NOTE: This post is important, so I’m going to sticky it at the top for quite a while. I’ve created a page for all Spencer and Braswell/Dessler related posts, since they are becoming numerous and popular to free up the top post sections of WUWT.
UPDATE: Dr. Spencer writes: I have been contacted by Andy Dessler, who is now examining my calculations, and we are working to resolve a remaining difference there. Also, apparently his paper has not been officially published, and so he says he will change the galley proofs as a result of my blog post; here is his message:
“I’m happy to change the introductory paragraph of my paper when I get the galley proofs to better represent your views. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Also, I’ll be changing the sentence “over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming” to make it clear that I’m talking about cloud feedbacks doing the action here, not cloud forcing.”
[Dessler may need to make other changes, it appears Steve McIntyre has found some flaws related to how the CERES data was combined: http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/08/more-on-dessler-2010/
As I said before in my first post on Dessler’s paper, it remains to be seen if “haste makes waste”. It appears it does. -Anthony]
Update #2 (Sept. 8, 2011): Spencer adds: I have made several updates as a result of correspondence with Dessler, which will appear underlined, below. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it was our Remote Sensing paper that should not have passed peer review (as Trenberth has alleged), or Dessler’s paper meant to refute our paper.
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
While we have had only one day to examine Andy Dessler’s new paper in GRL, I do have some initial reaction and calculations to share. At this point, it looks quite likely we will be responding to it with our own journal submission… although I doubt we will get the fast-track, red carpet treatment he got.
There are a few positive things in this new paper which make me feel like we are at least beginning to talk the same language in this debate (part of The Good). But, I believe I can already demonstrate some of The Bad, for example, showing Dessler is off by about a factor of 10 in one of his central calculations.
Finally, Dessler must be called out on The Ugly things he put in the paper.
(which he has now agreed to change).
1. THE GOOD
Estimating the Errors in Climate Feedback Diagnosis from Satellite Data
We are pleased that Dessler now accepts that there is at least the *potential* of a problem in diagnosing radiative feedbacks in the climate system *if* non-feedback cloud variations were to cause temperature variations. It looks like he understands the simple-forcing-feedback equation we used to address the issue (some quibbles over the equation terms aside), as well as the ratio we introduced to estimate the level of contamination of feedback estimates. This is indeed progress.
He adds a new way to estimate that ratio, and gets a number which — if accurate — would indeed suggest little contamination of feedback estimates from satellite data. This is very useful, because we can now talk about numbers and how good various estimates are, rather than responding to hand waving arguments over whether “clouds cause El Nino” or other red herrings. I have what I believe to be good evidence that his calculation, though, is off by a factor of 10 or so. More on that under THE BAD, below.
Comparisons of Satellite Measurements to Climate Models
Figure 2 in his paper, we believe, helps make our point for us: there is a substantial difference between the satellite measurements and the climate models. He tries to minimize the discrepancy by putting 2-sigma error bounds on the plots and claiming the satellite data are not necessarily inconsistent with the models.
But this is NOT the same as saying the satellite data SUPPORT the models. After all, the IPCC’s best estimate projections of future warming from a doubling of CO2 (3 deg. C) is almost exactly the average of all of the models sensitivities! So, when the satellite observations do depart substantially from the average behavior of the models, this raises an obvious red flag.
Massive changes in the global economy based upon energy policy are not going to happen, if the best the modelers can do is claim that our observations of the climate system are not necessarily inconsistent with the models.
(BTW, a plot of all of the models, which so many people have been clamoring for, will be provided in The Ugly, below.)
2. THE BAD
The Energy Budget Estimate of How Much Clouds Cause Temperature Change
While I believe he gets a “bad” number, this is the most interesting and most useful part of Dessler’s paper. He basically uses the terms in the forcing-feedback equation we use (which is based upon basic energy budget considerations) to claim that the energy required to cause changes in the global-average ocean mixed layer temperature are far too large to be caused by variations in the radiative input into the ocean brought about by cloud variations (my wording).
He gets a ratio of about 20:1 for non-radiatively forced (i.e. non-cloud) temperature changes versus radiatively (mostly cloud) forced variations. If that 20:1 number is indeed good, then we would have to agree this is strong evidence against our view that a significant part of temperature variations are radiatively forced. (It looks like Andy will be revising this downward, although it’s not clear by how much because his paper is ambiguous about how he computed and then combined the radiative terms in the equation, below.)
