I have been remiss at posting reviews on several books that people have sent me. I hope to get some of them up in the next week. Dr. Spencer’s announcement below is a start, though his is the one book I don’t have. – Anthony
============
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
By Dr. Roy Spencer
Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists“, published by Encounter Books.
About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.
Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.
You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.
But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.
NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.
The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary. The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change how we view the climate system.
Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature: it results in the illusion that the climate system is very sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for alternative explanations.
But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.
CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?
The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.
And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday (April 19) which, in part, says: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.
This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.
To the contrary — I am hoping the debate will finally begin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I noticed that good ole Phil Jones in his BBC interview said that the alleged temperature increase over the last 50 odd years must be caused by CO2 because the sun and volcanos? were not the cause and the only thing left was us criminals.
Argumentum ad ignorantum can also lead to Zeus and Thor if he doesn’t watch out.
Jones calls himself a scientist? What a crock of BS!
I’d think about a change of cover. Some years ago this was debated from Internet-sized images with the general consensus that it was one of the most extreme examples of a popular photoshopped image not stated to be so.
If it’s authentic and looks that way at high res, that’s beaut. If it’s make-believe, well, not so good.
Dr. Roy Spencer is the voice of reason in a mad, mad, mad world. And, not only regarding the science of the science of the science of Climate guesstimating.
The String Theory of Human Motivation and the Chaos Theory of Human Interaction have a long way to go before they start to make any sense of what people are and why they think and do the things they do. And, still further before they are (if ever) ‘Unified’.
Why? Because people are driving the boat that they built with their own little hands, on an ocean of ideas that they’re not quite sure are real, on a planet they don’t have a glue about how it operates, in a Solar System…, in a Galaxy…, in a Universe… etc.
Numerous ‘problems’ confront us and we do our level best to guess right every ‘day-in-and-day-out’ during our stay. We generally tend to ‘listen’ to those ‘advising’ us in what to do next, or which way to go, or not. Its very confusing. Frequently, we take the ‘wait and see’ approach. Sometimes, we do things and guess right. Many times, when we do things, we end up making everything worse. Very infrequently, we remember our prior ‘mistakes’, usually we don’t.
Fat Albert and Friends are not new to us. They are always there. They’re always trying to scare us into trusting them to do what they say, or just give them our money. In difficult times there is always GREAT Opportunity;-)
One thing ‘new’, today. There are a heck of a lot more of us than ever before using up scarce resources and making a mess of the Garden of Eden. We all know that things are ‘changing’. We all fear that things are going to get worse. Many think that ‘something’ has to be done. This is when things get dangerous. Today, things ARE dangerous.
When many think ‘something’ has to be done. Mistakes happen. And, these are almost always very Big, Big, Big Mistakes.
Its not just the ‘science’!
Ninderthana (22:26:13) :
“synchronized with a combination of the 20.3 year lunar/solar tidal cycle (since 251 synodic months = 269 anomalistic months approx = 20.2928 Anomalistic (Earth orbit) years) and the 62.0 year
lunar/solar tidal cycle.”
Jupiter and Saturn align every 20 years. Every 60 years they align within 9 degrees of the starting place, every 800 years they align within 1 degree of the starting place. Changes on the center of gravity of the solar system would logically have an impact on earth.
harrywr2 (07:16:15) :
Changes on the center of gravity of the solar system would logically have an impact on earth.
Two men walk down the street on opposite sides of the street. their center of gravity is somewhere in the middle of the street between them. One man walks faster that the other. That causes the center of gravity to move with respect to the men. Logically that has an impact on the men…
One thing which I think Roy has missed, correct me, someone, if I’m wrong.
The fact is that the same area coverage of cloud of a particular density will have an albedo effect directly related to it’s latitudinal position.
Thus it will reflect more sunlight the closer to the equator it is.
We see that when the Earth is warming the mid latitude jets and the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) move further from the equator and when the Earth is cooling they move closer to the equator.
The distance is 1000 miles or more, over and above normal seasonal variability.
Common sense suggests that the albedo effect of those latitudinal shifts is going to have a greater effect on the global energy budget than anything else currently under discussion.
Leif Svalgaard (08:15:55)
“harrywr2 (07:16:15) :
Changes on the center of gravity of the solar system would logically have an impact on earth.
Two men walk down the street on opposite sides of the street. their center of gravity is somewhere in the middle of the street between them. One man walks faster that the other. That causes the center of gravity to move with respect to the men. Logically that has an impact on the men.”
