by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.
Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.
For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.
Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.
Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:
“I cannot believe it got published”
Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”
Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.
COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR
I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?
Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.
The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.
About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)
But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?
I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.
For example….
…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.
Well, they can’t have it both ways.
If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?
That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.
I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.
Pamela Gray
July 30, 2011 at 9:58 am
If there are serious disagreements and there are plausible proofs of these disagreements, they should put it in the journal as a rebuttal letter. Off the cuff pithy comments not followed by such serious published debate are decidedly unprofessional.
###
Unprofessional for scientists, not for propagandist.
“Brian says:
July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Smokey,
Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/george-bush-global-warmin_n_96871.html
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-04/news/29685848_1_global-warming-climate-change-greenhouse-gases
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html
It’s time to accept reality Smokey. Even those that you think would deny the issue are now accepting it.”
Brian,
This is how what you wrote reads to an educated person:
“A, B and C agree that X is true,
Therefore, X MUST be true.”
And,
Most people believe that X is true,
Therefore, X MUST be true.
Now really…..
Best,
J.
In speaking about ENSO and cloud cover, some of you will enjoy this presentation on Cloud Cover responses to SST’s given at the 13th Annual Conference on Atmospheric Radiation in 2010:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/13CldPhy13AtRad/techprogram/paper_171649.htm
Click on the “Recorded Presentation” below the abstract to listen and watch the Powerpoint presentation. You’ll be asked to download the Webex application if you don’t have it already. The presentation only lasts 15 minutes, but it’s worth the listen.
Brian says:
July 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Even George Bush, Romney and John McCain are in agreement that Climate Change is an issue that must be addressed.”
Aha, the Authority argument. So lame !!!
DR said:
“Roy Spencer has offered to hold a public debate with Andrew Dessler or anyone else on these matters.”
____
I would say the Trenberth et. al. response to Spencer & Braswell amounts to a public debate of sorts, and is a positive step forward. Trenberth in particular has been somewhat reluctant to respond to these types of papers in the past, but perhaps the larger than normal (but still not huge by any means) media traction the research received prompted Trenberth to make a response. I welcome both the paper and the response from Trenberth et. al. as,,for the majority of us who are not PhD level climate scientists, it can only be a learning experience and hopefully prompt all of us to do even more investigation of our own.
“Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? “.
No, the observations are tweaked to match the models.
Judith C. has started a thread on the Spencer and Braswell 2011 at Climate Etc http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/
I hope that the authors will browse through the comments there and respond where appropriate.
Thank you for your continuing efforts.
Hey Dr. Spencer, it is a good paper:
“Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others [“others” I presume means some members of ‘the team’] are misstating what Spencer found.”
http://hosted2.ap.org/apdefault/APNews/Article_2011-07-29-Climate%20Skeptics-Study/id-a3946ff818d84baead6740ae1337ed42
From R. Gates on July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am:
Dang, I thought peer review was done by individual peers. And now it’s a group event? The only “peer review group” I’m aware of is the Hockey Team. Are you disqualifying the paper because they weren’t asked to join in?
Dear Dr. Spencer
The entire edifice of AGW is built upon the proposition that as CO2 increases, the absorption lines in the infrared spectrum broaden. Does the instrument on Aqua have the spectral resolution necessary to detect this line broadening? Back in the 1990’s we worked at MSFC with Dr. Christensen on filters for our small satellite that would measure the absorption coefficients at the knee of the curves (3db point) of several absorption features in the atmosphere. The bandpass of the filters that we used were about 5 nanometers, pretty darn good at the time. They were supposed to be at the same wavelength as some of the filters on Aqua.
I have recently become aware of new tunable LCD filters with 0.1 nanometer bandpasses. With that kind of resolution we should be able to easily measure the line broadening from CO2, CH4, NO2 and H2O in both the visible and near IR spectrum. Is there anything on the table for a spacecraft mission to implement this type of imager?
It would, through observation, settle the issue of the effect of these absorbers once and for all.
Some of the biggest scoundrels in politics right now are RINOs by the last names of George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.
Ok, so I listed more than last names, but I didn’t want to confuse anybody as to which big political RINO scoundrels I’m referring to.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, but I have more scientific background than all three of them put together–why, you could throw in Al “Simmering Core” Gore and Barack “Debt Denial” Obama and the margin of superiority wouldn’t change.