But the numbers he uses to do this, however, are quite suspect. Dessler uses NONE of the 3 most direct estimates that most researchers would use for the various terms. (A clarification on this appears below) Why? I know we won’t be so crass as to claim in our next peer-reviewed publication (as he did in his, see The Ugly, below) that he picked certain datasets because they best supported his hypothesis.
The following graphic shows the relevant equation, and the numbers he should have used since they are the best and most direct observational estimates we have of the pertinent quantities. I invite the more technically inclined to examine this. For those geeks with calculators following along at home, you can run the numbers yourself:
Here I went ahead and used Dessler’s assumed 100 meter depth for the ocean mixed layer, rather than the 25 meter depth we used in our last paper. (It now appears that Dessler will be using a 700 m depth, a number which was not mentioned in his preprint. I invite you to read his preprint and decide whether he is now changing from 100 m to 700 m as a result of issues I have raised here. It really is not obvious from his paper what he used).
Using the above equation, if I assumed a feedback parameter λ=3 Watts per sq. meter per degree, that 20:1 ratio Dessler gets becomes 2.2:1. If I use a feedback parameter of λ=6, then the ratio becomes 1.7:1. This is basically an order of magnitude difference from his calculation.
Again I ask: why did Dessler choose to NOT use the 3 most obvious and best sources of data to evaluate the terms in the above equation?:
(1) Levitus for observed changes in the ocean mixed layer temperature; (it now appears he will be using a number consistent with the Levitus 0-700 m layer).
(2) CERES Net radiative flux for the total of the 2 radiative terms in the above equation, and (this looks like it could be a minor source of difference, except it appears he put all of his Rcld variability in the radiative forcing term, which he claims helps our position, but running the numbers will reveal the opposite is true since his Rcld actually contains both forcing and feedback components which partially offset each other.)
(3): HadSST for sea surface temperature variations. (this will likely be the smallest source of difference)
The Use of AMIP Models to Claim our Lag Correlations Were Spurious
I will admit, this was pretty clever…but at this early stage I believe it is a red herring.
Dessler’s Fig. 1 shows lag correlation coefficients that, I admit, do look kind of like the ones we got from satellite (and CMIP climate model) data. The claim is that since the AMIP model runs do not allow clouds to cause surface temperature changes, this means the lag correlation structures we published are not evidence of clouds causing temperature change.
Following are the first two objections which immediately come to my mind:
1) Imagine (I’m again talking mostly to you geeks out there) a time series of temperature represented by a sine wave, and then a lagged feedback response represented by another sine wave. If you then calculate regression coefficients between those 2 time series at different time leads and lags (try this in Excel if you want), you will indeed get a lag correlation structure we see in the satellite data.
But look at what Dessler has done: he has used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature! While I will have to think about this some more, it smacks of circular reasoning. He could have more easily demonstrated it with my 2 sine waves example.
Assuming there is causation in only one direction to produce evidence there is causation in only one direction seems, at best, a little weak.
2) In the process, though, what does his Fig. 1 show that is significant to feedback diagnosis, if we accept that all of the radiative variations are, as Dessler claims, feedback-induced? Exactly what the new paper by Lindzen and Choi (2011) explores: that there is some evidence of a lagged response of radiative feedback to a temperature change.
And, if this is the case, then why isn’t Dr. Dessler doing his regression-based estimates of feedback at the time lag or maximum response? Steve McIntyre, who I have provided the data to for him to explore, is also examining this as one of several statistical issues. So, Dessler’s Fig. 1 actually raises a critical issue in feedback diagnosis he has yet to address.
3. THE UGLY
(MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THESE OBJECTIONS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN DESSLER’S UPDATE OF HIS PAPER BEFORE PUBLICATION)
The new paper contains a few statements which the reviewers should not have allowed to be published because they either completely misrepresent our position, or accuse us of cherry picking (which is easy to disprove).
Misrepresentation of Our Position
Quoting Dessler’s paper, from the Introduction:
“Introduction
The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback… …In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011] and Spencer and Braswell [2011] 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.”
