From his blog http://www.drroyspencer.com/ which I’m repeating here to help get wide exposure.
A Challenge to the Climate Research Community
I’ve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the ’settled science’ of global warming. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way “proves” it.
If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.
The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.
Roy Spencer says:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
From what I understand, the GCM’s show that without GHG’s from human sources, the increase in global average temperature can’t be explained. Look at the 3 graphs showing an ensemble of simulations on this page:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
The graph with only natural forcings cannot explain the recent temperature increase. So this is one scientific study.
No one doubts that what appear to be internal cycles, have a strong influence on climate. However human influence through GHG’s and land use, has the capability to modify these internal cycles according to most scientists. So the observation of natural cycles determining climate doesn’t disprove the hypothesis that GHG’s are changing the climate of the globe.
Here is the question to put to the warmists: why are you guys still using global temperature curves of questionable and secretive origin if accurate satellite temperature measures have been available for thirty one years? They cover the globe and both hemispheres uniformly, are not affected by the urban heat island effect, and have been calibrated against radiosonde values. You will get a variety of answers but the real answer is this: they use their own secretive sources because their temperatures are cooked. As in falsified. I will be specific: what these secretive curves from NOAA, NASA, and the Met Office show is a period of warming in the eighties and nineties that is not present in the satellite record. Why is this so important? you may ask. The answer is that in 1988, right smack in the middle of this period, Hansen stood up in front of the Senate and testified that global warming had started. That was simply a lie as satellite temperature records show but his testimony became the founding event of the global warming movement we have today. If they admit the truth they will have cut the legs out from under this founding event of their religion. To find out how these temperatures were faked, get my “What Warming?” (second edition) and check out figures 15, 24, 27 and 29.
The most persuasive argument for AGW that I’ve heard so far goes along the lines of, “Do you think we can go on pumping tonnes of CO2 (anyone seen a CO2 pump?) into the atmosphere without it having an effect?”
It seems that personal incredulity is an accepted proof in climate science.
Why invoke natural variability when natural regularity will do, namely a smooth linear warming trend going back 350 years as directly measured by real thermometers in the world’s classic old cities? I plotted them in postcard format: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Finding these old records was the end of my interest in active debate. Neither side seemed very interested when I started posting this basic data in the days leading up to Climategate. How can history be a Hockey Stick if single site thermometer records failed to show even a hint of noticing?
Am a bit puzzled – many have said the same thing over the last few years – I know I have/did, once I started to actually look into the actual claims of AGW. It is a basic understanding of the scientifically minded skeptics (I believe) in that most enquiring minds do not take the ‘assumptions’ as always being valid and, as described , most of the AGW theory is based on various assumptions.
In short, I can’t see anyone accepting a challenge for something that doesn’t currently exist. If it did, as has been mentioned many times before, we wouldn’t be discussing the subject in the same manner!
Mainstream will say
(1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas – all agree
(2) human emissions clearly track CO2 rise – this seems self-evident
(3) isotope content proves the CO2 rise is manmade
(4) it cannot be the Sun (directly) because there’s too little variance – all agree
They can produce peer-reviewed papers “proving” (3). They will fail to mention papers that dispute (3) with equal or better science. They will fail to mention Bob Carter’s classic dismissal which shows that the recent rise, and rate of rise, of temperature, are both well within natural limits – if we look properly at the past.
“One study doesn’t prove global warming, HUNDREDS of studies taken together prove it as shown by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change.”
Those studies are exactly what Dr Spencer is talking about; they all assume human caused warming and not one rules out natural variability. Having said that, I’m sure RC would still give that as an answer and delude themselves into thinking they’ve satisfied the question.
Laurie Bowen says: February 2, 2011 at 11:59 am
22/7 = ? anyone
22/7 = 2.22222 ….(recurring)
Which unless I’ve made an awful mistake in the maths is really true!
Pay attention to this paper, folks! Is Nature making a U-turn?
