UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has a comment on the paper here: Comments On The Dessler 2011 GRL Paper “Cloud Variations And The Earth’s Energy Budget also, physicist Lubos Motl has an analysis here. The press release from TAMU/Dessler has been pushed to media outlets on Eurekalert, see update below.
UPDATE2: Dessler has made a video on the paper see it here And Steve McIntyre has his take on it with The stone in Trenberth’s shoe
I’ve been given an advance copy, for which I’ve posted excerpts below. This paper appears to have been made ready in record time, with a turnaround from submission to acceptance and publication of about six weeks based on the July 26th publication date of the original Spencer and Braswell paper. We should all be so lucky to have expedited peer review service. PeerEx maybe, something like FedEx? Compare that to the two years it took to get Lindzen and Choi out the door. Or how about the WUWT story: “Science has been sitting on his [Spencer’s] critique of Dessler’s paper for months”.
If anyone needs a clear, concise, and irrefutable example of how peer review in climate science is biased for the consensus and against skeptics, this is it.
I’m sure some thorough examination will determine if the maxim “haste makes waste” applies here for Dessler’s turbo treatise.
Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget
A.E. Dessler
Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Abstract: The question of whether clouds are the cause of surface temperature changes, rather than acting as a feedback in response to those temperature changes, is explored using data obtained between 2000 and 2010. An energy budget calculation shows that the energy trapped by clouds accounts for little of the observed climate variations. And observations of the lagged response of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) energy fluxes to surface temperature variations are not evidence that clouds are causing climate change.
Introduction
The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change [e.g., Stephens, 2005]. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereafter SB11] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.
…
Conclusions
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade (over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming). Rather, the evolution of the surface and atmosphere during ENSO variations are dominated by oceanic heat transport. This means in turn that regressions of TOA fluxes vs. ΔTs can be used to accurately estimate climate sensitivity or the magnitude of climate feedbacks. In addition, observations presented by LC11 and SB11 are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by NSF grant AGS-1012665 to Texas A&M University. I thank A. Evan, J. Fasullo, D. Murphy, K. Trenberth, M. Zelinka, and A.J. Dessler for useful comments.
h/t to Marc Hendrickx
=============================================================
UPDATE: Here is the press release from Texas A&M via Eurekalert:
Texas A&M prof says study shows that clouds don’t cause climate change
COLLEGE STATION, Sept. 6, 2011 — Clouds only amplify climate change, says a Texas A&M University professor in a study that rebuts recent claims that clouds are actually the root cause of climate change.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor considered one of the nation’s experts on climate variations, says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that clouds are primarily acting as a so-called “feedback” that amplifies warming from human activity. His work is published today in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Dessler studied El Niño and La Niña cycles over the past 10 years and calculated the Earth’s “energy budget” over this time. El Nino and La Nina are cyclical events, roughly every five years, when waters in the central Pacific Ocean tend to get warmer or colder. These changes have a huge impact on much of the world’s weather systems for months or even years.
Dessler found that clouds played a very small role in initiating these climate variations — in agreement, he says, with mainstream climate science and in direct opposition to some previous claims.
“The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing,” Dessler says.
Texas is currently in one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, and most scientists believe it is a direct result of La Niña conditions that have lingered in the Pacific Ocean for many months.
Dessler adds, “Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change.”
“I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change,” he adds.
For more information about Dessler’s research, go to http://goo.gl/zFJmt
About Research at Texas A&M University:
As one of the world’s leading research institutions, Texas A&M is in the vanguard in making significant contributions to the storehouse of knowledge, including that of science and technology. Research conducted at Texas A&M represents an annual investment of more than $630 million, which ranks third nationally for universities without a medical school, and underwrites approximately 3,500 sponsored projects. That research creates new knowledge that provides basic, fundamental and applied contributions resulting in many cases in economic benefits to the state, nation and world.
I was only able to read the first 150 or so posts, so if you already mentioned this; forget about mine.
Various sources assert that the average global cloud cover is about 61%. well the exact number doesn’t matter so let’s assume that is true.
Then the question to be adressed, and researched, experimentally, and theoretically, is simply this.
If the average global cloud cover should increase to 62% for the next 30, 60, 90 years or so, will the earth get warmer, or cooler, as a result of that change ?? What if the average cloud cover should drop to 60% for the next 30, 60, 90 years or so; will the earth get warmer or cooler as a result ??
