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.
Hugh Pepper says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:51 am
… I have stated views which are expressed by Trenberth and Fasulio in their paper which appeared in RealClimate.
So that would be peer reviewed, then, Hugh?
Mike says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
1) What do you think of his paper?
2) What do you think of his paper?
3) What do you think of his paper?
4) What do you think of his paper?
Hugh Pepper says:
“I didn’t express an opinion at all. I have stated views which are expressed by Trenberth and Fasulio in their paper which appeared in RealClimate.”
Hugh Pepper, please don’t exaggerate the status of the Trenberth and Fasulio comments. Re-read RealClimate and you will see it is a commentary and certainly not a paper and as such has no more (or less) merit than any other non-peer reviewed comment. AGW proponents are quick to criticise any non peer reviewed comments by those contesting their beliefs but seem to ignore the absence of peer review in comments that support their views or, as in this case, imply peer review that in fact has not occurred.
I enjoyed Dr Spencer’s paper and coming from the mathematics/physics background concur with it. Also in maths we have a concept which is used in forecasting and i.e definition of state. It posit that before you attempt a forecast (which is probablistic by defintion) one needs to ensure that the starting point is fully defined without probability. Climate syaytem being a complex phenomena is not fully defined on day Zero. Whatever day zero is assumed. Thus the starting condition is probabilistic and not certain which exposes the forecast to significant potential error.
On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.
Vic says:
August 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm
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.
=============================================================
lol, No, I don’t think you’re getting it right. The glaciers weren’t “hanging on”, ice covering land has been receding since the ice age….. in fits and starts.
Vic, I’m in awe of people like you. I can’t, for the life of me, understand how you function. People such as I am called climate change deniers all the while it is you people that expect the climate not to change. Its the silliest part of this entire larger dialogue. Where do you think those glaciers came from? Why do you think they should always remain?
You people take a snap shot of how the world was at one particular point in time, idealize it, and then expect your fantasy world to remain, when, in fact, the world(with mankind’s efforts) has gotten much more habitable in recent years. But, then you blame the very people that makes the world easier to live in for destroying your fantasy world. It is simply an astonishing dynamic! —— “Oh that evil petro!!! I can actually find work beyond walking distance!! That should be outlawed!!!”——- “Oh that evil gas!!! It keeps me and my family warm during the cold season!!!! We certainly should attempt to end that!!!” ——- “Oh, that evil electricity!!!! It keeps our food fresh and cools our homes and allows production of goods and services!!! We must end this now!!!!” ——— You do realize how silly this sounds to rational people, do you not?
Nullius in Verba says:
August 2, 2011 at 12:10 am
“On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”
So was I. But only in the question regarding intelligent design. I was also very dissapointed in Isaac Newton when I read about his escapades within alchemy and religin. But the formulae F = m x a still holds, at least when moving very slow in respect to the speed of light.
My father was a heavy smoker, but still a very good pilot.
These arguments are just a part of the very strange effect of certain people that dont understand mathematics and physics, has to rely on authorities in these matters. So they must choose an authority. Therefore they see all this as a battle between which authority to believe in. And therefore, all they can do is attacking those who questions their selected authority.
They cannot attack Dr. Spencers plots made from satelite data. I doubt they understand a plot with an X and Y axis at all.
So it looks very much like the case of religion. Their “God” is Al Gore. Questioning the God is much like blasphemy to them, and must be forbidden.
This paper will be extremely damaging to the CAGW religion.
The simple mutterings seem to of shifted to ‘well if 9 Drs say why would you listen to the 10th doctor’ rubbish. Seen this appeal over at Climate Etc as well.
Funny enough these people probably would not agree with the term ‘well if 9 hedge fund managers say why would you listen to the 10th’ though.
Mike says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
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.)
1. Flawed analogies are not science.
2. Just because you say somehting, doesn’t make it true. Dr. Spencer has shown why he thinks the models are not compatible with the 1st law. You need to show otherwise and not just a sweeping statement.
3. How is this relevant to climate?
4. Ad Hom. Ad Hoim Ad Hom.
You probably think you post makes you look really clever (ironic, considering the narcisist comment), but without any cogent reasoning, it just does the opposite.
Or to put ike’s comments in perspective, in the real world, if 9 quacks agree on something that does not make it right. And in this analogy that’s what Trenberth, Dessler, Gavin Scmhidt and the RC gang are. They are the quacks of climate science.