Late Holocene methane rise caused by orbitally controlled increase in tropical sources
Joy S. Singarayer, Paul J. Valdes, Pierre Friedlingstein, Sarah Nelson & David J. Beerling
Nature 470, 82–85 (03 February 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09739
This paper reminds me of the often-neglected work of Gerard Roe (Motl discussed it once), Anthony, will you please devote a post to this topic?
Roe, G. (2006), In defense of Milankovitch, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817.
Robert Wykoff says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
A better challenge is to give just one weather/climate scenario that disproves global warming.
Well, first one would have to prove that our temperature measuring capabilities are accurate enough that we can determine either a cooling or warming trend. Then one would have to agree on the length of time to use to determine whether there has been either a cooling or warming trend.
Even so, if we accept that we have been in a globally warming trend since, say, the end of the LIA, then I fully agree with Dr. Spencer – the onus is on the claimants that any of the warming is anything but natural. The claim has been made: anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming on a global scale. Now the claimants must show how it is causing the warming and show that the warming is outside of natural causes. Once that is done, others can analyze the claim and either agree or disagree.
In the simplest terms – if I were to flip a coin, and cover it up so no one can see it, and claim that it is heads and therefore you owe me a great sum of money, would you give me the money or would you want to see the coin first? What I see a large number of AGW by CO2 supporters doing is accepting that the coin is heads without seeing the coin.
Spencer, Watts, McIntyre, McKitrick, etc. are asking (demanding) to see the coin.
They should not be required to prove that there is no coin or that the coin is not heads.
There is no such paper, Dr. Spencer.
If there were such a paper, the IPCC would have championed it far more than the hockey stick. McIntyre & McKitrick’s work would be entirely ignored if such a paper existed. All skepticism about the temperature record, the positive feedback caused by CO2, the dominance of clouds, the stability of the suns influence would all not exist to the degree they do if any such paper existed.
There is no such paper.
Lucy Skywalker says: February 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“Mainstream will say ….”
The simple answer is that if you look at the IPCC report, you will see that the natural variation present is a type of 1/f type noise which is a kind of noise doubles for every doubling of the period over which you measure it. So, if the noise amplitude is 0.05C/decade, it is 0.1C/2o-years 0.2C/40years and 0.4C/80-years and 0.8C/160-years.
So, it is very easy to measure the amplitude of this 1/f noise prior to extensive CO2 and compare it that afterwards, and the result is that the change we have seen is entirely compatible with natural noise.
That is how it is done, that I suggest is why there is no paper checking this – because anyone who did it found it disproved the whole basis of man-made global warming!
I still don’t quite buy this isotope content “proof”, btw. Has anyone studied the isotope content of the dissolved CO2 in the ocean at all depths to eliminate it as a source? Has anyone completely ruled out cosmic influence on altering the carbon isotope content of the atmosphere (cosmic rays do this)? To me, this avenue seems ripe for a major smackdown, but perhaps I just haven’t read the right papers. 🙂
OT: Steig has a some new comment on O’Donnell at RC.
first you have to state the null in a quantitative manner.
But failing that, we have some examples of things never seen before. The problem with the “null” as Spencer states it, is that he doesnt specify what that null is exactly.
Further and more importantly there are events that do not trangress the bounds of “natural variability” that can be explained by mechanisms. Volcanoes do not cool the atmosphere outside the bounds of natural variability, BUT we dont attribute the cooling to natural variability. Simply the existence of natural variability says nothing about the effects one will see from more C02 in the atmosphere.
But on to an example of the null being found inadequate: here on WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
As I noted this data challenges ‘the null’
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.
Willis, caretaker of ‘the null’ agrees
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:00 am
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.
It would … if I thought it was real. I don’t, I think it is from the known change in the satellite and the way that is being dealt with by means of a new algorithm.
w.
BUT he thinks the algorithm must have changed.. rejecting the data.
I think:
Steven mosher says:
June 2, 2010 at 9:28 am
Willis:
“Me, I think this new pattern reflects a change in satellites, or a change in procedures, or something like that. But hey, I’ve been wrong before”
on what evidence? you have the data. It indicates a divergence from past normal behavior. It challenges the Null. I wouldn’t think the first response is to challenge the instrument on no colorable basis. but hey, its climate science. Now surely, we must accept the data and in the absence of any concrete evidence that the instrument is bad, we cant speculate that the instrument might be bad. As I pointed out, that would be exactly like the special pleading that Briffa did WRT his divergence problem.