But we have never claimed anything like “clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature”! We claim causation works in BOTH directions, not just one direction (feedback) as he claims. Dr. Dessler knows this very well, and I would like to know
1) what he was trying to accomplish by such a blatant misrepresentation of our position, and
2) how did all of the peer reviewers of the paper, who (if they are competent) should be familiar with our work, allow such a statement to stand?
Cherry picking of the Climate Models We Used for Comparison
This claim has been floating around the blogosphere ever since our paper was published. To quote Dessler:
“SB11 analyzed 14 models, but they plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. “
How is picking the 3 most sensitive models AND the 3 least sensitive models going to “provide maximum support for (our) hypothesis”? If I had picked ONLY the 3 most sensitive, or ONLY the 3 least sensitive, that might be cherry picking…depending upon what was being demonstrated. And where is the evidence those 6 models produce the best support for our hypothesis?
I would have had to run hundreds of combinations of the 14 models to accomplish that. Is that what Dr. Dessler is accusing us of?
Instead, the point was to show that the full range of climate sensitivities represented by the least and most sensitive of the 14 models show average behavior that is inconsistent with the observations. Remember, the IPCC’s best estimate of 3 deg. C warming is almost exactly the warming produced by averaging the full range of its models’ sensitivities together. The satellite data depart substantially from that. I think inspection of Dessler’s Fig. 2 supports my point.
But, since so many people are wondering about the 8 models I left out, here are all 14 of the models’ separate results, in their full, individual glory:
I STILL claim there is a large discrepancy between the satellite observations and the behavior of the models.
CONCLUSION
These are my comments and views after having only 1 day since we received the new paper. It will take weeks, at a minimum, to further explore all of the issues raised by Dessler (2011).
Based upon the evidence above, I would say we are indeed going to respond with a journal submission to answer Dessler’s claims. I hope that GRL will offer us as rapid a turnaround as Dessler got in the peer review process. Feel free to take bets on that. 
And, to end on a little lighter note, we were quite surprised to see this statement in Dessler’s paper in the Conclusions (italics are mine):
“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).”
Long term climate change can be caused by clouds??! Well, maybe Andy is finally seeing the light! 
(Nope. It turns out he meant ” *RADIATIVE FEEDBACK DUE TO* clouds can indeed cause significant warming”. An obvious, minor typo. My bad.)
@Dale Rainwater Spencer
Perhaps there is no option but to, in your rebuttal, do the mountains of work to use all of the additional 8 models. Once you have used all 14 models there can be no cherry picking arguments whatsoever. It’s a long road but perhaps worth it.
@KR – I played with the svensmark idea and got quite good correlation to temperature changes. If you use a proxy like neutron count data which goes back to the 50s with a threshold value where above this threshold neutron count value you get cooling (I developed an equation for the magnitude of warming/cooling) and below it you get warming in a similar fashion (lets call it delta N from threshold) then correlation is good with global avg temperature. The relationship breaks in the mid 90s (pinatubo cooling) and most recently it is predicting that we should be cooling since 2005 but temp is flat… Its a very simplistic model that is not worthy of broad publication but was a way to fill a rainy Sunday afternoon that I’d be happy to share with people who are seriously interested.
Avondlander, James of the West – Regarding cosmic rays, can you point me towards the data you used?
Checking various direct cosmic ray measures (such as http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/, or with numbers http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1965%2F01%2F01&starttime=00%3A00&enddate=2011%2F09%2F07&endtime=02%3A14&resolution=Automatic+choice) I don’t see any long term trends.
KR says:
September 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm
……………………….. It’s a claim that cloud changes are the forcing component on the temperature changes of the last decade, rather than the ENSO. How would you interpret that???
=============================================================
“Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced.”
KR…… A forcing, not the forcing. Don’t feel bad, you just replicated a Dessler flaw. Now, as to what kind of company that puts you in………..
KR,
“Certainly not in terms of long term effects, as you have posited no physical mechanism that could cause long term cloud changes.”
You assumption is incorrect. There can be daily short term effects. Clouds can form earlier in the day and dissipate later in the evening.
