegraph-Zeitgeist-Most-popular-review-of-2009.html
Dr. Spencer,
If you’re reading these comments, I’d appreciate it if, time permitting, you could write a post on your site (or here) about the NASA AIRS observations (link below) and how they relate to your research.
Thanks,
David
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/nasa-says-airs-satellite-data-shows-positive-water-vapor-feedback/
I´m for the moment studying modeling in GIS and isn´t the ground rule: The simpler the model, the better it is? It would be interesting to do an sensitivity analysis on a climate model and from the result it gives se which variable is important and remove the minor factors and find out what the basic structure is. I´m certain it would be quite small and reveal them for the bogus that they are.
Neo (07:16:23) :
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.’
I read a book many years ago about statistical searches for weather cycles. It was effectively the use of Fourier Transform analysis on datasets and it highlighted most of the repeating ‘cycles’ flagged up today. But it didn’t go into mechanisms too much, as the author was a mathematician.
Your post suggests that an interaction between climatologists, engineers and electronics guys might be valuable.
Perhaps it is already happening somewhere?
Ian L McQueen (08:42:17)
“It is my understanding that the sea temperature is quite constant.”
That’s what we all thought before the advent of knowledge about ocean oscillations (PDO et al). In fact they are variable enough to make large differences to global air temperatures.
You don’t seem to realise that solar radiation penetrates sea surfaces to over 100 metres and enough is subducted and transported elsewhere within the oceans to build up and be released at a later time.
Jim (08:37:39)
Clouds are indeed effective moderators but the process is driven by solar energy into oceans.
If it were cloudy all the time solar energy would still get in but very much less. Unless, that is the, clouds were dense enough to exclude ALL solar energy. There would still be some geothermal energy though.
Maybe I’m cynical, but perhaps the new found interest in alternate theories by non-skeptic scientists reflects not a broadening of the mind but a search for more grant $? The only consistency I’ve seen in this science is that their research results seem to be what works best to get grants. As the grant environment changes, so do they.
Yes, that is sad. It was the way I was taught that science works that scientists were by nature to be “skeptical”.
I believe clouds tend to regulate the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and distrubute it globally. They are made up of realitively pure, cool water droplets that readily absorbs CO2. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in clouds is expected to be close to equilibrium with the partial pressure of CO2 in the water droplets. Thus, clouds are most likely the the first primary sink for CO2. However, that’s not the end of the story. Clouds are dynamic. Some produce rain that transports dissolved CO2 to land or sea. On the way it falls through warmer air and some drops evaporate and release CO2 back to the atmosphere. Other clouds rise and tower into the stratosphere and jet streams where water freezes and releases CO2. A single molecule of CO2 may cycle through many of these processes before it is eventially sequestered by a sink like the Arctic Ocean. This hypothesis can also explain the latitude sensitive seasonal variations and isotope depletion.
@Andreas
It’s not so much looking at what they got in the model that can be kicked out, its actually the opposite. Dr. Tim Ball on Climate Audit related what happened at a seminar that a climate modeler put on. At the end of the presentation a Physictist got up and wrote a very long equation on a chalkboard and asked the modeler if that is the formula hs model was based on. The Modeler answered yes, then the Physictist started asking if a certain factor in the equation was taken into account in the model and for each No he scratched it off the board. By the time he was done 80% of the equation was scratched out, ie not taken into account in the model. Oh the Modeler is that Dr. in Copenhagen that used the UN security to get the guy to quit asking him pesky questions.
Roy Roy Roy, you HAVE to remember that when describing your model its NOT SIMPLE, it is ELEGANT. Scientists love elegance but put down simple….
crosspatch (09:48:40) :
Actually, skepticism comes quite easily with modern AGW climate science, given that they have come to rely upon the *** hysterical press release *** as a means of disseminating their message to the masses…
********
Stephen Wilde (09:40:23) :
Jim (08:37:39)
Clouds are indeed effective moderators but the process is driven by solar energy into oceans.
If it were cloudy all the time solar energy would still get in but very much less. Unless, that is the, clouds were dense enough to exclude ALL solar energy. There would still be some geothermal energy though.
*********
Could a fairly good analogy be that clouds are like a governor and the ocean is like a flywheel?
Interesting perspective – signs of retreat as seen in the use of argument.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/12/climategate_the_1.html
Is anyone considering the effect that jet contrails may be having on the level of cloudiness? While each contrail is a cloud in itself (perhaps transient), I’ve seen satellite images where the contrails seem to act as seeds for more extensive cloud formation.