So can we stop talking about last night’s weather, and focus on the crux of the issue; which is a climatically significant period of cloud change, and its consequence.
I haven’t done either experiment; but I am quite sure beyond any reasonable doubt, that in the first case, it will get cooler, and in the second it will get warmer.
But I am open to any Physical theory proof (or experiment) , that my conclusions are wrong.
I agree with Lobos Motl, that Desslers paper in total confirms Spencer’s figure 3, even if he chooses the best fitting model curve and replaces the most widely used Hadcrut3 temperature data with some other tweaked set. So there is not much to be learned from his reply.
I do wonder however, what is going on at Texas A&M University, home not only of Dessler but also Gary North, enabler of Michael Mann, and contributor to at least 2 failed inquiries.
Dessler writes in his book:
“There are few qualified atmospheric scientists who would argue with the assessment in the book. And there are none in Texas. Attempts over the last few years to stage a debate in Texas about the science of climate change have required flying a skeptic in from out of state.
In one case, they had to import one from Canada.”
That sounds like a very rare statistic. How would a student asking a sceptical question be treated at A&M ?
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/07/andrew-dessler-texas-is-vulnerable-to.html
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/texas-am-professor-misrepresents-us-emissions-during-global-warming-debate
10 years ago this coming Sunday (9/11) a tragedy befell The United States of America. I remember the lack of contrails in the sky for a few days. I remember reading that Phoenix, AZ was suddenly warmer by a few degrees during those days that the airplanes were missing from the sky. Made sense to me then, still makes sense today. The tower of Mann is falling and the tower of Trenberth is collapsing as well. The past 10 years have been a tragedy of the greatest magnitude for our country and also for science.
MikeN says:
September 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Where does Dessler’s paper say no warming over the past 10 years?
———–
Good point. The only thing I have seen in the paper is this statement in the conclusion which makes no reference to the past decades overall temperature trend, only that clouds have not caused “significant” climate change.
———–
“Conclusion:
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade (over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming).”
————
This sentence confuses me though. It states, rather offhandedly, that clouds can cause significant long term warming.
Can anyone tell me how? Either that means there is a measurable increase in total cloud cover (at what point does the LWR fail to beat out the reflected SWR?) or the clouds must contribute to some as yet identified accumulation of heat. Also if clouds contribute a multi-decadal warming trend, is this a forcing or just a positive feedback loop?
Or is one mans forcing just another mans feedback?
The modelling community has budgets. They are trying to upheld their momentum. Thats my conclusion here. It is nice that money is put into computers, at least if it results in wheather predictions more than 3-4 days ahead.
But that is where it stands today. Maybe it is time to spend more of the money-bag on experimental physics and sensors.
I like the ending of this article here;
“On that point, Mr. Kirkby—whose organization is controlled by not one but 20 governments—really does not want to discuss politics at all: “I’m an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth’s atmosphere—that’s what nature may have done, not what I’ve done.””
Here;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576554063768827104.html
Actually cloud cover is a positive feedback during the night time. So is the claim that night time temperatures are higher on average due to GCR? Correct me if I’m wrong here but isn’t the actual GCR effect (cloud formation) more prevalent at night when that part of the Earth is faced away from the Sun, i.e. Sun not blocking cosmic rays due to line of sight in addition to the solar wind?
Wouldn’t GCR induced cloud cover act to lower daytime temps (negative feedback) just as it would increase night time temps (positive feedback)? Thus we would expect to see the diurinal temp difference to get smaller during high GCR periods. Is this happening?
George E Smith;
I think your example is too simple. Anyone from a high latitude climate can tell you from direct experience that cloud cover in the dead of winter has a pronounced warming effect, and that cloud cover at the height of summer has a pronounced cooling effect. It isn’t a matter of total cloud cover alone, it is also a matter of distribution over the seasons.
KevinK says:
September 6, 2011 at 9:46 pm
There are many reasons why we MAY never be able to model the weather (I know weather is not the same thing as climate; “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”). Included in this is the imprecise knowledge of the initial conditions of the modeled system. Also included in this (although totally ignored by the “climate scientists”) is the ever expanding width of the “error bars” as the model progresses forward in time.
I am not as pessimistic on the possibility of modelling climate. Have you looked at the Tsonis et al modelling using a neural net to simulate a chaotic system ?
