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.
Miskolczi calculated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars added 3 Kelvin to an Atmosphere with 18 times more CO2 than the Earth, he then produced a theory to explain this. The warmists are attacking the theory even though it is not as important as the Observational findings in his paper that demolish the AGW theory. Are they thick or are they trying to divert attention from the observational facts in his paper?
Here’s an amusing quote I came across recently (attributed to Harold Hay):
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.
George Bush is described as being “an inarticulate frat-boy who is intellectually challenged.”
Mitt Romney is described as being “a religious fundamentalist who believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago.”
John McCain is described as being “a senile old ideologue who is incapable of making a decision that is not based wholly on political factors.”
So Brian, you hold Bush, Romney, and McCain up as advocates of anthropogenic global warming?
Shanghai Dan says “Wait a minute. I thought the drumbeat was that solar input was basically irrelevant, and that aerosols are a non-problem as well. ”
That sure looks like a straw man argument Dan – climate science isn’t saying that solar forcing and aerosols are irrelevant.
From Bystander on August 1, 2011 at 8:43 am:
Especially true for real climate scientists like Dr. Spencer. For (C)AGW-pushing Climate Scientists™ they become much more relevant when trying to explain away how their shonky theories with their alarming resulting prognostications haven’t been matching real-world observations. ☺
Bystander,
The Union of Concerned Scientists, often held up as a huge part of the “consensus” of AGW, states the following:
Global warming is primarily caused by emissions of too much carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, drive our cars, and power our lives. These heat-trapping gases spread worldwide and remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. Thus, as we continue to emit these gases, their atmospheric concentrations build up over time. In contrast, atmospheric aerosol particles are largely localized near their sources, and do not linger in the atmosphere for long so that, even if we continue to emit them at current rates, their atmospheric concentrations will not build up markedly over time.
Sure sounds to me that it’s not aerosols that are causing the issue, as they supposedly also cause heating.
As far as the sun, we’re told outright that the “scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change”. It’s not the change in solar output that is creating the heating.
But somehow, the change is that now aerosols and solar output are causing cooling – while most of the consensus up until now has been that they either have small, localized effects towards HEATING or simply do not change much one way or another. Most interesting!
I think I’ll go with R. Gates’ earlier conclusion that the models are not validated and not reliable…
Hmm. Seems I recall the Team attacked Steve Mcintyre with the same viciousness….
🙂
I wish almost anybody but Spencer had done this study. Fairly or not, his reputation as a shill for Big Oil is firmly in place, and nothing he does/says will be taken serioulsy by the warmists. So it comes as no surprise Realclimate is trashing him, his study, and the studys peer reviewers.
When the Jedi return and the empire is slain, we can all party with the ewoks.
By the way does this mean some high up warmist will redeem himself by taking the ‘hockey stick’ out of his ***. (i.e. darth vader’s redemption)