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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dessler’s paper seems to be arguing that clouds form only when temperature goes up. If any other process contributed to the formation of clouds, then LC11 and SB11 would be correct. But, according to Dessler, reality is clear and settled and clouds can only form by higher temps.
Does anyone seriously buy that? I don’t think the CERN people do. What about dimethyl sulfide? According to Wikipedia, it forms cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and aids in forming clouds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide Surely there are other CCN forming compounds.
Dessler and his tribe are really losing it.
Clouds could not have changed the climate by much over the 2000-2010 period? And the climate happened to not have changed much in this period. And what is it supposed to mean exactly?
Richy Roo (@RichyRoo2011) says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:58 am
> @Harry Dale Huffman: Your example using the 1000 millibar layer on Venus is compelling, does anyone else have any thoughts on it?
This has been beaten to death many times here. Dr. Huffman’s blog post is merely the best summary and most clearly stated exposition available.
Anthony – okay if I turn Dr Huffman’s account into a WUWT post? It’s been a while since we had a ‘Venus’ article here, and those we have are rather testy. E.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
Dr Huffman – okay if I turn this into a WUWT post? It will probably guarantee you’ll never hear from “Physics Today” but a lot more people will read it.
Oh, so now a decade is too short a time scale to say something about trends in climate. Funny–in Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress, he said a decade was enough. It’s a funny old world.
It would be nice to have a graph (maybe a historgram) of the typical time it takes to get a paper peer reviewed, both for initial papers and for rebuttals and then see where this paper is on the histograms. My guess is that it would be an outlier.
Clouds obviously have a big impact on the climate.
– Net reflection of Sunlight by clouds (Albedo) is something like -58 watts/m2.
– The retention of longwave radiation by clouds (greenhouse effect) is approximately +38 watts/m2.
– So, clouds are a net negative on the order of -20 watts/m2.
– [if the water vapour in the air did not turn into clouds, it would still have a positive longwave forcing (a little less though), so the act of water vapour turning into a cloud is a huge negative to the climate system – more than -50 watts/m2].
– During the day, clouds are much bigger negative forcing (temperature during a cloudy day is a good example) while at night, they will have a slightly positive impact (cloudy nights for example).
————
In global warming theory, clouds are assumed to be a positive feedback of about 25% (+1 watt/m2) compared to the impact of CO2/GHGs (+4.0 watt/m2). Water vapour provides another 50% (+2 watts/m2).
– So water vapour goes up, cloud formation must go down (even though they simultaneously say that clouds will increase by 2% to 7% per 1C increase in temperatures). This theory just cannot make up their minds except that doubled CO2 must be +3.0C. Nothing else has any impact.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-8-14.html
————
Dessler’s paper appears to be very similar to Spencer’s. Typical of climate science papers, it is difficult to see what was done and the data results are opposite to the claims made and are much like Spencer’s. More to do.
OK, here’s my take:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/desslers-spencer-rebuttal-scuttled/
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2011 at 1:12 am
Accepted aug 29.
…
heck this paper got written, submitted, reviewed and accepted faster than 50% of papers
wait to get their first response.
Now thats what I call feedback.
OK , I got a first look a Dessler’s paper the open line is this:
>>
LC11 (their Eq. 8) and SB11 (their Eq. 1) both write the Earth’s energy budget as:
Energy budget calculation
C.dTs/dt = ∆Rcloud + ∆Focean − λ∆Ts
>>
This is a totally false claim. This is NOT what Lindzen or Spencer et al wrote. I have both of those papers.
So that is the bottom line, he is falsely attributing something to those authors and then disproving it. This is an academic straw man. It is very surprising that none of the peer reviewers picked this up. “Probably” the reviewers shared certain political beliefs with Dessler.
I presume we will shortly be seeing the editor-in-chief of GRL fall on his sword.
It is really astonishing to read the preprint. It uses only two figures to “beat down” two heavy weight papers of Lindzen and Choi (2010) and Spencer and Braswell (2011)! The subtitles of the sections reveal what is the underlying methodology: “Comparison with models: LC11”, “Comparison with models: SB11”. To check observation-based study using models! In other words, we live in models instead of real world!
