by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
So, we continue to be treated to news articles (e.g. here, and here.) quoting esteemed scientists who claim to have found problems with our paper published in Remote Sensing, which shows huge discrepancies between the real, measured climate system and the virtual climate system imagined by U.N.-affilliated climate modelers and George Soros-affiliated pundits (James Hansen, Joe Romm, et al.)
Their objections verge on the bizarre, and so I have to wonder whether any of them actually read our paper. I eagerly await their published papers which show any errors in our analysis.
Apparently, all they need to know is that our paper makes the U.N. IPCC climate models look bad. And we sure can’t have that!
What’s weird is that these scientists, whether they know it or not, are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation. We show it actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later. Just like when you put a pot of water on the stove, it takes time to warm.
But while it only takes 10 minutes for a few inches of water to warm, the time lag of many months we find in the real climate system is the time it takes for several tens of meters of the upper ocean to warm.
We showed unequivocal satellite evidence of these episodes of radiant energy accumulation before temperature peaks…and then energy loss afterward. Energy conservation cannot be denied by any reasonably sane physicist.
We then showed (sigh…again…as we did in 2010) that when this kind of radiant forcing of temperature change occurs, you cannot diagnose feedback, at least not at zero time lag as Dessler and others claim to have done.
If you try, you will get a “false positive” even if feedback is strongly negative!
The demonstration of this is simple and persuasive. It is understood by Dick Lindzen at MIT, Isaac Held at Princeton (who is far from a “skeptic”), and many others who have actually taken the time to understand it. You don’t even have to believe that “clouds can cause climate change” (as I do), because it’s the time lag – which is unequivocal – that causes the feedback estimation problem!
Did we “prove” that the IPCC climate models are wrong in their predictions of substantial future warming?
No, but the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test those models for their warming predictions. And as long as the modelers insist on using short term climate variability to “validate” the long term warming in their models, I will continue to use that same short term variability to show how the modelers might well be fooling themselves into believing in positive feedback. And without net positive feedback, manmade global warming becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue. (e.g., negative cloud feedback could more than cancel out any positive feedback in the climate system).
If I’m a “denier” of the theory of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, so be it. But as a scientist I’d rather deny that theory than deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What you are saying does not contradict the 1st law of Thermo. However, what you are saying is very different from what Dr Spencer or those attacking his paper are saying.
The models in question seek to predict global temperature 100 years from now. Computers themselves have not existed for 100 years, nether has software, so no one has thus created a computer algorithm that has predicted anything 100 years hence. It has never been done. However, the climate modelers would have us believe they are doing just that. That’s quite convenient when you consider many of them are over 40 and will not live to see their predictions matched to reality, but that’s another matter.
Dr Spencer is saying that the modelers primarily use knowledge of short-term climate variability to predict long-term climate change. As far as I know, he’s correct in saying that. Now Spencer has shown with satellite measurements that net energy changes create short-term changes in global temperature that are not predicted by the climate modelers long-term predictions using short-term climate variations. In essence he’s saying you need to at least be able to see the short-term cycles for what they are before you start predicting longer-term changes.
So, in telling Spencer that his paper is meaningless to their predictions, they are essentially saying that short-timescale earth energy budget is meaningless to their predictions. This is a actually a predictable response given past responses from the team, but does in fact deny the 1st law of thermo in a sense. By ignoring changes you didn’t predict on a timescale that you may not have intended to care about, you are implying that basic thermodynamics doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter to your model of the Earth.
Look at it this way. You have two people. On of them predicts the path of a rocket in space and says they will predict the path 100 years hence as it weaves through the solar system. Another says they see short term variation in direction, possibly due to unknown or poorly-quantified gravity wells. The first person then claims that any short-term variability is meaningless to their long-term projections. Isn’t that the same as denying F=mA? Is that not also the most ridiculous thing you’ve heard? What physicist would discount the effects of small changes in path to a spacecraft? In point of fact, one of the mysteries currently unsolved is the changes in path to two of the Pioneer probes leaving the solar system. They were off course and no one could explain why.
Jeremy says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:10 am
> The fact that they came out so publicly to refute it reveals them as politicians, not scientists.
Or it means they recognize WUWT as an widely read information source but don’t want to come here in person.
To Alan and
Hugh Pepper says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:51 am
“….. I think you should have valid reasons for this disagreement, rather than merely engaging in facile ad hominem attacks.”
I must quote Bob Tisdale from the earlier thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/#comment-709018
Trenberth and Fasullo also responded in a guest post at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
The second sentence includes the obligatory: “News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites…”
A note to Trenberth and Fasullo : That’s as far as I read. Your post began with nonsensical name calling, so I assumed the rest was nonsense.
strawbale says:
August 1, 2011 at 10:04 am
To be clearer I mean an idiots guide to the arguments presented in the paper and the criticisms being put forward by the pro AGWers.
