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.)
After reading through the posts i have come to the conclusion that the AGW crowd is losing so badly in the public view that they needed a quick fix to the Al Gore bank account..
By saying they have debunked the primary skeptics they believe they have one upped the skeptics and feed the Obama drive for more and more regulations..
I see that the drive to control people trumps science… I see the control of Journal’s and the circular peer review problem has not be fixed… Good luck with getting any truth out there posted Dr Spencer.. The odds are not in our favor.
If I may add one other note:
The evidence strongly suggests that Trenberth pressured Wagner into attempting to have the SB11 paper withdrawn. When Wagner failed, Wagner fell on his sword, resigned from Remote Sensing, and apologised to Trenberth (which Trenberth went on to brag about).
Following this, Trenberth also bragged that a paper was imminent from Dessler that would easily discredit SB11. So easy was the task according to the hype from Trenberth and others, that Dessler’s rebuttal to SB11 could be researched, written, pass peer review and published in just a few weeks, while SB11 took two years.
Dr Trenberth, with all due respect, might you answer the following questions?
o If SB11 is so easily discredited, why pressure poor Wolfgang Wagner to bury it in the first place?
o If SB11 is so easily discredited, why would you take a moment of your precious time to even comment on it?
o If SB11 is so easily discredited, why would you brag that you’d received an apology from Wagner for allowing it to be published? Why would you even care that it was?
o Do you demand apologies on all papers you don’t like, even the ones that you claim are so bad that they are easily discredited? If not, why does THIS paper get so much personal attention from you?
o To quote Shakespeare, “the lady doth protest too much”.
Unfortunately sir, it occurs to me that you are not a lady, but neither a gentlemen. The “protest too much” part however, sticks like glue.
KR
And it adds up to clouds at least partially forcing the ENSO.
Without … Any mechanism that could take clouds to an out of equilibrium state …for more than 10 years …
So ENSO is central to all this, does it lead or follow in regard to cloud. It does both. ENSO is a nonlinear oscillator potentiated by the positive feedback between Peruvian coast upwelling and trade winds (the Bjerknes feedback), and the cloud effects follow from the wind effects (with an effect of SST also).
By mentioning the term “out of equilibrium” we are at least now talking the right language about the climate system and ENSO. Non equilibrium is the norm and out of this arises chaotic dynamics and features such as the ENSO nonlinear oscillator (analogous to the BZ reactor).
Add to this the fact that cloud formations themselves show self organising nonlinear pattern dynamics with a Lyapunov stability that makes it harder to form or remove them – and the picture which emerges is that the atmospheric radiative balance alone is an inadequate basis for mdelling of the warming or cooling of the climate system – certainly over a 10 year period.
Clouds and the ENSO system are forcing factors in their own right.
SethP says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Has anyone done a study on what atmospheric gasses the increased C02 is displacing?>>>
The concentration of CO2 is in the range of 400 PPM (parts per million) while the concentration of water vapour can be as high as 40,000 PPM. However, water vapour is more heavily concentrated close to earth surface, but nearly non existant at high altitudes (where the cold temps force the water vapour out). Co2 on the other hand is reasonably well mixed.
So, the answer to your question is that at low altitudes, the amount of water vapour that CO2 would displace is so minor it isn’t significant. At high altitudes, there isn’t much water vapour to displace in the first place.
davidmhoffer says:
September 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Folks, I think we may be losing a bit of perspective here.
………………
Have the climate models accurately modeled the amount of energy being absorbed by, and escaping from, the planet’s over all climate system?
………………………………… They’ve poured gasoline on themselves, lit themseleves on fire, and are running in circles on the field screaming “look what I did! I’m a criminal and an idiot!”
=================================================================
David, I thought that’s what we were talking about??? 🙂 But, you are exactly right. I liken the cloud forcing/feedback to a chicken/egg discussion. And you’re right, it isn’t as important as the fact that this may account for the “Travesty’s” missing heat. Like the Dr. Seuss character, they “could not find it any where.” Logically, that would be because its gone.
I included the last part of your statement because it made me lol! And it is exactly correct. Trenberth and Dessler did an excellent job in both exposing their character, or lack thereof, and their inability to understand models aren’t reality. This is an indictment of our education system and illustrates the need for standards in the doctoral candidate process. Apparently, like the rest of the system, they’ll pass just about anyone through……..(no offense Dr. Spencer….) Of course, none of this could have been possible without the nonsensical antics of Wolfy Wagner.
I had to [gag] listen through a “report” this afternoon on NPR [gag again] on Dessler…and listening to his newspeak….capitalizing on the tragic drought in the 15th largest GDP in the world.
What a revolting and disgusting lapse in science.
I wish the Lone Star state the best. Am not encouraged by the latest meteorological prognostications.
But then again…they are Texans…and will ALWAYS fight to the last man.
Most importantly though…Dessler is not a Texan.
Not even close.
From somebody disgusted at him in Virginia…
F you, Dessler.