Instead of taking the first order of the expansion in solutions of differential equations and using them in a digital model, which means fitting many parameters and large errors, as you point out, as time steps grow, one can use such a technique as above.
Ideally I would use an analogue computer: In analogue computing one introduces the differential equations themselves and lets the circuits fight out which solutions predominate, beats and all.
SethP, MikeN
Desller’s paper doesn’t say that there has been no warming over the last ten years. What it does say is that it draws its conclusions from data between 1998 and 2008. During this time period, there has been no significant warming, a point which comes not from Dessler’s paper, but from many, many others, including Phil Jones, former Captain of the Team, and he said exactly that in public testimony while being questioned in regard to ClimateGate.
Dessler’s paper concludes that there is no change by examining a time period during which it was known in advance that no change occurred. I’d call it cherry picking, but the point that Dessler chose a time period during which no temperature change occurred, to defend computer models which repeatedly predicted major temp increases for that time period…nay! INCREASINGLY ACCELERATED temp increases, is just too sweet to pass up.
SethP says:
September 6, 2011 at 10:18 pm
MikeN says:
September 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Where does Dessler’s paper say no warming over the past 10 years?
———–
Good point. The only thing I have seen in the paper is this statement in the conclusion which makes no reference to the past decades overall temperature trend, only that clouds have not caused “significant” climate change.
===========================================================
Fellows, the time period used was 2000-2010 I believe HadCrut3 was used. That time period had less than 0.03° C in temp change.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
So, yes, the time period given temps didn’t change……. the question is, did temps not change for no reason, or did clouds mitigate the effects of CO2 and other GHGs? Or, was that only part of the equation and there were other factors as well?
I think i’ve figured this out now-
AR5 is coming.
the centerpiece is the CGI provided by the team. (they can’t use polar bears or himalayan glaciers or tuvalu)
they are desperate to keep people on board because climategate started some critical examination that can only expose more and worse.
I think they feel this is their last chance. They’ve pulled out the stops – they are in a position where they either win or crash in flames.
they must keep up the appearance of worshipful unanimity – even as ‘rats’ (like JC) leave the ship.
anything that rattles credulity in the narrative is an existential threat, to them.
it’l last call for kool-aid at the guyana compound, I think.
SethP, MikeN
I just realised that in my summary above (12:52pm), I did in fact claim that Dessler’s paper stated that there had been no warming during the time period when it didn’t. My mistake.
See how easy it is to admit a mistake when you aren’t trying to defend a foregone conclusion?
Dessler’s paper finds no significant change from cloud cover during a time period during which there was…. no significant change of any sort. What else would they have expected to find?
Not entirely on-topic, but still to do with clouds.
Recently during a long intercontinental flight I was gazing in contemplation down on a pretty vast cloudbank, all the way to horizons, quite high I suppose, but I had no way of estimating the height. It was brilliant white, all those reflected photons. Then it seemed to me that the reflecting surface was strikingly FRACTAL.
Is it my imagination, or has anyone else noticed this? There are many meteorologists who read this site. Has this been noticed before and, if so, is there an explanation?
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2011 at 11:36 am
One thing of note: SB11 did apparently play some games with selecting which model results to show. That was a mistake on my view.
Steve M comments that he isn’t sufficiently acquainted with the models to decide if the ones Dessler prefers are being preferred ‘for the right reasons’. Either way, the Fig 2 of Dessler’s paper shows considerable difference between his preferred models and the empirical data. Especially the HADcruT data as used by S&B.
So it comes down to ‘how much difference does there have to be for it to be important’?
I suspect Lindzen, Choi, Spencer and Braswell will be working on that.
Anthony – what your readers really want to know is:
Did you get any of those holiday weekend chores done?
All the best.
Ah, I see the “team” can rest and relax as “Skeptical Science” has put up their rock salt validation of Desslers new D11 paper in a comment on Spencers blog site. I say “Rock Salt” as nothing else is so robust at confirming to the thinking world that the science they endorse is neither robust or rock solid. Such is their perverted view of climate science.!!
Water planet, viewed from space
Like a snapshot from the gods,
A shimmering orb
Netted in a cloud haze.