On the subject of error bars. Correct me if I am wrong as I am not completely au fait with the science here but the paper takes observed radiation measurements by satellite and then outlines an equation that explains the observed lag between the forcing/feedback and temperature.
So the only possible errors are:
1) The likelihood that the maths is wrong and the equation doesnt match the observations.
2) measurement errors on the satellites instruments.
With regards to 1) has any scentific paper provided error estimations concerning the likelihood of the authors maths being wrong?
With regards to 2) surely the instruments have been calibrated correctly by the managing authority and any errors would be in magnitude rather than delta.
Also as the main point of the paper concerns the lag of forcing/feedback to temperature how are temporal errors (the only ones likely to spoil the point of the paper ) likely to manifest themselves? Could the satellite clocks be variably inaccurate over time or did someone fall asleep at their console when taking measurements?
As I said I am no expert here but in my imperfect opinion I fail to see where error bars are necessary.
Nullius in Verba says:
August 2, 2011 at 12:10 am
I enjoyed Dr Spencer’s paper and coming from the mathematics/physics background concur with it.
On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.
==========================================================
R U serious? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry? Are you that devoid of perspective or understanding of math or physics? Do you know who John Napier was? How about, Francis Bacon? Or, Blaise Pascal? Of course, Newton was a prolific hymnist. But there is also Thomas Bayes, Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin, Pavel Florensky, Max Planck, Robert Millikan, Georges Lemaître, just to name a few mathematicians and/or physicists. Oh, they all also believed in creationism. Get a grip.
Agree. The ceding of a “1°C” warming due to AGW is lukewarmist pandering. It is not in the data, and Spencer’s paper shows why. Radiation out rapidly responds to warming from ANY source, and kills the possibility of accumulation of heat energy on the scale required from such a minute influence on IR absorption.
—————–
Mike,
What fun! Here let me continue your comedy with my version of your punch lines for your wonderful jokes. (hint – you should team up with Josh).
1. If 9 out of 10 scientists, who are IPCCists and CAGW centric climatologists, think the earth has a fever then shouldn’t a skeptical 10th scientist act on the 9 scientist’s premise even if you are the 10th scientist? Corollary: 9 out of 10 scientists are often wrong, that is why science advances.
2. Some IPCCist and CAGW scientists passed their school tests when they studied thermodynamics, but it appears that some of them failed in the real world application of the 1st law to their IPCCist/CAGW research even thought they don’t deny the 1st law. I am sure they can learn from their failures.
3. Interestingly, virtually every president of the USA has been expressly religious. By unique Mike logic they all must have been bad at what they did. Every physical scientist I have personally known was of a profoundly religious stance, most were of Judeo-Christian background (the guys with the Genesis thing). With unique Mike logic they must have all been bad scientists.
4. Mike are you borrowing? None the less, if you are borrowing or not, the Pink Panther flicks were wonderful. I am sure they can be adapted in a very funny way to the activities of the IPCC to detect CAGW. It would out sell that other famous work of CAGWist comedy, the Gore one. What a laugh.
Take care,
John
Look forward? Why would you want to return to “pre-industrial times”, coincidentally also known as the LIA?
Are you mad?
typo: “also known”, not “also know”.
Friends:
Can somebody please tell me what relevance Creationism and/or Roy Spencer’s belief in it has to his paper which is the subject of this thread?
Not all scientists are Creationists, but most scientists whose work dramatically changed the history of science were. And not all Christians are Creationists; nowadays most are not.
So what? These facts do not affect the science done by Roy Spencer in any way.
Friar Mendel was a Creationist. He founded the science of genetics with his seminal work conducted in hs monastery garden. Without genetics we would have no understanding of how biological evolution operates, and evolutionary theory would be stuck at the level of Darwin. Do those who want to disdain the work of Roy Spencer by shouting “He’s a Creationist!” also want to reject the theory of evolution because Mendel was a Creationist?
So, I request that this ‘red herring’ about Creationism should be ignored (except for being ridiculed) unless somebody can explain what relevance Creationism has to the subject of this thread.
Richard
LOL – the creationism canard again.
Where there are laws there is a lawmaker.
Where there are machines there are machinists.
Where there are codes there are coders.
Why should I believe there are exceptions to these rules?
The universe is governed by law. Every living cell is an electro-chemical machine with its design and operation controlled by an abstract digital code.