Obviously not.
But only because far stronger forces are acting on both men at the same time. Gravity being a very weak force compared to the ongoing biological processes in human bodies.
However in the case of Sun and Jupiter and the other planets of the solar system gravity is acting unopposed and is the strongest force acting on those bodies.
Indeed gravity affects, perhaps controls, the movement of the interiors of such bodies especially where liquids are present or where pressure gives solids liquid characteristics.
So if shifts in gravitational influence can affect the interiors of planets they can also affect the state of those planets in myriad ways as the internal planetary systems process that gravitational energy one way or another depending on their individual compositions.
So, Leif, a clever post but not quite the truth.
Ref – Stephen Wilde (08:57:32) :
“Thus it will reflect more sunlight the closer to the equator it is.”
_____________________________
But, the effect on higher latitudes will be proportionally greater?
Joel Shore (05:42:39)
Still putting ‘skeptics’ in quotation marks, I see.
The reason is clear: you can not falsify the null hypothesis, so you attempt to marginalize skeptics instead. Well, you play the cards you’re dealt, I guess.
And in science it doesn’t matter what is “generally believed.” The planet is acting as if the climate sensitivity to CO2 is close to zero. I’ll listen to the planet – or even Phil Jones – over the political appointees emitting their climate propaganda from the UN/IPCC. They’re in it for the money, not for the science; science is just their cover story.
And enough with the constant discussing of skeptics while discussing religious beliefs. Stop it, or I’ll start equating CAGW true believers with communist “useful fools.”
But come to think of it…
Pascvaks (09:11:07)
Due to the lower angle of incidence of sunlight on the northern latitudes the net effect will be an increase in total albedo if the clouds shift equatorward.
The increased sunlight in the higher latitudes will not offset the reduced sunlight in the lower latitudes.
Then there is the landmass distribution to consider.
For a more detailed consideration please see here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/ANewAndEffectiveClimateModel.pdf
where I said:
“It is apparent that the same size and density of cloud mass moved, say, 1000 miles nearer to the equator will have the following effects:
i) It will receive more intense irradiation from the sun and so will
reflect more energy to space.
ii) It will reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface compared to
what it would have let in if situated more poleward.
iii) In the northern hemisphere due to the current land/sea distribution
the more equatorward the cloud moves the more ocean surface it will
cover thus reducing total solar input to the oceans and reducing the
rate of accretion to ocean energy content
iv) It will produce cooling rains over a larger area of ocean surface.
As a rule the ITCZ is usually situated north of the equator because most ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it is ocean temperatures that dictate it’s position by governing the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air. Thus if the two mid latitude jets move equatorward at the same time as the ITCZ moves closer to the equator the combined effect on global albedo and the amount of solar energy able to penetrate the oceans will be substantial and would dwarf the other proposed effects on albedo from
changes in cosmic ray intensity generating changes in cloud totals as per Svensmark and from suggested changes caused in upper cloud quantities by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone which various other climate sceptics propose.”
I hope that helps.
kwik (06:09:49) :
CRS, Dr.P.H. (17:49:39) :
I think the least we can expect is that you spell “Hansen” correctly. Where do you get this “Hanson” spelling from?
—–
Sorry, John Holdren. I saw him speak at the “Grand Challenges Summit” in Chicago a few days ago:
http://www.grandchallengesummit.org/
I tend to get all these extremists mixed up in my mind! He gave quite a stem-winder keynote speech on AGW, look for the slides. I expect they will post the video soon.
Believe me, I had to bite my tongue! It was the wrong audience to do that in!
What Dr. Spencer omits in an effort to focus on the science is that political forces have shaped the science.
Yes, there are political forces that want to control CO2 for their own purposes quite independent of science. Many pro-AGW “climate scientists” are simply the hand-maidens of political schemes.
kwik says:
Well, I look at it this way: Ultimately, Spencer’s work (at least that of which is published in peer-reviewed journals) will be available to and will be reacted to by the larger scientific community.
But, what those on the “skeptic” side seem to want us to do is, in the meantime, to elevate Spencer’s ideas above the whole body of the other science on climate change and use it to make policy decisions instead of all that other science. So, in absence of the time yet for other scientists to evaluate and respond to his work, I think it is fair to ask what sort of track record Spencer has, since this can help us to decide whether it is all that likely that this one climate scientist has made a major breakthrough that has alluded most of the climate scientific community or whether it is he himself who is misguided. And, I think that if you look at Spencer’s support for I.D., look at the history of the analysis of the satellite record, and look at some of the misguided analysis he has done on other aspects of climate change (e.g., the blunder discussed here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/ ), then it does not seem to be very wise to bet his scientific judgment and analysis over that of almost the whole rest of the climate science community. I think to not remain very skeptical about Spencer’s work would certainly not be being a “skeptic” in any broader use of the term.