Well I’m not an AGU member; but if I had been, I would have gladly crawled on hands and knees, naked, over broken glass in a howling blizzard; to get from San Jose up to San Francisco, just to hear and support Dr Roy and his thesis.
In fact I don’t even need the good Dr or John Christy to convince me; “Hey, it’s the Water dummies !”
In fact, I just got an e-mail response this morning from the chap who is heading that global CO2 AIRS satellite program, after telling him that Water vapor is a perfectly good greenhouse gas; that simply puts CO2 to shame. For a start, it always exceeds the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; and by a long way, and it absorbs a much greater percentage of the total Solar Spectrum radiation and the surface emitted LWIR thermal radiation, and thereby warms the atmosphere; just like CO2, only moreso.
And once the atmosphere is warmed, it pays no heed to whether it was warmed by H2O, or CO2, or O3 or any other method; nor whether the warming was due to absorbed solar spectrum radiation (longer than about 750 nm ) or LWIR in the 5-100 micron range. Warming is warming, and both H2O and CO2 are permanent constituents of the atmosphere.
And surface warming from the atmosphere; specifically ocean surface warming (only 70% of the total area is oceans) results in both Carbon dioxide feedback (ocean outgassing) and water vapor feedback (evaporation), so CO2 is just as much a feedback effect as H2O is.
If earth’s atmosphere contained not a single CO2 moelcule; nor an Ozone molecule, we would still be enjoying about the same comfortable temperature range; we would notice a little less cloud cover most of the time.
Well of course we wouldn’t even be here to care, if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere; but when we put it all back, all that is going to happen, is that the average global extent of cloud cover will increase.
You see H2O is the ONLY GHG that exists in the atmosphere in all three phases; vapor, liquid, and solid. While in vapor form it exhibits both negative feedback cooling (absorbs incoming solar spectrum energy, thereby cooling the ground), and positive feedback warming effects (capture of LWIR photons).
But when water vapor turns to liquid or solid, and forms clouds; well nobody ever observed it to warm up in the shadow of a cloud that just passed in front of the sun; it ALWAYS cools in the shadow zone.
And as for high level clouds (noctilucent) causing surface warming; well that goes right to Dr Roy’s comment on causality.
It makes sense doesn’t it; the higher altitude at which a cloud forms, the lower is the atmospheric density, and hence the lower is the amount of water vapor needed to reach the dew point. The temperature also drops for about thefirst 25 km, then rises to about 0C then drops again up to about 90 km where the density is less than 10^-5 of the surface density.
So the amount of water in those high clouds, is miniscule, which explains why just a small amount of energy can raise the temperature substantially; but there isn’t much thermal capacity to be heating the surface; and the higher you go, the less of that there is. Yes I’m sure that the higher clouds form, the hotter they warm the surface.
Alternatively one might consider that it is the warm or warmer surface, that is the cause of those high and higher clouds; not the result of them.
Well of course we do know that dry desert air cools rapidly at night, but less rapidly if there are clouds. So how come that evil CO2 doesn’t keep the desert air warm at night, when there is no water.
So I don’t buy that water is a feedback servant of CO2, any surface warming caused by any atmospheric warming (damn little) results in an increase in both CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, but either one can do without the other.
So the AGW crowd needs to get off this kick that water is not a GHG but a mere feedback slave to CO2.
So right on Dr Roy; you tell them how it is. Well it would take one hell of a big attraction (Like Dr Spencer) to get me to ride to SanFrancisco, in a luxure Limo with Champaigne and Caviar laid on, and a red carpet reception.
I generally don’t go to that place for any reason. Last time was probably the King Tut first exhibit about 20 years ago.
Fraction of record is the same as frequency of occurrence. Not exactly an FFT, but nonetheless a very interesting representation. Indeed, when looking at feedbacks and filtering (e.g. classical Systems Engineering) this type of representation is a good way to observe actual system performance.
RE: “Now it’s a foreign and radical idea.”
The percent of the population in most Western countries these days, who know what a Fourier or Laplace Transform are, let alone know how to use them, must be around 1%.
samhopkinson (05:42:04) :
Just to clear up an obvious misconception about Catholics, we do not believe the creation theory you are thinking of. Not appropriate discussion for this board, but since the first comment got through, I had to say something.
REPLY: and let’s leave it at that – A
Thanks for trying to maintain the integrity of Science in the face of the current climate of ‘manufactured consensus’. (Is his analagous to Chomsky’s ‘manufactured consent ?)