Isn’t the mechanism obvious. The extra heat evaporates more water that causes more clouds to form in order to remove the water. Think of a heat pipe. The fact that humid air is lighter than dry air is actually m ore efficient than a wick in a heat pipe, plus you get the same advantage of transporting heat via evaporation and condensation. An additional advantage over a heat pipe is that in addition to dumping in the infrared this heat pipe blocks incoming visible light (via clouds) when it is operating.
The world is a much cooler place than it would if water vapor was more dense than air, and clouds were not reflective. Water not only keeps the earth warmer than it would be because it is a greenhouse gas but it keeps it cooler because it is a HEAT PIPE GAS and a SHADE HOUSE LIQUID!!!! This is one of many reasons I doubt the mental abilities of the catastrophists. They never admit the obvious or even think about it. They are exactly the analogs of those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
[Everyone: Please give me credit for coining these terms, right here on Watts Up With That]
So yes there are physical mechanisms by which water can act as a negative feedback.
Roy Spencer says (September 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm): “DayDay wins the humor contest! :)”
Hands down!
Or should I say, “Hands up, punk!” 🙂
From some of the above posts. 14 models or 14 shots and still a miss. There will be no squirrel or rabbit for dinner. One shot equals one kill in my world and dinner will be on the table. Art thou feeling hunger pains? Accuracy?
James Sexton – A forcing, not the forcing.
To repeat:
From Spencer and Braswell 2011, Conclusions, first line: “We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced.”
This is a very strong claim. Add to that the quote “Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced.”, and it adds up to clouds at least partly driving the ENSO.
Without, as I noted above, any mechanism that could take clouds to an out of equilibrium state (as per the water vapor cycle) for >10 years, where they could affect climate.
Sorry for all those happy hikers ou there who dislike Douglas Adams. I couldn’t resist the temptation to quote him here.
“Reality differs from our Models. Reality is wrong” , says Dressler to Spencer reminds me of this passage from the HHGGT:
“So, for instance, when the Guide was sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally – it said Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists instead of Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists – the editors claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing; summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty, and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred& and in a moving speech held that life itself was in contempt of court and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off for a pleasant evening s Ultra-golf.”
HankH says (September 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm): “Yes, we can play musical models and see which ones fit into chairs when the music stops but all you’re doing is finding a situational fit that may or may not lead to a valid analysis.”
Assuming certain models “fit” ENSO events better (but see HAS, September 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm), what do they get so “wrong” that the IPCC won’t use them exclusively? As HankH points out, choosing them just for their purported ENSO fit is no less cherry-picking than that found, supposedly, in SB11.
The Team are finding S&B’s paper a pain in the AR5.
@ur momisugly Brian Macker
September 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm
The usual. Good news and bad. The bad news is that “Heat Pipe Gas” is already taken.
The good news is that you get “SHADE HOUSE LIQUID”.
Eclipse Tha Producer says:
September 7, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Hmm? Where to start?
KR says:
September 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“If you read the Dessler paper, the three models that are, incidentally, best known to reproduce the ENSO variations, fall almost entirely within the uncertainty range of the satellite temperature values.”
Only if you define “uncertainty range” incredibly expansively. Speaking for myself, this meretricious talking point is becoming extremely annoying.
“10 years is a fairly short time in terms of climate – 30 is statistically (based on year to year variations) a better minimum time to estimate climate changes, as opposed to ENSO variations, weather, or simply noise.”
Based on the act that there is a readily apparent ~60 year cyclicality in the global temperature record, 30 is the worst possible period to use to evaluate long term climate evolution.
So,
Brandon Caswell says:
September 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm
You make a very good point. Is there a better way to place a new research paper in circulation?
Another point could be the observation that the editor, in resigning, left the impression that he had apparently sacrificed his career and so paid a high professional price for crossing Trenberth and his ilk. Let that be a lesson to you – if true. Perhaps there are no scientifically “honest” climate oriented, peer reviewed publications left. The price of “protection” may be too high.
So maybe its not so much a polite game of chess as it is raw thuggery, as practiced in the higher realms of “Academia” – with public money.