GRL used to be hesitant to publish such blatantly ugly papers, e.g. Ammann and Wahl’s attack on the classic McIntyre and McKitrick (2005). But after 6 years and especially after Climategate, it seems things are becoming worse. The Team are already mad. Insane. I wish Lindzen and Spencer teams could fight back, just as McIntyre has been doing through the years.
I wonder who peer-reviewed this.
Conclusion: clouds don’t, but clouds do.
Fine by me, because this paper continues the debate but does not end it.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 6, 2011 at 5:03 am
Dr. Leif, you ARE joking, right?
Now will S&B be allowed to rebut at GRL in detail???
Andrew Dessler: clouds don’t reflect light
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/andrew-dessler-clouds-dont-reflect.html#more
I refuse to comment on the details of papers sent to journals that childishly hide them behind paywalls. It’s like commenting on the color and fit of someone’s underwear. Let those that walk around showing their underwear at the journal’s headquarters talk amongst themselves.
That said, if these same people are called to testify at governmental committee meetings meant to impose a tax on me, my elected representatives had better be placing their work in the public record.
from Tallblokes post:
I see Lubos Motl has also made a critique of Dessler’s paper, far more amusing than my own:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/andrew-dessler-clouds-dont-reflect.html
According to Moti Dressler completely ignores the fairly basic phenomenon of relfection from clouds, and proceeds as though clouds only act to trap heat.
According to
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2011 at 5:03 am
Sometimes GRL can be really fast:
2011GL049472
Manuscript Accepted 2011-08-29 10:00:18
Manuscript Ready for Production 2011-08-29 09:55:34
Decision Made 2011-08-29 09:54:55
With Editor for Decision 2011-08-29 09:53:15
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2011-08-29 09:43:37
Initial Quality Control Complete 2011-08-29 09:43:36
Initial Quality Control Started 2011-08-29 09:36:13
Author Approved Converted Files 2011-08-29 09:36:12
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2011-08-29 09:17:37
🙂
Ok Leif, if that was a joke I’m dense, but have GRL seriously plublished a paper with a 45 minute turnaround which fails to recognise the existance of relfection?
This is proper grounds for an editor to resign in shame and I suggest, if these things are true, that everyone write a polite email to the editor in chief:
Eric Calais, Editor in Chief
Purdue University, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
CIVIL 1397, 300 Forest Hill
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Phone: +1 765-496-2915
E-mail: grl@purdue.edu
Research Interests: Geodynamics of Tectonic processes
at plate boundaries and in plate interiors
Not surprising Dressler did it in record time. He had $150,218 of NSF money to hustle it through.
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1012665
Another unnerving issue is this use of the grant money: “In addition, the work will support and train a graduate student, thereby promoting the next generation of scientists.”
You might liken it to training the next generation of shoplifters, on the taxpayer’s dime.
tallbloke says:
September 6, 2011 at 6:08 am
Excellent points, tallbloke–everybody should take note. I particularly like your link to Lubos Motl, wherein you say:
It boils down to the fact that they always rely on MAGIC:
“My Argument’s Gotta Incluce CO2”
Talk about epic fail!
Dressler: “(SB and LC) …have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature.”
I always look for the ‘exaggeration tell’ in such a debate. This statement gives the incorrect impression that SB and LC don’t accept any CO2 warming. The authors are actually arguing that climate sensitivity is reduced by the cloud effects. A number of post-climategate papers have argued from the effects of clouds and other observations that climate sensitivity is much lower (0.5 to 1C) than the IPCC figures (1.5 to 4.5 [I believe]) and the IPCC itself has in earlier iterations also estimated lower sensitivity than their present ones. They also have, in the past pointed out that the effect of clouds is not understood and generally they have been put forward as positive feedback objects. Also, until Svensmark et al and CERN, clouds were thought to be one-to-one responses to the temperature/moisture/terrestrial aerosol regime. Now if it can also come from outer space, then whatever the feedback, it has to diminish the role of CO2 to some degree.
