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.
Strawbale (and uk(us)): I’m with you.
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.”
Dear Troll,
Cancer physicians practicing in the USA have a rather good record of success, elsewhere not so much, and the treatment is rather affordable.
Climate scientists practicing in the USA have no record of successful prediction whatsoever, and the treatment makes you a slave.
Mike says:
August 2, 2011 at 7:37 am
“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?”
Criticizing the work of your peers shows them respect and is not dismissive. Science is the ciritical enterprise par excellence. There are many criticisms of Darwin that can be made quite cogently but have nothing to do with origin of species.
————-
Darren Parker,
Yes, I indeed should add the FA Hayek works. They should sit well next my collection of almost all of Ludwig von Mises’ work. The Hazlitt paperback would still belong with those works as well as Spencer’s little book.
NOTE: I plowed through von Mises in the mid 1970s.
Thanks.
John
Mike says:
August 2, 2011 at 7:37 am
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.
=========================================================
Mike, get real. You are inferring that because of his religious views, his scientific views must not be valid. It is an attack on free thinking and is a demand to conform to conventional thought. And, it is repugnant, as well as the antithesis to the scientific process.
Further, I’ve given several examples of scientists and mathematicians who may have had a difficulty with the thoughts to today’s belief of the “origin of species” some few hold, Please apply your rationale to those scientists and mathematicians that I listed.
That argument about the 9 doctors and the cancer patient crops up so often it is becoming a bit tiresome. It even croped up in the recent debate with Lord Monckton where I expected a higher standard.
For those who still don’t get why this is not a good analogy of climate science, let me say that: cancer can be diagnosed quite easily using a variety of techniques including x-ray and biopsies. There is a database of millions of patients who have had cancer in the last 50 years, along with every possible outcome for every current medical technique as well as non intervention. From this statisticians can quite easily produce survival probability profiles for each of these treatments as well as non intervention.
Climate science, on the other hand has one “patient”, planet Earth. Nobody knows what the outcome will be for any given course of action. It would be as if a person was diagnosed with a new symptom, that did not fit into any other disorder known to medical science, and the doctors then had to produce not only a prognosis but also a course of therapy.
Does all this – obvious, I would have thought – really need to be said?
“On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”
Has Spencer published a creationism paper?
“On the other hand i was extremely dissapointed to find out that Dr Spencer believes in creationism without any proof what so ever.”
There are 3 big questions that evolution has yet to answer: how did biological life bootstrap itself from simple chemicals?, thence after, why did single celled bacterial life exist for 3.5 billion years with no evolutionary change until the onset of the cambrian explosion 550 million years ago? and what evolutionary force led to the massive increase in brain size in humans alone? (All other evolutionary developments have ‘fanned out’ into many related animal types, and there is not a single surving species of bipedal ape, despite the obvious advantages).
These questions alone tell us that evolution does not have all the answers and speculations on creationism is perfectly acceptable.
The End Is Far:
Steve, so good to see you re-enter the fray.
Thanks for the reminder, that no matter the initiating event (radiative or conduction), convection is, by far, the dominant heat transport mechanism, until its final radiation to space. GK
Dr. Spencer said:
“…you don’t even have to believe that “clouds can cause climate change” (as I do)…”
____
Not likely. Clouds cannot be a source or forcing agent of climate change, but can only respond via negative or positive feedbacks to climate forcings. Certainly clouds, in all their varities, heights, and locations on earth have both positive and negative feedbacks on climate depending on circumstances. We must look to what causes cloud formation (or prevents it) as the forcing agent or agents to climate change. These real climate forcing agents can be many, and may include at least some of the following:
Volanoes, Milankovitch cycles, intersellar dust & meteors, comets, galactic cosmic rays, anthropogenically initiated increases or decreases in CO2, human activity creating more aersols or other particulates, changes in solar output, changes in earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Clouds react to these forcings, but are not the cause of climate change…i.e. they are a result of or part of the climate change but not the reason for it. Put simply, clouds are part of the weather, and respond to the must longer- term forcings that cause climate change.
But when you say, “clouds can cause climate change” perhaps you are referring simply to the fact that they can display positive feedback to climate forcing initiated by a the real cause of climate change.
To Friends, It is important that we voice our opinions.
For what it is worth I stand by and support Dr Spencers paper purely on the basis of mathematics and physics. His paper is based on verfiable and testable hypothesis. Dr Spencer states what the assumptions are and what the data is. Anyone can check and verify.
