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.
On the comments about the paleoclimate, I think the best paleo data is very consistent with Dr. Spencer’s current time-frame results.
CO2/GHGs play a minor role at about one-third to one-half of that proposed in the theory. That is what the highest resolution data going back as far as possible says. Gavin invokes paleoclimate records yet he can only use / has only used a few cherrypicked time-periods (amongst the other hundreds of thousands of time-periods which contradict the cherries).
The comments made so far, that claim this study is wrong, generally lack serious substance. But let’s see if we can’t dissect the catechism from on high that the team gives us.
Trenberth says “these apparet negative feedback is really just ENSO, which is not radiatively forced because we already know it isn’t”
In point of fact, Roy’s paper was a response to this very idea, put forward in a paper by Dessler, that one can in fact diagnose the feedbacks from the data because the variations are “due to ENSO” and “ENSO is not radiatively forced because we already know it isn’t.” The point of Roy’s work was that in point of fact there are variations in clouds causing temperature changes in the data, this is pretty clear from the data. Author a paper, get criticized by another paper, rebut the criticism, the criticizers fail to understand and repeat the criticism. I think Lindzen has noted this is a common pattern in climate science.
Gavin basically says “well,this could be any number of things” but puts his money on the data being wrong, or a statistical fluke. There is little to be done about such vacuous criticism, doubters will wiggle themselves within your error bars endlessly, the only thing one can do is gather more data, and narrow the uncertainty. As always, if you doubt the radiation measurements, you are obliged to cite a reason why the measurements are untrustworthy, and plausibly hypothesize why this uncerainty skews in your direction only, not the other way at all. You can always say, well the uncertianty is large enough that my crackpot theory out on the tails of the probability distributioncould still be correct-there is a non-zero probability that I will wake up on the moon tomorrow. It’s negligible but nonzero. So how likely is it, then, that the “truth” is as far from the current mean of the data as Gavin surely believes? It’s fine to say Roy didn’t quantify this. It is not logical to give greater weight to someone crying that the truth is pretty distant from the mean than to someone saying it’s pretty close.
davidmhoffer says:
July 30, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I couldn’t help but notice that there hasn’t been one criticism, not a single comment, not even a vague one, saying that the results are invalid and giving a reason why.
* * *
Exactly. The fact that they are reacting with the ususal ad hominem attacks, ( RC even tries to draw attention away with a strawman argument,) shows even more that the Spencer and Braswell paper is likely accurate.
Bill, thanks for your comment about ENSO cloud response. It confirmed my understanding of equitorial tropical cloud response to La Nina/El Nino events. La Nina warms the ocean, El Nino cools it. How this equatorial response is then reflected in extra-tropic cloud conditions is another topic of interest and one that Steven seems to be speaking to. Example: The cold tropical cloudless La Nina seems to have resulted in a very wet cloudy summer for us in Oregon with temperatures in the bottom half of the normal range, not in the top half. That is not unusual. La Nina events have historically resulted in such summers where I live.
“But the beauty of the paper is that its includes all radiation and that’s the central message. ”
True. The SW radiation/temperature covariation is interesting. Clouds?
Don’t worry Dr Spencer, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Just point and laugh at His Haughtiness. I read your paper first, and this post afterwords. Andy’s comments are hilarious. Trenberth’s comments are side-splittingly funny. Too bad these bozos don’t realize they’re the laughingstock of the world now.
It’s amazing how easy it is too be censored at realclimate.
I tried to post this:
I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don’t match because the IPCC models are wrong. I very much doubt the satelite data is wrong.
Lots of comments after it but not mine, I have picture evidence too. 42 posts had been approved mine seems to not be in there and there up to 60 posts.
William says:
July 30, 2011 at 4:52 pmThe fact that the planet has not cooled indicates something is happening to suppress the Svensmark mechanism. (i.e. GCR is high something must be removing the ions that are created.) ))
Not so fast young fella. Give it time. A lot of very cold records are being set that you are not factoring into a blanket statement.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/ Bob does not hide the decline. Overall we are cooling, except for GISStimates.
regards
Alex says:
July 30, 2011 at 8:04 pm
It’s amazing how easy it is too be censored at realclimate.