=========
From a fellow idiot,
You are entering a realm you may never escape.
This post has no credibility whatsoever, with such a glaring flaw.
That pic is from Terminator Salvation, not rise of the machines.
Just thinking out loud: We don’t deny climate around here; that’s about all we talk about. However, we deny that those who are modeling climate anytime in the future are doing a credible job. And by “credible”, that means can they first predict what’s happening in the short term, and can they hindcast what’s happened in the past?
If the answers to those questions are a resounding “NO” (and they are), then they aren’t doing a credible job. And that’s what’s got their underwear in a bunch.
Dr Spencer has hit a rich vein here. The time lag concept is unequivocal and occurs in nature all the time, but often doesn’t show up in many academic papers because academics are taught from day 1 to reduce and correct ‘errors’ and ‘mismatches’ as part of good academic editing. The difficulty lies in differentiating valid variation and time lag in nature to common mathematical or other errors. Forecasts must match specific timelines, variations to a theme must be ‘smoothed’ for errors etc. So ‘time lag’ is usually smoothed out and left out. This tendancy also springs from a deeper assumption; that variations to a dominant natural process are ‘errors’ or ‘noise’ by default, rather than an essential element of any chaotic system.
Here are some time lags in nature for reference:
-seasonal land maximum warmth after the summer solstice (up to 6 weeks after summer solstice).
-seasonal cold mimima after winter solstice (as above, but usually less).
-daily land warmth maxima after noon (several hours, depending on clouds and wind)
-20 year time lag of max. earth temperatures determined by solar proxies (Usoskin paper).
-lag in C02 max/minima of several hundred years following temperature changes and ice ages
-lag in temperature changes following earth orbital variations/axis tilt variations and ice ages, particularly for warmth after an ice age (due to ice and albedo affects presumably, which has more time lag than cooling following an interglacial)
-seasonal lags in ocean temperatures and currents following winter and summer solstice
-lag in El Nino/Lina effects from west to east pacific
-ocean tidal lags which follow the moon and sun, but are delayed due to the rate at which water is transferred across the oceans and to the shores.
-Tidal river bores as localised tidal events lags, which may take hours to go up a river after peak tide.
-max swell wave generation following a storm; swell waves produced from wind take time and space to form and reach their peak, and therefore max. peak swell size has a temporal and spatial lag after max wind strength, and only after a length of ocean has been traversed. This can also be effected by local ocean currents (which, if counter to the prevailing winds can produce rogue waves in the open ocean, an extreme ‘maxima event’, a very good analogy to the climate?).
-max. wind gusts following a storm, eg ?tornados may be viewed as ‘chaotic lag effects’ once a tropical storm is already established
-the whole concept of a ‘tipping point’ loosely fits into lag effects in a broader sense.
Can’t think of any others for now, but they are common in nature, not so common amongst academica, due to the diffuculty in differentiating valid variation and time/spatial lag in nature to normal mathematical or other errors and inconsistencies.
Dr Spencer,
I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?
Spencer writes:
“What’s weird is that these scientists, whether they know it or not, are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation. We show it actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later. Just like when you put a pot of water on the stove, it takes time to warm.”
Pardon me for kicking a dead donkey, but another way to say this is that Gaia Models that posit only processes of radiation (as all do) are incomplete. The time lag is in a natural process that is distinct from any process of radiation; in Spencer’s analogy, that is the time the water on the stove takes to warm.
The Achilles Heel of all Warmista reasoning is that their models do not posit natural processes that are distinct from processes of radiation. Yet the forcings are in the natural processes such as cloud formation. Warmista must create physical hypotheses that describe the natural regularities that make up the relevant phenomena, such as cloud formation, and they must show that these physical hypotheses can be used for prediction and explanation of forcings. Warmista have not so much as attempted this absolutely necessary undertaking.
Warmista science is no less “a priori” in its reasoning and methods than Spinoza’s philosophy. Warmista must put aside their aversion to empirical research and begin the work that will, in Spencer’s metaphorical language, enable us to predict the time lags in the different kinds of liquids and pots that are used on the stove.
Addendum to my post just above, where I wrote:
“Warmista must create physical hypotheses that describe the natural regularities that make up the relevant phenomena, such as cloud formation, and they must show that these physical hypotheses can be used for prediction and explanation of forcings.”
To me, the most remarkable thing about the work of Svensmark is that he is creating exactly the kind of physical hypotheses that I describe above. His physical hypotheses will describe those natural regularities in the behavior of clouds that can be associated with laws governing cosmic rays and solar activity. The one – two punch of Spencer and Svensmark just might begin a Copernican (Keplerian, really) Revolution in climate science.