It is not surprising that someone who has these sorts of paranoid and strongly ideological beliefs would come to the conclusions that you apparently have regarding the science. So, who do you think wants the “disbandment of the Western civilisation”: Most of the Democratic party and some in the Republican party (like McCain before he had a right-wing primary opponent)? Most of the climate science community? The National Academy of Sciences and analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations? The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the AGU, the AMS, the APS, …?
Smokey says:
Maybe once most of the so-called “skeptics” start displaying true skepticism in their approach to the science (rather than simply dismissing almost anything that goes against their preconceptions and credulously accepting almost anything that supports their preconceptions) then I will be able to drop the quotation marks.
No matter how many times you attempt to mischaracterize it, “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” ( http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I ) is not just a statement about one’s religious beliefs. It is also a statement about science and one that I think reflects rather poorly on the scientific judgment of the person who made it.
Joel Shore (05:42:39) :
Bryan says:
Martin Rees the Astronomer Royal (AGW consensus advocate) is also a believer in “intelligent design”
That is simply not true. Rees does not dispute evolution. He does argue that the physical constants of the universe are pretty precisely tuned for life, but this does not deny that life evolved and does not even address the question of how they were tuned. (For example, one hypothesis is that there are many universes and this is the only one in which things worked out that way and thus we are here to see it.)
Stand corrected by your update.
My impression was gained from a TV program in which Rees commented that if the Gravitational constant changed by one part in ten to the power thirty then our universe would be impossible.
He then went on to say that if an intelligent “spaceman” set up the system with such fine tuning it would be a possible explanation.
I then thought, intelligent “spaceman” and “God” seemed much the same to me.
Stephen Wilde (09:08:34) :
So if shifts in gravitational influence can affect the interiors of planets they can also affect the state of those planets in myriad ways as the internal planetary systems process that gravitational energy one way or another depending on their individual compositions.
So, Leif, a clever post but not quite the truth.
The gravitational forces have [except for negligible tides] from the planets have nothing to do with the center of mass of the solar system, so indeed the truth.
Leif Svalgaard (10:53:46)
Ok, I’ll accept that as regards the position of the centre of mass of the solar system but there is still the issue of gravitational effects between the solar or planetary bodies involved.
Although in ‘free fall’ together that does not preclude interactions between them.
As an example we see that one of the moons of Jupiter (or was it Saturn) has such a state of internal excitement from conflicting gravitational forces that the surface is frequently showing volcanic activity.
The concept of ‘negligible’ doesn’t apply there.
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:55) :
harrywr2 (07:16:15) :
Changes on the center of gravity of the solar system would logically have an impact on earth.
Two men walk down the street on opposite sides of the street. their center of gravity is somewhere in the middle of the street between them. One man walks faster that the other. That causes the center of gravity to move with respect to the men. Logically that has an impact on the men…
I take it you are assuming neither of the men are armed. Bad assumption in certain neighborhoods.
It is my considered opinion that our climate is pretty much controlled by the fact that we have 70+ % of the earth covered by liquid water and the physical properties of said liquid.
Stephen Wilde (11:22:08) :
As an example we see that one of the moons of Jupiter (or was it Saturn) has such a state of internal excitement from conflicting gravitational forces that the surface is frequently showing volcanic activity.
The concept of ‘negligible’ doesn’t apply there.
Tides are very important in the Universe. Tides can tear a galaxy apart, can tear a moon apart to form Saturn’s rings, can melt a moon [Io], etc. Tides depend on size of body acted upon time mass of tide-raising body divided by the cube of the distance. The Sun raise tides in our oceans [say of the order of 15 cm]. Jupiter is 1000 times less massive than the the Sun and 5 times as distant, so the Jupiter tides on the Earth are 1/1000/5^3 = 1/25,000 smaller, i.e. 0.0006 cm, negligible does apply to the situation on Earth.
Leif, I also agree about the ponds we have surrounding our continents. While CO2 certainly plays into our greenhouse gases, and thank the Almighty we have them, the variations in long term weather patterns (climate if you prefer) cannot be explained by the rather steady state and predictable seasonal changes in greenhouse gases.