You do more disservice to climate and science and the ecosystem….than any man-made forcing or otherwise…could muster.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
davidmhoffer says:
September 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm
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.
———————
Exactly so, and abundantly confirmed by the great episodes in the history of science. The best example that comes to mind is Johannes Kepler’s use of Tycho Brahe’s observations of the planet Mars. These were published later (1627) in the Rudolphine Tables (compiled by Kepler using Tycho Brahe’s observations), the most accurate astronomical observations to date. Kepler worked for years trying to fit a circular heliocentric orbit for Mars to Tycho Brahe’s observations. Because his model did not precisely fit the observations, Kepler junked this earlier labour, and started over using an ovoid or elliptical orbit.
Kepler thus discovered the true nature of planetary orbits and the first of Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion (Astronomia Nova 1609).These three laws played a large part in directing Newton’s attention to this issue and the law of universal gravitation.
Had Kepler and other scientists during the Scientific Revolution had the Team’s and the IPCC’s slapdash approach to matching models to data and observation, science would have remained a philosophical past-time and we’d be paying little attention to it now. One is almost tempted, given the totalitarian direction CAGW climate science is taking today, to wish this were the case.
(I thought it would be nice to get away from all the Galileo analogies around here).
——–
Dave Wendt says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“Unfortunately the extreme literal mindedness of most of the crowd around here tends to make them seriously humor challenged.”
????????
One of the reasons I read WUWT on a daily basis is for the humour, and I’m sure I’m not the only one (although admittedly the humour is often more pointed at Bishop Hill). FWIW I’m a HUGE fan of Hitchhiker’s Guide.
davidmhoffer says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Another question to ask the “Travesty”, would be if he’d like to try his hand at discrediting SB11, because from where I sit, while Dessler brought up some questions, he failed miserably if his task was to discredit SB11. hmmm…… is there another apology resignation at hand?
No takers, no counters (counter arguments); do you want to relist for a second try at an auction, B(alls)?
.
Vigilantfish;
You’re right, we need some humour here. I’ve been so all fired up about the serious issues that my anger has over ridden my sense of humour. I am remiss in my responsibilities as a member of the WUWT class clowns. I’m too tired to write something new at the moment, but I’m reposting something that I wrote two years ago that seems suddenly… so very, very, appropriate.
(WARNING: I’ve had a lot of complaints about this piece being the cause of coffee, wine, and other fluids being inadvertantly sprayed on screens and keyboards. Read at your own risk. I take NO RESPONSIBILITY for any damages that result)
The Physicist and the Climatologist
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist; Uhm… no.
Physicist; Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist; see above. (EDIT Sept 9, 2011. SEE SB11!)
Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist; how much grant money?
Climatologist; Billions.
Physicist; Billions? Really? BILLIONS?
Climatologist; Oh, easily billions.
Physicist; Wow…
Climatologist; Oh lotsa billions. Hey…. you wouldn’t happen to have any research you need funded….?
Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
of course that edit would be Sept 7, not Sept 9. I’m way too tired to be typing anything at the moment!
richard verney says:
September 7, 2011 at 11:42 am
It does appear that there is much in the Dressler paper that supports the root thrust ‘that models and observations are not in sync and that there is a divergence problem between models projections and reality’. This suggests either a problem with the models (most likely), or some unexplained errors in empirical data gathering/record keeping.
There is another possibility. Reality is at fault and the models are correct.
mike g says:
September 7, 2011 at 6:30 pm
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
Absolutely not. It doesn’t make sense to invest money in science to discover new things. We need to invest in things we already know, so that we minimize the risk. This is called the Precautionary Principle. Remember the old saying, nothing ventured, nothing lost.
vigilantfish says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Dave Wendt says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“Unfortunately the extreme literal mindedness of most of the crowd around here tends to make them seriously humor challenged.”
????????
I suggest a small experiment. Try posting a short series of comments that you perceive as being obviously satirical but with no sarc tags attached. Keep a tally of the number blog denizens who jump in to accuse you of being a warmist troll or worse. If after completing this task you can report back to the group with a tally of zero, or even more reasonably less than 3 per comment, I will consider withdrawing my statement and offering my heartfelt apologies to the group.
James Sexton says:
September 7, 2011 at 8:52 pm
“I liken the cloud forcing/feedback to a chicken/egg discussion.”
James, I had to laugh as I was reading your sentence because that was exactly what I was thinking! And you beat me to the post!
This may be true especially because of some of the tenuous assumptions made by the developers of the GCMs. I think we do not know enough yet to say for sure whether it was the chicken, or the egg. But I like Roy Spencer’s attempt to shed light on what is obvious: the models are inconsistent with observation; and always, models are “garbage in, garbage out:” the more garbage you throw into them, the more garbage you get out.
KR says:
September 7, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Dr. Spencer
I would still be interested in your reasons for not including 8 of the 14 models you studied, the ones that don’t support your hypothesis as strongly. I believe your paper would have been much better with those included, along with error bars so that we could evaluate the strength of your hypotheses.