And because I’m not running for office or trying to sell carbon “scam the folks” credits, I figure I have a lot more credability, too! It’s far better not to have “Political Authority”.
Dr. Spencer (or someone else):
In your paper, the actual satellite data shows a crossover in slope (negative to positive) in the lag region (negative x axis), while the models predict a crossover in the lead region (positive x axis). What is the significance of this difference between model and actual? In layman’s terms, if you please.
kwik says:
July 30, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Quite! Maybe Brian will get a Life?
Spencer’s paper merely shows that temperatures respond to changes in Radiative Flux/Forcing much less and much faster than expected in the models and in the theory.
It takes 3.3 W/m2 of forcing to change temperatures by 1.0C. By contrast, doubled CO2 is only supposed to result in 3.7 W/m2 of forcing so anyone should be able to do the math there.
Empirical evidence about how the Realclimate works …
… (as opposed to how the RealClimate website works which is theory and climate model first – empirical observation is to be ignored and/or changed whenever it does not conform to the theory (which is often since almost none of it does). They all knew beforehad what this data showed – they ignored it and/or turned it into a pretzel so it would be incomprehensible .
——-
Technically, during an El Nino in the tropical Pacific, cloud cover increases by a huge amount and outgoing long-wave radiation falls considerably (up to -50 watts/m2). So, the Sun is not warming the ocean, but the ocean is warming the atmosphere. Its the opposite during a La Nina, cloud cover goes to near Zero, Outgoing longwave rises dramatically and the atmosphere cools off.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
From R. Gates on July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am:
What group did the original peer review of the paper?
Dang, I thought peer review was done by individual peers. And now it’s a group event? The only “peer review group” I’m aware of is the Hockey Team. Are you disqualifying the paper because they weren’t asked to join in?
_____
By group, I didn’t mean to imply a team working in unison, but rather, more than one person. I simply and honestly wanted to know who reviewed the paper. I simply asked the question, and don’t disqualify the paper on those grounds, nor am I qualified to do so on any other account. The comments by Trenberth, Curry, et. al, who are qualified to review the paper, serve as an adequate “peer review group” (and they certainly aren’t acting in unison), and so the rest of us non PhD’s can read those comments along with the paper and try muddle our way through and decide if the paper has any substance to it.
SunspotGate: Warmist Kevin Trenberth admits in an email that sunspots are an external forcing of our climate system; Romm publishes this admission, then deletes it
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sunspotgate-warmist-kevin-trenberth.html
“Chris Jarrett says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:20 am
Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.”
I don’t know this specific journal, but it is hard to find a reputable journal that does not have page charges, much of the current jargon referring to this fee as an “Open Access” fee. Being on-line only does not indicate quality either as there are many highly reputable journals that use this model of publishing for cost control reasons. Requesting suggestions for reviewers is pretty common too – I assume they take the suggestions seriously but presumably check for conflicts of interest. It is also not uncommon for journal editors to request who you do NOT want to be a reviewer (and why). These are a part of real journal activities.
Many academics try to infer an impact factor as giving an indication of the value of a journal. This has many problems, not least because the impact factor is determined by a single abstracting company, so reputable journals that happen not to be abstracted by this company will not have an impact factor measure. This journal is abstracted by CAB abstracts – this is at least is one indication that this is a serious journal.
Real journals have a real business case behind them – someone has to pay to get papers published, either the reader as in the earlier model, or both as in the days of subscriptions plus author page charges, or the newer open and free on-line access model.
Your comments are not helpful unless you can shed more light on the quality of the publisher behind the journal (MDPI of Basel, Switzerland who claim to have been publishing since 1996).
James Sexton says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:02 am
[Of course, Heartland doesn’t receive funding from Exxon,..]
And the Climate research Unit of the University of East Angela has received funding from Shell Oil and British Petroleum for over 25 years.
Bottom of this page from the UEA web site:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
The Climate Research Unit also receives funding from:
Food to Ethanol: Tate and Lyle, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre
Nuclear Power: KFA Germany, UK Nirex Ltd., Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
Insurance: Norwich Union, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
Political Action: World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Greenpeace International
Natural Gas: Sultanate of Oman
Batteries: National Power Corporation
So nothing has changed in the profitable world of global warming.