Pamela Gray (12:46:30) :
Leif, I also agree about the ponds we have surrounding our continents.
Read here about the importance of water:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000301.pdf
Leif, the sun has no sunspots again! I don’t know why not (you’ve set me straight on the Jovian planet/gravitational tidal forces theory), but something sure seems amiss!!
From Spaceweather.com:
“QUIET SUN: Just when you thought solar minimum was over… The sun has been blank for nine consecutive days, the longest stretch of spotlessness since 2009. Solar activity is very low and no sunspots are in the offing.”
It seems a bit like trying to start a camp fire with damp wood….this Cycle 24 star gets going, blows off some EM energy & CME, and then slips back.
Could this be something to do with internal dynamics (conveyor belt system)? My astronomy professor at University of Illinois is similarly baffled, but he admits that he is not a solar physicist.
Leif Svalgaard (11:56:06)
I don’t think the original poster was suggesting Jupiter affects Earth directly via gravitational effects.
The idea seems to be that the planets as a whole and Jupiter in particular raise tides on or within the sun which then varies internally so as to have an effect on the innermost planets including the Earth.
I do find that plausible because even a very slight deformation of the Earth by solar gravitational effects would affect overall vulcanicity on Earth.
Anyway that’s the idea. I’m not entirely sold on it but I don’t find your objections entirely convincing either.
“Joel Shore (10:18:16) :
[…]
It is not surprising that someone who has these sorts of paranoid and strongly ideological beliefs would come to the conclusions that you apparently have regarding the science.[…]”
So on one side we have these paranoid and strongly ideological skeptics and on the other side we have rational thinkers like…
James “Death Train” Hansen.
Al “2 million degrees” Gore.
Polly “Ecocide” Higgins. (Ok, she’s a small fry but she’s a Club Of Rome puppet via the desertec link… what did you say about paranoia? Check the facts, Joel, it’s all out in the open.)
CRS, Dr.P.H. (13:14:55) :
Leif, the sun has no sunspots again! I don’t know why not (you’ve set me straight on the Jovian planet/gravitational tidal forces theory), but something sure seems amiss!!
It is quite normal that in the ‘ramp up’ to a small cycle that there will be brief periods with no spots. Also, there is actually still solar magnetic activity [e.g. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html ]
That it has no associated spot may be because of the Livingston&Penn effect, or simply because activity is just low.
Here is solar cycle 14 [which I think will be what #24 will look like]: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html and some tabular data from back then:
19021022 1902.806 17
19021023 1902.809 28
19021024 1902.812 25
19021025 1902.814 37
19021026 1902.817 39
19021027 1902.820 22
19021028 1902.823 28
19021029 1902.825 23
19021030 1902.828 16
19021031 1902.831 7
19021101 1902.834 0
19021102 1902.836 0
19021103 1902.839 0
19021104 1902.842 0
19021105 1902.845 0
19021106 1902.847 0
19021107 1902.850 0
19021108 1902.853 0
19021109 1902.856 0
19021110 1902.858 0
19021111 1902.861 0
19021112 1902.864 0
19021113 1902.867 0
19021114 1902.869 10
19021115 1902.872 26
19021116 1902.875 20
19021117 1902.877 13
19021118 1902.880 21
19021119 1902.883 24
19021120 1902.886 32
19021121 1902.888 40
19021122 1902.891 33
19021123 1902.894 26
19021124 1902.897 32
19021125 1902.899 19
19021126 1902.902 13
19021127 1902.905 0
19021128 1902.908 0
19021129 1902.910 0
19021130 1902.913 0
19021201 1902.916 0
19021202 1902.919 0
19021203 1902.921 0
19021204 1902.924 0
19021205 1902.927 0
19021206 1902.929 0
19021207 1902.932 0
19021208 1902.935 0
19021209 1902.938 0
19021210 1902.940 0
19021211 1902.943 0
19021212 1902.946 0
19021213 1902.949 0
19021214 1902.951 0
19021215 1902.954 0
19021216 1902.957 13
19021217 1902.960 10
19021218 1902.962 10
19021219 1902.965 0
19021220 1902.968 0
19021221 1902.971 0
19021222 1902.973 0
19021223 1902.976 0
19021224 1902.979 0
19021225 1902.982 0
19021226 1902.984 0
19021227 1902.987 0
19021228 1902.990 0
19021229 1902.992 0
19021230 1902.995 0
19021231 1902.998 0
As you can see, long stretches of zero sunspot numbers occur between bunches of activity.