And, while federal money continues to be wasted on climate research, like this crap from Dessler, the James Webb space telescope is on the chopping block. Can’t we eliminate climate research? The science is settled after all. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/47009
Why is this starting to remind me of the feuds between Farnsworth and Wernstrom on Futurama? Now if only I new which one was which 🙂
Professor Dessler claims in his conclusion – “over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming”
This is clearly absurd. As I stated on a previous thread, if the Earth experienced 100% cloud cover for a year, you could ice skate from Sydney to LA. A change from 99% cloud cover to 100% cloud cover would clearly cause cooling. However Dessler is claiming that an increase from the average around 61% will cause warming. Are we to believe that there is a magic “tipping point” between 61% and 100% cloud cover where clouds stop warming and start cooling? What is this point? 70%, 80% or 82.142% ??
The only way clouds could cause net warming is if they appeared mostly at night, mostly over land and did not require evaporation or transpiration of any kind to supply the required water molecules for their immaculate conception. Only in Climate Science World. Whether forcing or feed back, in the real world clouds cool, Dessler should visit sometime.
Clouds are bi and it’s genetic!
KR: “To be quite blunt, without such a physical mechanism overriding the water vapor cycle, your assertions of clouds as the forcing driving the ENSO are “Just So Stories”.”
One can recognize an effect without having found the cause. Just because the physical mechanism is not yet completely understood does not mean the effect doesn’t exist. But in any case, variations in clouds can be caused by the Svensmark effect, by particulate pollution, by changes in chemicals in the air, by theramal fronts, etc. It strikes me as absurd that we should be expected to believe that cloud formation is exclusively temperature dependent.
Folks, I think we may be losing a bit of perspective here.
(Gosh I hope I’m right about the following because getting corrected by the likes of R. Gates, Nick Stokes, and anonymous bleating from the shadows by people like KR bothers me not at all. Getting corrected by Dr Roy Spencer however would suggest, unlike those others, that I made a mistake. I don’t know that I could handle that 😉 )
The issue at hand in my opinion is NOT if clouds drive climate or don’t drive climate. The issue at hand is this:
Have the climate models accurately modeled the amount of energy being absorbed by, and escaping from, the planet’s over all climate system?
There are many, many components to this. The “climate models” are just computer simulations of how various scientists THINK think each component works and how they react to changes in other components. Each model simulates various components and estimates others. For example, some models assume a constant TSI (Total Solar Index) while others are based on actual measured (and so fluctuating) levels of TSI. The IPCC quotes their global warming estimates from an average of no less than 22 climate models, none of which actually agree with any precision to each other, let alone the average.
What SB11 shows (again in my opinion) is that clouds are being incorrectly modeled by ALL the climate models. As a consequence, the amount of energy escaping to space from the climate system is being under estimated by the models. Or, conversely, the amount of energy being retained in the climate system is being over estimated. If Spencer and Braswell are correct, then the only possible conclusion one can draw is that the models also OVER ESTIMATE the projected changes in temperature going into the future.
Cause and effect, what drives what, those are all important to understand. But in the context of the global warming debate, what we really want to know is how much we should expect the climate to warm if GHG’s increase to any given level.
One cannot help but suspect that Spencer and Braswell are exactly correct. The IPCC models have consistantly over estimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred, going all the way back to the original projections that sparked the Kyoto Accords. They have been revised downward on a near constant basis, but compared to actual temperature measurements, they still appear to be too high, by several times.
Kevin Trenberth is widely quoted from the ClimateGate emails to the effect that there is “missing heat” that cannot be accounted for. He has proposed that it may be hiding in the ocean where it cannot be easily measured, or elsewhere. His reasoning is that the energy, while not being found at this point, is in the system somewhere (“in the pipe” I believe are the words he used) and will eventually emerge to result in temperature increases commensurate with what the models have been predicting.
The notion that the “missing heat” is simply not being retained in the amount that the models calculate in the first place, seems not to have crossed any of the modeler’s minds. If it did, they’ve been very, Very, VERY quiet about it. Admitting that the energy is NOT being retained in the first place would diminish substantially the estimates regarding both direct and indirect effects of CO2 on temperature. For anyone who understands what is meant by CO2 being logarithmic, this makes complete sense.
(mods – I’m posting a link here to something I wrote a long time ago. I recall seeing articles on WUWT by Eschenbach and Lindzen which would be much better references than me, please feel free to replace mine with theirs if they are at your finger tips).