I tried to post this:
I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don’t match because the IPCC models are wrong. I very much doubt the satelite data is wrong.
=============================================================
lol, I wouldn’t bother to keep looking.
What gets me is all of the hubbub. I mean, its a great paper and all, but our thermometer readings over the last decade has told us that the models were wrong, anyway. This really can’t be news to anybody….can it? There isn’t a model out there that predicted the flat-line we’ve experienced for over a decade now…… well, none that predicted it prior to it occurring.
Do you think that Mann’s upside down Tiljander data had the review it should have had before being published?
Which time?
Wonderful. Criticism from the people who brought us cherry picked proxies, mangled by incorrectly, often fabricated statistical techniques, combined with jaw-dropping examples of circular reasoning, self-deception and doublethink. ‘Scientists’ who cannot tell the difference between noise and meaningful data. Who have gone to any lengths to avoid replication of their work outside a sympathetic clique. Who hide their data from any who have the audacity to question it. Who have gamed the peer review process through the bullying, flattering and cajoling of editors of once respected, now imbecilic science journals (who have gone the way of the mainstream press in their scrutiny of empty assertions presented as ‘science’), in order to create the illusion of consensus. Who have turned the IPCC into an official wing of RealClimate. Who set out to hijack and politicise science in order to concoct a lie they believed would guarantee them limitless funding and kudos; a lie that for a while at least, they probably believed. By coming out of their quiet closet in a largely ignored dusty corner of the scientific community wailing of impending doom for humanity, these educated buffoons have unwittingly exposed to the world the utter fallaciousness of ‘paleo-climatology’. They have been on the back foot ever since, desperately attempting to embue their brand of tarted up divination with some sheen of credibility. It is little wonder they can only fall back on ad-hominem attacks, straw men, well-poisoning, endless appeals to authority and over hyped computer simulations when faced with criticisms founded on observation and reason. Why should I listen to, or trust a single word they utter now I know how they perform their ‘science’? If it wasn’t for the cynicism of the media and gullibility of politicians, people like Gavin Schmidt would be sweeping faculty corridors, hoping for a glimpse of how actual scientists conduct their work. Their only use is as a barometer for their own dishonesty: the louder and more incoherently they shout down their critics, the more I want to hear what those critics have to say. The deeper they plunge their fingers into their ears, the more I want to know what they are desperate to avoid hearing. The more their echo chamber rumbles, the shakier the ground on which it is built appears to be.
Has someone published the combined radiation measurements without the reference to various and sundry predictive models? The challenge would then be on “the Team” to explain the performance of their “models”.
“davidmhoffer says:
July 30, 2011 at 11:22 am
It is bad enough that they believe their models to the point that they ignore actual measurements showing the models to be wrong. But the worst part is that they WANT the sky to be falling.”
Yeah, and just don’t you hate the hyperbole often claimed in the MSM that AGW/CC is worse than the models predicted. I also get rather tired of warmists over defending models when real data shows a different or a much better picture than their cyber fantasy model claims!
R. Gates says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:07 am
“What group did the original peer review of the paper? If the answer is there was none, then you can consider the comments by these other others as the post-publication peer review.
In reading their comments it does seem as though Dr. Spencer’s analysis would lead to the notion of clouds forcing the ENSO cycle whereas quite the opposite is the case as clouds are a result of a release of heat from the oceans. This also goes to the widespread belief by some that La Nina “cooling” means less energy in the system, when in fact the suppression of cloud formation during La Nina episodes is a time when more net heat is being absorbed by the ocean.”
Are you sure the clouds in a La Nina episode are not just shifted? The eastern seaboard of Australia and most of the eastern half of the continent seem to have had their cloudiest period for ~30 years. The ocean temperatures have been well above the daily max on many occasions which would help to explain the cloud. OK, local weather— for half a continent.
ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.
Tilo Reber wrote: “So here we are, with thirteen years of no warming and Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat.”