Be careful what you wish for. Including error bars will only reinforce SB11’s main result, which is that we can’t tell how much unforced cloud variation is affecting surface T. In fact it will make it obvious that the level of uncertainty is “worse than we thought.”
It seems to be a little more complicated than clouds simply being a negative or positive feedback because latitudinal cloud distribution is also very important and the oceanic response to cloudiness changes confounds the initial expectation.
What I think happens is that for whatever reason the atmosphere expands when the sun is active and contracts when it is inactive.
In the process the temperature of the stratosphere and mesosphere changes oppositely to the sign of the temperature change in thermosphere and troposphere.
The effect is to draw the tropopause upward when the sun is active and push it down when the sun is less active. Globally averaged of course.
The outcome is latitudinal shifting of all the components of the surface air pressure distribution which changes the sizes and positions of the climate zones.
That changes the energy budget via the speed of the water cycle AND cloud quantities because that process changes the length of the air mass boundaries which is where mixing occurs to produce clouds.
So an active sun tries to COOL the system by changing the structure of the atmosphere to let energy OUT of the system FASTER via the higher tropopause but in the process cloud bands are drawn poleward to let more energy into the oceans in the tropics which offsets the faster energy loss to space.
So the cloud changes provide an indirect negative (warming) response to counter the direct solar cooling effect via the coolr stratosphere and mesosphere.
The position regarding bottom up effects from periodically faster energy release from the oceans or more energy in the air from more GHGs is different. In that case the extra warmth at lower levels pushes the tropopause up as before and in that case the increased energy into the oceans is a positive feedback. However the poleward shift of the surface air pressure systems accelerates the speed of energy transfer to space which is a negative response sufficient to cancel out both the extra energy from the oceans or GHGs AND the extra solar energy into the system.
Thus whatever changes the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere from above or below will cause cloudiness changes that then exert a negative response either by adjusting energy flow into the oceans or by adjusting energy flow out to space as necessary to maintain equilibrium and what we then experience is shifting climate zones as the speed of energy flow through the system varies.
That is a neat solution to the problem.
It is the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere that is key whether caused by top down solar effects or bottom up oceanic or GHG effects because that then causes the cloudiness changes.
It sounds complex and it is but it is no more complex than it needs to be to fit observations.
eyesonu says:
Ah, but you’re not defining a miss in the Texan sense that climate science does. All your shots still fall within the error bars of most models, therefore they’re still hits. The reason your pot is still empty is simply because you’re missing a giant rabbit. Once the missing rabbit is found, no-one will be in a position to deny the models any more, and it will no longer be a travesty.
From the 14-model plot though, some models do seem better at getting the lag right and following reality. Hopefully the modellers are looking at why that is or whether those were just lucky shots.
We’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,it’s science delusion I have found.
We really don’t know clouds et all
Dr Spencer HAS shown all models in a single chart – see above
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AR4-models-vs-CERES-lag-regression-Net-flux.png
Possible addition to Davidmhoffer’s amusing dialogue above (before the physicist takes the money and runs):
Climatologist: “But what about Venus?”
Physicist: “EXACTLY – now you begin to understand….”
“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.”
In school, we used to joke about numbers being “to astrophysical accuracy,” i.e., having the tens exponent right. It looks like climatology and astrophysics have something in common, after all.
James Sexton says:
September 7, 2011 at 12:09 pm
… most skeptics have a much more intimate knowledge of various papers and the responses than alarmists.
Nothing truer said, James. In fact most alarmists are complete ignoramuses. In Australia somebody has been circulating a short global warming quizz asking answers to basic facts such as what is the composition of CO2 in the atmosphere. As far as I know all respondents so far have said between 20 and 80 per cent. None has known it’s 0.039. How is it moral for public policy be not only based on, but actually rely on people’s ignorance?
Another thing (only slightly off topic, mods). As carbon has been thoroughly demonized, do primary schools still teach the carbon cycle? When I was a child I was enchanted by those lovely illustrations of cows or sheep with trees in a sunny field near an ocean depicting plant decay, respiration and photosynthesis, etc. Are children still taught this? Any young parent like to comment?
Ps. Bravo Dr Spencer. You’e got ’em rattled.
davidmhoffer says:
September 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm
———————-
Very well put. I believe your take on things reflects the reality of it all.
Dave Wendt,
“Try posting a short series of comments that you perceive as being obviously satirical but with no sarc tags attached.”
I’ve found that posters who imagine they are being clever and satirical are often just falling flat, or preaching to a narrow subset of the choir. On the oft chance, that what they think is obviously wrong, isn’t obvious to all, I will sometimes take it literally, and explain why it is wrong, or perhaps why it isn’t obviously so. Taking it literally may add to the humor. But if you really think someone is a “warmist troll”, it seldom does anything more than waste bandwidth to call them that. Ignore them, or query them, and help them or others comprehend their ignorance.