In relation to “creationism” Dr Spencer puts forward a concept that is not verifiable or testable. This is not an appropriate position for a scientist. (Newton is known for laws of motion, calculus etc. Those who use the appeal to authority argument, can they please provide any objective evaluation of Newtons work in proving God or creationism?).
We will Prove CAGW wrong by science and not by appeal to Authority.
Dr Spencers paper on modelling to real data variations is science based and stands without any appeal to authority.
thank you.
Nullius in Verba says:
August 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm
To Friends, It is important that we voice our opinions.
For what it is worth I stand by and support Dr Spencers paper purely on the basis of mathematics and physics. His paper is based on verfiable and testable hypothesis. Dr Spencer states what the assumptions are and what the data is. Anyone can check and verify.
In relation to “creationism” Dr Spencer puts forward a concept that is not verifiable or testable. This is not an appropriate position for a scientist.
=======================================================
Friend, it is appropriate. In fact, some posit it is necessary.
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” and, “Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.” ——— Max Planck, recognized as the father of quantum physics.
As you probably know already, I could provide you with as many quotes of scientists attesting their belief in a Creator. As, I imagine, you could provide some attesting their atheism. Nullius, no one will ever prove nor disprove a Creator. But, as to the appropriateness to hold the belief, it seems we can look back and note, many credit their breakthroughs and insights to their faith. We can see that their science was sound and revolutionary. You say it isn’t for scientists to hold? Newton said he wanted to see how God went about things. If he didn’t believe, would he have been so motivated to seek truth? The same holds for countless others. Whether you believe or not, is not pertinent to their discoveries. But, to them, their belief was prime to their endeavors. So, whether we believe or not, I say, Thank God they did!
James Sexton
So lets look at this situation the way a politician might.
Salon spelled your name right.
It was a pretty good photograph of you.
They agree that you are a scientist.
They acknowledge “Remote Sensing” as a Peer reviewed publication.
You are 4 for four. That’s a win in the public eye.
Keep it up!
Dave W – yes Dr Spencer has published but only for creationist websites.
Vince Causey. Thank you for your words. Vince evolution is an explantion of the diversity of organic life we see on our planet. Evolution does not seek to explain the Origins of life (your first question). Second, complexity if a difficult phenomena that requires long time periods to achieve (even with descent with fitness of purpose sieve). Your third question, “human” is a surving bi-pedal ape.
You are partly correct to say that theory’s explaning evolution (as distinct from theory of evolution) like evolution by natural selection, molecular genetics etc have gaps. However we should try to fill these gaps with science, like we are highliting issues with CAGW.
Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.
tthnaks
Nullius in Verba says: “Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.”
Just like AGW-theism.
Jamie says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:47 am
Oh goody. I gots myself an admitted positive atheist.
As near as science can tell the universe started out from an infinitesimally small region of infinitesimally dense energy some 14 billion years ago. Then it unfolded like an origami into galaxies, stars, planets, life, and ultimately you and me.
You think an origami like that could just happen by accident?
You think you can prove it?
For the positive atheist the answer to the first question must be yes. If not then he’s what’s called a “weak atheist” or in more common terms an “agnostic”. That’s me, a weak atheist. If there were an infinite (or practically infinite) number of universes then there would be one of them that happened to be born folded into the shape of ours. If there’s only one universe then the odds against it are prohibitive almost to the point of impossibility. Indeed, the so-called “multiverse” is currently physics best explanation for this with string theory estimated to have 10^500 different solutions where each solution represents a universe with a unique set of physical laws governing its evolution and ultimate fate. The vast majority are stillborn and so far no solution found in that very large set of solutions has yielded a universe remotely like ours.
For the positive atheist the answer to the second question must either be “yes” or he’s clinging to faith in the non-existence of a creator. If yes then I’d love to see the proof and if no then you’re just another believer in things which cannot be proven. A mystic like any other clinging to a belief because it makes you comfortable in some way.
Another point about the nine-out-of-ten-doctors analogy: The “doctors” involved in climatology, and their partisans, display considerably more quackish characteristics than do MDs. E.g., “the messianic delusion” (Mencken), touchy defensiveness, bafflegab, etc.
Nullius in Verba says:
August 2, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“Creationism is not science, so it explains nothing.”
Then by the same token non-creationism is not science and it explains nothing.
Science is the study of the creation (the natural). Theology is the study of the creator (the supernatural) . NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) promoted by one of the 20th century’s greatest paleontologists Stephen J. Gould, should be respected in my opinion to avoid conflict and assinine ad hominem attacks on scientists whose theistic beliefs differ from other scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
NOMA is also the position of the National Academy of Sciences.