So, I find the actual instrument for him and he promises to write the scientist.
“Good find, Mosh. I’ll take a look and see what’s going on there. I’ve written to Dr. Bilitza to see what I can find out.”
And 7 months later we still have no update.
cochrane says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Dice rolling is an independent probability at each throw. The odds remain the same no matter haw many times you throw the dice. Each throw cannot influence the next unless you eliminate the previous number and then the odds get better on you being right. Did I miss soemthing ?
Wonderful challenge, but issue one more. Challenge them to present one physical hypothesis that is reasonably well-confirmed and that can be used to explain and predict some so-called positive forcing. There is not one. Climate scientists cannot pull themselves away from their computers long enough to look out the window. At this time, there is no empirical science of forcings.
Cross-posted on Roy’s site:
No, but I can point to peer-reviewed papers that indicate that we still have a limited understanding of Earth’s natural variations, which makes it impossible to “rule them out” as a potential “cause of most of the recent warming”.
For example, Polar Vortices:
“Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October–November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry–climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving.”
“In the V1 model, the delayed breakup of the Antarctic vortex biases temperature, circulation and trace gas concentrations in the polar stratosphere in spring. The V2 model behaves similarly (despite major model upgrades from V1), though the magnitudes of the anomalous effects on springtime dynamics are smaller.”
“Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-651.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JGRD..11507105H
“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.
Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
Or how about the Thermohaline Circulation:
“One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.
The “pump” in question is in the western North Atlantic Ocean, where pools of cold, dense water form in winter and sink beneath less-dense warmer waters. The sinking water feeds into the lower limb of a global system of currents often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor. To replace the down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.”
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n1/abs/ngeo382.html
We have a rudimentary understanding of Earth’s climate system. We cannot eliminate potential variables when we do not understand them, cannot effectively measure them and, in some cases, do not yet know that they exist.
Lucy Skywalker says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm
The CO² isotope one always gets me. Are they saying that C13 cannot be produced by any other means other than combustion ? If so I would want to see a very definitive proof. It after all only a matter of energy isn’t it?
Robert David Graham says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“Um, “scientific” paper, not “peer-reviewed” paper.
Presumably, one of the many “Hockey Stick” graphs would meet the criteria. If the climate were truly stable for the last 2000 years, and only in the last 30 has there been an abrupt rise, then I’d agree the warmists have something.”
But it doesn’t meet my criteria, which I will restate as follows:
Identify one physical hypothesis that is reasonably well-confirmed and that can be used to explain and predict some positive forcing. There is none. Therefore, there is no empirical science of forcings.
@Leif:
So I suppose you didnt have the paper, which proves that climate is stable without external forcings influencing it, right?
JohnWho says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Robert Wykoff says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
A better challenge is to give just one weather/climate scenario that disproves global warming.
Far more intellectual than I. I like you example very much.
Colin in Mission BC says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Incidentally, Dr. Spencer, I downloaded your book “The Great Global Warming Blunder” to my Kindle the other day. I’m enjoying the read immeasurably.”
This book is a science classic and is the best book or article published in climate science. Its conclusions should be the starting point for all discussions of AGW.
I would pose to Dr. Spencer a counter-challenge, that he publish one peer-reviewed paper that convincingly establishes natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record. But Dr. Spencer has said he doesn’t want to publish in the peer-reviewed literature anymore and prefers more laxly refereed venues like Geophysical Research Letters. It seems a bit hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed rebuttals to his non-reviewed assertions. That’s not how the burden of proof works.
Right in the smack-dab middle of the biggest snowstorm in the history of the planet you’re expecting AGW’ers to drop their snow shovels, doff their fur-lined hats, take off their gloves and parkas, laboriously remove their snow-encumbered boots and write something in FAVOR of global warming?
Surely you jest; I see no takers.