This seems to be a manufactured outrage. I think that perhaps you’re making a big deal of this “news story” in order to focus attention away from other things — perhaps the disappearance of arctic ice, which puzzlingly seems to have surprised you.
Of course science is biased between supporting and contradicting evidence. This is the way it must be, because supporting evidence rarely proves or confirms a theory, while contradictory evidence can destroy a theory. Thus, contradictory evidence tends to be treated more seriously, is more important and scrutinized, and will have a greater impact if accepted. If any one paper was as decisive in support of AGW, it would receive as much attention. But papers don’t tend to be decisive when they agree with previously accepted science.
You can see the same bias on this site. This site is interested in opinions against global warming, and it need not give equal time to each piece of the overwhelming evidence confirming global warming. And it doesn’t need to. If you could disprove that global warming is happening or man-made, all of that evidence which says it is, wouldn’t matter.
Trenberth attacked Spencer-Braswell here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/
That quote, “Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results. ” was a real red flag.
I figure that temperature affects clouds, but clouds also affect temperature. I immediately thought of Lotka’s predator prey model, where in an oscillating system, the number of prey affects the growth of the predator population- more prey supports more predators. As predators increase in numbers, the prey population starts to fall, which in turn reduces the predator population, etc. Depending on the figures used, you can get oscillations rather than convergence to a constant number of predators and prey.
See
http://home.comcast.net/~sharov/PopEcol/lec10/fullmod.html
I see the predator prey model has also occurred to climatologists
http://www.dailycamera.com/science-environment/ci_18648011
“NOAA: Predator-prey model explains how rain can feast on clouds
Model is a simpler way to view cloud-rain interactions, say Boulder and Israel researchers
By Laura Snider Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 08/09/2011 05:18:15 PM MDT
Hungry rains devour clouds in a pattern that’s similar to the way foxes prey on rabbits, according to a new study by a Boulder researcher.
When rabbit populations flourish, the number of foxes also begins to increase. The boom in foxes eventually causes a decline in the number of rabbits, which in turn, results in a decrease in the fox population. This oscillation in predator-prey numbers — with the predator’s peak lagging slightly behind the prey’s peak — is described by a mathematical equation known as the Lotka-Volterra model.
In study published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Graham Feingold, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, and Ilan Koren, of the Wiezmann Institute of Science in Israel, showed that the relationship between cloud formation and rain can also be described using the simple predator-prey population model. ”
I suppose with the comparison between Spencer-Braswell and Feingold-Koren, Feingold and Koren will also now be written off as climate “deniers”.
What Spencer and Braswell actually SAID seems trivially obvious:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Abstract:” The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations”
They didn’t say temperature is determined by random variations in clouds, sot Dessler seems to be attacking a straw man..
“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.”
They stated that cloud feedbacks are being ignored by climate modelers. The models get unrealistically high sensitivity for feedback by assuming NO delays in negative feedback from clouds.
. If predators and prey oscillate just slightly out of phase with each other, you’ll get a positive correlation between predators and prey, or temperature and clouds. You might jump to the erroneous conclusion that there’s a positive correlation between prey and predators- the more wolves you get, the more sheep you’ll get or the warmer you get the more clouds you get. In fact, results are the opposite. The more wolves you have the fewer sheep you’ll get, the more clouds you have the less warming you’ll get.
The use of the terms “forcing” and “feedback” with respect to the effect of clouds on energy transfer rates are missleading. A better model would be to consider them as a resistance that slows the rate of transfer. Global climate models that are based on long term averages will never be able to explain the physical realities we observe every day. While Spencer and Braswell’s paper may have errors, it demonstrates this basic fact. I’m looking forward to published responses on both sides. It will be interesting to tract the timing and journal that publishes them.
I cannot believe it got published.
Fog, a cloud at ground level, typically forms diurnally as atmospheric temperature near the surface falls through the dew point, precipitating water vapour and small droplets. If you are in San Francisco, the fog efficiently insulates the surface from heating and blocking convection, and it stays damp and foggy all day. Under Dressler’s principle, a marine layer temperature inversion should be cloudless, as there is no radiant forcing to create the clouds.