Intelligent Design is the study of complexity. It examines means and opportunity and attempts to distinguish between complexity that is a result of natural law and opportunity from those where intelligent agency is involved. A good example is a lottery. If a person buys a lottery ticket one time and wins against odds of a million to one it’s usally attributed to luck. If the same person wins ten lotteries in a row it’s usually attributed to cheating i.e. natural law (odds of winning) were overcome through intelligent agency (cheating) to produce an improbable outcome.
Analogously, for the universe to have produced rational man, was like winning so many lotteries in a row that any rational thinker must conclude that there was cheating involved – the deck was stacked to produce a highly improbable outcome.
Intelligent Design is controversial because it isn’t harmonious with NOMA. It uses evidence obtained from the study of nature, applies mathematics (statistical probability), and comes up with an answer that strongly implies intelligent agency was involved in the origin and evolution of the universe. This lends comfort and support to theistic faiths and does the opposite for atheistic faiths.
As far as the concept of common descent from one or a few universal common ancestors I have no essential objection to it but I would ask, as I ask myself, how does one go about distinguishing between common descent and common design?
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel
Well worth watching the 42 minute video of the conference. Especially Venter who is arguably the most productive researcher today in synthetic biology. Venter is the guy who raced, in a private effort, the U.S. government (The Human Genome Project led by Francis Collins) in fully sequencing the human genome . It came out a tie with both generating the first full sequence simultaneously. The big difference is Collins spent a billion dollars of public money to do it and Venter spent one hundred million of private money to do it.
A great qoute from Venter at about 20 minutes where he talks about atmospheric CO2 becoming the primary building material we’ll be using once we harness the potential of synthetic microorganisms to produce everything from fuel to furniture. I can be found on WUWT and elsewhere saying that before too much longer governments will be regulating how much CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere rather than how much can be added to it.
The first law for Climate scientists:
If the measurements do not fit the model, the measurements must be wrong.
Dave Springer says: …… many things. And the many things were well stated. I’ll be using some of that. Nice job, Dave!
James
James Sexton & Dave Springer,
In a different setting I would love to pursue your dialog on religion vs. science and creationism vs. Darwinism. I will look forward to it, as I’ve already have enjoyed your present dialog.
However, that discussion has nothing to do with Spencer’s paper. So, let’s do your discussion another time in a sole context of the philosophy of science versus theology. I suggest that you please do not mix it with discussion of Spencer’s paper. OK?
John
Dave Springer,
Your argument about probabilities is an interesting one, and I liked your analogy of the lottery winner who wins 10 times. The problem I see with this, though, is that we can measure the probability of winning the lottery but do not know, I think, what is the probability of developing large, complex human brains – that is, with the ability for abstract thought etc.
It is nonetheless interesting to note, that this has happened only once on our planet, whereas all other successful evolutionary solutions inevitably fan out into myriad species. We do not see, for example, only one species of animal that has evolved to fly, much less only one species possessing binoculor vision. Yet there exists only one such brain, and only one surving species of ape that walks on two legs.
G. Karst,
Pleased to see a recognizable and friendly name here! Just started reading WUWT, wish I’d started earlier. I was reading Judith Curry’s site (Climate Etc), abandoned AccuWeather long ago, for a while but she keeps the topic pretty tied to Marketing rather than Science. She of course can refute all NGW Advocates, but she is far too busy. Her students can as well, but they are without names.
Sound voices post there, but she is in no way interested in Science. She is completely absorbed in “The Message” and how to improve it. I got tired of seeing the same old responses “How about using the Scientific Method instead of trying to reword your conclusions that do not come with Methods to repeat.” so I popped in here. Very glad I did.
In any event, glad to see you’re keeping up with things. Looking forward to getting this matter behind us so more important matters such as ending our de facto Slavery can be taken up in ernest.
Life is a Journey and the End is Far . . .
Vince Causey says:
August 3, 2011 at 9:49 am
“It is nonetheless interesting to note, that this has happened only once on our planet, whereas all other successful evolutionary solutions inevitably fan out into myriad species. We do not see, for example, only one species of animal that has evolved to fly, much less only one species possessing binoculor vision. Yet there exists only one such brain, and only one surving species of ape that walks on two legs.”
Thats because the other species that walked on two legs couldn’t fight worth a damn. Same for the mammoths and saber toothed cats. The only other successful pack animals are dogs, and they associated themselves with humans.