The Corporations are getting the Alarming Climate Science results from the Climate Scientologists that they have bought and paid for; and the results that they all need (see above) to ensure the demand for the products that they supply (see above).
Dr. Spencer,
Nice paper and thanks for the barbed rejoinder toward the uninspired IPCCist centric team at RC. Those RC guys retread their worn out arguments so much that I think they perform more retreading of IPCC clichés than the bias ply tire industry does retreading truck tires! : )
Your paper helps the strategic thrust of using observations and empirical methods to highlight the decreasing value of circular GCM arguments. It appears the strategy is having an impact . . . . the media seem to respond well to that type of argument . . . maybe because people understand climate observation as more trustworthy that the IPCC focused untestable hypotheticals (a.k.a. vaporware).
It is a winning strategy scientifically. But I suggest we need some other strategies as well . . . how about strategies to get more funding for all the climate science ideas currently ignored by the IPCCist’s so-called consensus?
Personal Note: You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the IPCC does have a very strong consensus. The IPCC consensus is based on myopia . . . the myopic consensus . . . . ahhh, that is the real basis of the IPCC consensus . . . a consensus of those who can look at only one illusive perception.
John
Shaun Dunne,
I read both articles. Neither are much of a refutation. The first article obsesses with the “simple model”. The author clearly doesn’t understand what he is talking about. The “simple model” is an attempt to investigate **WHY** the “official” models are wrong, without drawing any definite conclusions (Dr. Spencer stresses this over and over in his article). The hippo in the bathtub, the fact that the “official” models underpredict radiant cooling is ignored.
The second article can be summed up by this: “We know that the models are very reliable, that is why we have such wide error bars.” Pay attention to graph 3, which is a summation of “all” of the models. Note that in the lead time, the slope of actual data is more than DOUBLE that of what the model predicts. Yep, it is inside the confidence bars, but so what? The models are pretty much useless with such large errors.
Chris Jarrett says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:20 am
Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.
*************************************************
I hate to break this news to you, Chris, but by the same reasoning your above post is a joke. Anyway, if the article is a joke, why have the Climate Team chosen to respond to it?
RayG says:
July 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“Judith C. has started a thread on the Spencer and Braswell 2011 at Climate Etc http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/
I hope that the authors will browse through the comments there and respond where appropriate.
Thank you for your continuing efforts.”
____________________________________________________________________
I’ve read both the paper and Dr C.’s comments , but not the subsequent member posts in her blog. The paper is a relatively easy read, good communicative language, short, the math is not too complex.
That said, I don’t understand why Dr. Curry doubly reiterates that: “However, if there is no solution to measuring feedback, I would say that SB are concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models.”
From what I read, and how I interpreted the graphs in Figure 3 of the paper, there seems to be a large discrepancy between the observed Radiative Flux/Temperature Regression Anomalies and the ones modeled. I think I understand that feedback cannot be accurately measured through observation because all the measured radiation is Net in just one bucket? But, I don’t believe that is the point. The point (I think) is that the smaller RF in the models has to be countered by more heat retention and therefore rising planetary temperatures. And this seems contrary to satellite (and terrestrial) observations, invalidating the models.
Maybe someone more educated than me can offer me some more insights into these issues. I’m just a lay person :).
Best,
J.
“The “Bad Astronomer” is flustered as well, including himself with the usual suspects:”
I like how “Bad Astronomer” takes offense to the term “alarmist” yet uses an image of the Earth on Fire to accompany his article.
How can Gavin Schmidt say that the palaeoclimate record exhibits sensitivity without honestly factoring-in all potential external forcings and complexities of modal variation of the major synoptic systems like ENSO-NAO. Does this circular reasoning pass as science???
Oh, and in reply to the above comment by Paul Deacon, Paul you are correct. There are many ‘proper’ long-established journals of 50+ year pedigree which require author contribution-this depends on the nature of institutional support, not impact factor, this is common in many botanical journals run by well regarded botanical societies (Castanea comes to mind). Thanks for reminding me about that bill.