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/
The direct effects of CO2 taper off dramatically as concentration increases. The only way for something “catastrophic” to happen as a consequence of CO2 increasing, is if there are secondary effects or “feedbacks” that amplify the direct effects of CO2. This is what “sensitivity” is all about.
What SB11 shows, is that the models have made assumptions about how clouds do, or do not, affect the amount of energy that is retained (or released) by the climate system that are WRONG. While the models have presumed that the secondary effects of CO2 would be more energy being retained in the climate system due to a variety of components, the amount of secondary effect attributed to clouds is much higher than actual measurements show, and in fact the secondary effect is likely cooling rather than additional warming.
While SB11 doesn’t quantify exactly what the numbers should be, I see that as immaterial. Some or all of Trenberth’s “missing heat” isn’t missing at all, but simply escaping to space. Trenberth would rather use his influence (it seems) to discredit SB11 in any way possible, including attempting to use his influence over Wolfgang Wagner to have the paper retracted, and when Wagner failed, settling instead for Wagner’s resignation from Remote Sensing calling into question the paper itself on the astounding excuse that climate modelers were not consulted about the findings. The implication that the models take precedence over the actual measurements is beyond astounding, beyond ludicrous, and just a completely stupid thing to imply. But Trenberth wasn’t content (it seems) to simply extract from Wagner a resignation damaging to SB11. He went on to actually BRAG that Wagner had apologised to him personally. The only logical reason for Wagner to both resign and then apologise to Trenberth personally is that it was fear of Trenberth’s wrath that prompted Wagner’s actions in the first place.
Trenberth’s motivation seems clear to me. There are billions of research dollars at stake, justified on the need to find that “missing heat” somewhere IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. If the heat isn’t missing at all, it simply escaped, consider the number of studies currently under way that are searching for something that does not exist (in part or in whole). Consider the number of grants awaiting approval for more of the same. Consider the loss of credibility that the modeling community, Trenberth foremost amongst them, would suffer.
For those of us who have been following along since before ClimateGate, this is as massive an “own goal” as The Team could have possibly scored. They have exposed their own despicable tactics in burying contrary evidence, and astoundingly, bragged about it.
But more astounding than that, is they have attracted a level of media attention and scrutiny that no amount of money could possibly buy. They’ve poured gasoline on themselves, lit themselves on fire, and are running in circles on the field screaming “look what I did! I’m a criminal and an idiot!”
But that’s just my opinion.
KR,
I thought ENSO was not a radiative forcing?
KR: “You comparison, however, was to some of the weakest counter-evidence, and whether you like it or not, that gives readers a very poor impression of the work.”
This is pretty much irrelevant, isn’t it. The important thing here are that these models are informing the position of the IPCC, and the IPCC position is designed to inform the judgements of global governments. More specifically, it is the average of these models that the IPCC uses to push its political policy. And as Spencer clearly shows, the observations disagree with the average of the models. Therefore any proposals made by the IPCC based upon such models is poorly informed.
It is pretty easy to see from this quick exchange (Dressler’s paper and Dr. Spencer’s response) who is most deserving of trust. Dr. Spencer et al. may not be correct at the end of the day, but they certainly deserve a fair hearing.
Thank you, Dr. Spencer, for a very measured and reasonable response, particularly with respect to the questionable accusations made in the Dressler paper. I think you have every right to demand an expeditious turnaround in the journal, commensurate with Dressler’s favorable treatment, which I am sure the journal will be happy to grant in the interest of fair and open discussion.
Arthur Gevart says:
September 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Thanks for that. I suspect there is more wisdom in any random couple of pages of Adams’ work than in the entire collective output of the IPCC and all its sycophants and cohorts. Unfortunately the extreme literal mindedness of most of the crowd around here tends to make them seriously humor challenged. At least in my experience. But I suppose it doesn’t hurt to try to remind them that, if the potential political consequences of all this nonsense were not so dire, it would constitute a pretty comical tale.
Has anyone done a study on what atmospheric gasses the increased C02 is displacing? Could this work out to be a net negative forcing if it displaces mainly water vapor? It would have to displace more “less effective” greenhouse gasses to create a net positive forcing, no?