Al Gore has already found it. Don’t you remember that the temperature of the Earth’s interior is at millions and millions of degrees?! Quite a heat sink!
jamesc says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm
ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.>>>
Really? He just made up 11 years of satellite data?
How about you post the specific ERBE data to which you refer, and show how it conflicts with the data cited by Dr. Spencer? Do you have actual data and actual comparisons that show what you claim? Or are you…
Just making crap up?
LOL! RINO Republicrats. The breaking news would be if the any of the three of them were skeptics!
Previous commenters mentioned your Appeal to Authority. I have a different take on it …
George Bush :: Appeal to Inferiority
Mitt Romney :: Appeal to Sorority
John McCain :: Appeal to Seniority
jamesc said on July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm:
From NASA’s ERBE FAQ:
Wow, ERBE can show that over the last thirty years, when the project ended about six years ago. Indeed, looking at the available datasets, there’s about either five or fifteen years available, ending in 1990 or 1999, except Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) which goes to 2003.
Yet you’re aware of the ERBE results for the last thirty years? Will the miracles of modern Climate Science™ never cease?
Looking deeper at the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), such info is available from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
Graphs are at the “postscript” links.
There’s an odd spike around 1995, on the anomaly chart you can see what looks like a very strong upward step change in the data. This should be examined. From that point onward, sure looks like OLR has increased from then to now.
Where do you get info on OLR that shows data for the unique CO2 spectral bands? Feel free to present it to support your claim. Pulled out from those last thirty years of ERBE data would be preferable.
So, just to make sure I’m clear on this:
Empirical data does not match the output from the models. Thus the empirical data must be wrong.
Hmmm… Seems a lot of the pro-AGW crowd got things backwards! I’d say a review of the Scientific Method 101 is in order…
@Spencer
“Empire Strikes Back”
Excellent! But be prepared to get sued by some dooshbag Hollywood liberal for using it.
It would perhaps be a propos to remind some that the purpose of “peer-review” is not to confirm or deny the science in the paper, but to assure the publisher and the editor that publication of the article will not diminish the standing, profitability, cachet and promotability of the journal, not the science…
With regard to the authority of a PhD, it would perhaps be a propos to remind some that it is a point in time report, and, like a shiny new car, it begins to depreciate the moment it comes off the lot. In the end, it provides no better service going forward than the lowly rebuilt old clunker salvaged from the wreckers yard, cobbled together from bits and pieces found along the way. There may be, in fact, more value in the journey of the latter.
Pamela Gray says:
July 30, 2011 at 7:13 pm
———————-
My comment about cloudiness was directed to the central Pacific. The changes here are big enough to affect the global average numbers but each region responds a little differently. Australia and Indonesia have the opposite cloud impacts during events.
I’m afraid where you live, in an El Nino, you get more rain – in a La Nina, you get more rain.
he timing might change a little and an El Nino will be a little warmer but, if you want less rain, you need neutral.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/temp_precip/images/LaNinaImpacts_djf.jpg
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/temp_precip/images/ElNinoImpacts_jja.jpg
In reply Jamesc comment:
jamesc says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm
ERBE shows a decrease of LW in the CO2 absorption spectrum leaving over the last thirty years, Spencer is just making crap up.
jamesc,
The ERBE data shows the opposite of what you state.
“Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the
feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.”
The observed lack of warming on the planet and in the ocean supports Spencer and Lindzen’s results.
The IPCC general circulation models are theoretical models that include assumptions. Satellite data and planetary temperature data indicates there are multiple fundamental errors in the IPCC GCM. The planet does not amplify changes in forcing. Feedback is not negative.
The planet resists changes in forcing. Feedback is negative.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from
the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It
appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the
increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes
implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.
This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.
Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from
ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision.
Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the
feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not
distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate
feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.
“How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”
Just re-read the following from the Team’s CRU web site:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Over the last 35 years also, several staff have been on the editorial boards of a number of major climatic journals ( International Journal of Climatology, Climatic Change, Weather, Atmospheric Science Letters, Journal of Climate, The Holocene, Boreas, Climate Research, Theoretical and Applied Climatology ).
No wonder people have trouble publishing!
It’s like the Mafia.