Maybe all the order in the universe appeared as if by magic 14 billion years ago in a big burst of energy that came from nowhere. Or maybe not. In the meantime, in all cases where there the cause is unambiguously identified – laws, machines, and codes are the result of design not accident.
If a picture is worth a thousands words then a video is worth millions. Check out this collection of molecular animations of celllular machinery in action. And yes “Dave S.” is me.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/category/molecular-animations/
For some reason, in large part the same people who believe in man-made climate catastrophe believe the machinery in the above video is just a freak accident of nature. That conclusion, which is absurd, is the result of ideology not rational thought.
Adriana;
Further, note the very powerful observations of Hoffman about the exact match of equal-pressure layers of the Earth and Venus atmospheres, due account for incident solar IR being made. DESPITE the >2000X greater density of CO2 on Venus.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?showComment=1309701737932#c2996401267831418580
An interesting side-point he brings up in his comment response, above, is that the radiative efficiency of CO2 molecules “talking” to each other there explains the near exact match of lit and unlit hemisphere temperatures on Venus, despite its very slow rotation. The temps are homogenized by inter-molecular IR!
Mike says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
“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.”
If 9 out of 10 doctors say they think you may have cancer sometime in the future based only on incomplete models and then want you to go through the cost and pain of chemo and radiation now just in case, I think a rational person would tell them to bug off.
@ur momisugly dave springer.
“For some reason, in large part the same people who believe in man-made climate catastrophe believe the machinery in the above video is just a freak accident of nature.”
I don’t think the above statement is true at all. For a start, describing evolution as “just a freak accident of nature” is not an accurate description.
But by and large, I doubt there is any correlation between people who believe in evolution and those who believe in AGW, and those that beleive in creationism and AGW skeptics.
I’m a staunch Aethist and also a skeptic. Here in the UK, amongst those that I know, people’s religious belief has little to do with their possition on AGW.
Besides, all this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. So Spencer believes in creationism. So what? That has littel to do with thefindings of his work in the field of atmospheric physics. And I say that as an Aethist who thinks creationism is a crock.
failureman says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:39 pm
blathering….. more blathering bs…… and more blathering…..
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]
===========================================================
You’re kidding, right? I’ve seen countless studies gone through peer-review w/o error bars or discussion of……. Tell me, the drowning polly bears…… where were the error bars or discussion of errors? Amazon’s demise? Where were the error discussions? The list could go on for quite some time…..
I never said a word about creationism. I asked if Spencer still denies the reality of biological evolution as the best explanation for the origin of species. Does he? Why does he dismiss the views of his peers? Should we take the word of an outlier or use mainstream scientific opinion in policy discussions? If we go with an outlier which do we pick? Why not go with those who think warming will be on the higher end of IPCC estimates?
As for his paper, yes I read it. It merely says he could not solve the problem. Others have estimated CO2 climate sensitivity using other means. It is well known there are uncertainties in the lag in radiative sensitivity and in cloud feedbacks. If we make just the right assumptions warming will be small, or we could make another set of just so assumptions and get warming to be very high, maybe 8C. Or we could base policy discussions on the mainstream most likely estimates of about 4C, which would be very serious and would not stop there in the 2100’s and beyond.
Creationism is the elephant in the room, not only in this thread but in the whole topic of climate change. Creationists usually don’t say anything about it on these blogs so as not to get the two issues mixed up, but that doesn’t stop the AGWers putting them both in the “junk” science category, and using the same ridulous techniques for dismissing real evidence. The Creationists are used to the tactics, but the Climate sceptics are not quite so familiar yet.
Someone on WUWT commented about Gish winning most of his debates, and it is true, not because he was good at debating but because the science was always on his side.
This is the wrong place to talk much about creationism but the issue of “faith” cannot be avoided in this AGW debate, because as the sceptics know, the AGW idea is a belief system which has hijacked science. It is about faith, and many that are involved are militant Athiests.
In his recent tour of Australia, Monkton referred to “Our Lord”, and the issue of fighting for “truth” referring to the Bible. It does seem that the climate change issue is really one about faith rather than science, just as the creation/evolution debate is also about faith and not science in the end.
————
Mike,
Your statement about the paper does not allow for continuing dialog accuracy.
If you read the paper as you have stated, then you should just be able to quote from it in support of your statement about the paper. Please do, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
John