IPCC models all assume positive overall feedbacks from water on Earth (water vapor, clouds, lapse rate etc.). However, this is incompatible with the Faint Sun Paradox. If it were true that the Ocean’s response to increased radiative forcing (as the sun brightens) is to enhance further greenhouse warming (positive feedback) then we would not be here today to even ask such questions. For more details see : http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2678
On the one hand these people claim that “These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade” And on the other (in general terms) they claim that Climate change is accelerating.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm Which is it? And they then wonder why people do not believe them?
Argument from the warmists in a nut shell;
Cloud variation makes clmate warmer.
Only CO2 changes clouds.
From Desslers conclusion, “These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade…”
Now let me get this straight. Assuming he means “climate change” to mean “global warming”, Dessler is claiming that clouds are definitely NOT responsible for something that didn’t happen?
This is in addition to his assertion that clouds can only trap heat, never reflect it. And here was me thinking they were white.
Why cant an interested third party do what Dessler should have done, that is submit a reply to RS that incorporates and references his GRL paper?
&
Shrug. What neither side, in Spencer v Bressler arguments, is addressing is the missing heat coming from the Sun in longwave thermal infrared direct to the surface of the Earth, downwelling direct from the Sun, (it’s the invisible heat we feel from the Sun, so it does bloody well reach the surface*), and how much of that is caught up in the atmosphere by water vapour and clouds on the way down direct from the Sun. Ergo, the “system” defined as premise to this argument is already physical nonsense.
So, this argument (Spencer v Dressler), is first of all based on nonsense physical reality re the claim that ‘there is no heat from the Sun warming the Earth’, and add to that, what the heck has shortwave from the Sun, which is Light, a non-thermal energy of the Sun, got to do with the amount of thermal infrared radiated up, upwelling, from the Earth?? What???! Light does not heat the Earth’s oceans and land, Heat does. Heat from the Sun is longwave thermal infrared.
This is all just ‘playing with numbers’ without any physical basis to the claims for each, shortwave and thermal longwave, in the scenario being argued about, by ‘correlating’ illogical properties and effects to temperatures. GIGO.
Until the real heat energy from the Sun is included in the direct downwelling the “system” is make-believe.
To make this perfectly clear: there is no logical connection in these arguments between the Light from the Sun’s energy and the Heat upwelling from the Earth from heated land and oceans, since the first cannot produce the second.
If you’re going to start with a premise (the AGWScience Fiction energy budget KT97), which overturns traditional science, then bloody well prove that Light from the Sun converts land and oceans to heat and Heat direct from the Sun has nothing to do with it.
* Traditional Science hasn’t been falsified by AGWScience Fiction claims that Light is Heat and that thermal longwave radiation doesn’t reach us from the Sun, which is the premise of these Spencer/Bressler arguments:
The invisible longwave radiation is the thermal infrared Heat energy from the Sun we feel directly on the surface of the Earth. We cannot feel shortwave energies, UV/Visible/Shortwave IR, they are not thermal, they are not hot. It’s the hot energy of the Sun which creates them, not the other way around. They, Light, Visible, are not the invisible Heat energy from the Sun to us on Earth.
& from the beginnings of knowledge about this:
Until traditional physics re Heat and Light energies from the Sun is falsified, all these arguments are based solely on bullfiction.
You can’t have thermal infrared only in upwelling from Earth warming the atmosphere while excluding it in the downwelling direct from the Sun.
You can’t have any relationship to Light energies from the Sun heating the Earth’s oceans and land to produce the amount of thermal infrared upwelling claimed, until you can prove that Light energies actually do this. The Sun is not a laser.
A. Heat is transmitted through conduction, convection, and radiation. The heat that reaches us from the Sun is infrared radiation, which travels at the speed of light. So, it takes about 8 minutes for it to reach Earth from the Sun.
Dr. Louis Barbier
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade
You can go further than that.
Nothing caused significant climate change over the last decade. There hasn’t been any significant climate change over the last decade. The trend is as flat as a pancake.
LevelGaze says:
September 7, 2011 at 12:32 am
Not entirely on-topic, but still to do with clouds.
Recently during a long intercontinental flight I was gazing in contemplation down on a pretty vast cloudbank, all the way to horizons, quite high I suppose, but I had no way of estimating the height. It was brilliant white, all those reflected photons. Then it seemed to me that the reflecting surface was strikingly FRACTAL.
Is it my imagination, or has anyone else noticed this? There are many meteorologists who read this site. Has this been noticed before and, if so, is there an explanation?
Yes it has been noticed and commented on.
Google: Fractal Clouds meteorology