Has anybody read the AP article referenced via link in Dr Spencer’s piece?
“Several mainstream climate scientists call the study’s conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. ”
“most of whom are not scientists……………?”
So only the believers have a scientific majority?
The warmiatas are using any argument they can to support their cuase. You can show them any evidence whatever, but they will not look. These “scientists” have a political agenda, that coincides with the politicians’ agenda. (who pay them) …. google Lysenko. We are in a very sad period indeed.
Did you prove AGW theory wrong?
NO, but the AGWers haven’t displled the disbelievers … they haven’t shown that current “climate changes|” are not natural.
Logically, this is what the AGWers MUST do!
Vic says:
August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Dr Spencer,
I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?
=========================================================
Vic,
I can’t speak for Dr. Spencer, but……..
I certainly hope not. The glaciers were left over from the last ice age. Were those mountains of ice to return, we’ll have much more to worry about than 1/2 degree rise in temps.
As long as the Sceptics confuse the phony GLOBAL warming with the constant real climatic changes; please don’t blame the Alarmist. Climate never stopped changing for 4billion years. Nobody can or should stop it from changing. Some places changes for better, another for worse. Every Sceptic that cannot see trough the trick Alarmist played on them by puting the phony warming with the climate in the same bascket is a born loser. H2O changes climate, not CO2! Simpson desert has less CO2 than around Kyoto city; which one of those two places has better climate and why?! See the health of the tree in Kyoto park; compare with the one in the desert. More CO2+H2O = GREEN. Who is the clown to say that before the industrial revolution was the best amount of CO2 in the air and in the water?! Ask the trees, not the clown. Trees don’t tell lies.
Interstellar Bill,
I’m afraid I must disabuse you of one thing: The real political left know exactly what they want to achieve … their dominance over “society”, which means all economic, political and social activity of a population. TOTAL CONTROL. They have adopted a GREEN MANTLE to disguise their guise.
James Sexton,
So let me get this right, those glaciers hung on through ten thousand-odd years of the Holocene (including the medieval warm period), only to meet their demise in the last 150 years ? Wow !
I never realised just how resistant to warming those vanished glaciers were.
The reduction in glacial ice is directly attributable (by correlation) to the reduction in piracy, so if you want the glaciers to increase then you and as many of your friends as you can talk into it should become pirates.
“Dr. Spencer,
In your recent posts here at WUWT you do look like you are really enjoying yourself. I hope you keep that spirit! Science is indeed fun here at WUWT (thanks again Anthony & team).
I appreciate the singular thrust of your statement, “We [Spencer & Braswell 2011] show it [the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation] actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later.” Something to really bite into.
Personal Note: Last week I got the kindle for PC version of your book, ‘Fundanomics The Free Market, Simplified’. I already read it once and now going through it more slowly. It will take its place next to my 40 year old dogged eared paperback copy of H. Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’.
John”
You should add The Fatal Conceit and The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek to your list of economic bibles.
**Vic says:
August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Dr Spencer,
I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?***
Did I miss something? In which part of the paper are glaciers discussed?
Dr. Spencer – I read your paper, and as far as I can tell there is no estimate of errors in the text and no errorbars on your charts.
That means that your statement “huge discrepancies” is false. Or at least it cannot be determined from your paper. Without an error estimate one may assume that the differences you see are within the margin of error.
My question: How is it that you managed to get a paper without any discussion of errors through the peer review process at remote sensing? [snip]
Vic says: August 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Dr Spencer,
I’m hoping you might explain to us what effect your breakthrough will have on the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Over 80% of them have melted away since pre-industrial times. Can we now look forward to their return ?
*************************************
Dr. Spenser,
I must agree with Vic. Both Chicago and New York used to be under an ice sheet up to 5,000 feet thick. It is arguable that the world would be a better place should they return!
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Hey guys! It’s a joke! Unfortunately, dealing with the Goreacle acolytes, it is not always clear as to which statements are supposed to be funny.
I want to know which idiot at NASA let this Spencer fellow get his hands on real data?
Disaster!
Nothing but disaster will follow this major blunder.
There’s no going back.
The truth is out.
A complete, utter disaster.
/sarc off
For the literal minded, I should have ended my previous post as follows:
/sarc off
1. If 9 out of 10 doctors think you have cancer, shouldn’t act on that premise even if you are the 10th doctor? Only a narcissist would would say no.
2. No one denies the 1st law of thermodynamics and you know it.
3. Still denying evolution?
4. Still hoping Steve Martin will play your character in the movie? (Yes I read your book Blunder. This feedsback into #1.)