|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 28, 2011 23:26:39 GMT
HI all. I have made a cursory read of Dr. Spencer's just published paper. At this point I have not detected any obvious errors in his analysis nor methods. That is not to say that some other bright minds might. IF so, I would certainly entertain a robust discussion. Thermostat perhaps? I would hope that Steve/GLC/Socold etc comment. The more minds the better. www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jul 28, 2011 23:54:10 GMT
I read this today... It looks like Spencer has found the missing heat... _____________________________________________________________________________
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 29, 2011 0:40:46 GMT
Dontgetoutmuch: That was my take as well. IN fact, this paper explains a lot because it does account for the missing heat.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2011 14:50:23 GMT
There are a few things I don't understand or am not clear about.
1. The press release and the story focus on something that is not said in the paper. They focus on the claim that "more heat" is released than by the models. But the data is not really comparing like with like. The observational data is from 2000-2010 whereas the model data is based on the 20th Century reconstructions. There are perhaps reasons why there would be differences. One obvious one is that most of the CMIP3 models do not demonstrate an ENSO cycle - the match with the 20th century is based on the presumption that ENSO effects would balance out whereas radiative forcing changes do not.
2. I would have thought that an atmosphere model forced with an ocean going through an El Nino cycle would behave as the observations - ie. outgoing LW would rise as SSTs rise, then temperatures would rise. The lack of lag in the model may be because more model variability is caused by model clouds than by ocean changes.
3. If he is right, and he has refuted Dessler's estimate of climate sensitivity that Dessler made on the same 10-year database, it doesn't mean that he is also right in his ideas on "internal radiative forcing". I've not read Dessler's paper. I probably would not believe *any* estimate of sensitivity based on 10 years of satellite data.
In respect of sigurdur who is always polite I'm going to keep my comments civil on this thread. If someone wants a row with me they can have it on the Spencer thread that astromet started.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 29, 2011 16:29:57 GMT
There are a few things I don't understand or am not clear about.
1. The press release and the story focus on something that is not said in the paper. They focus on the claim that "more heat" is released than by the models. But the data is not really comparing like with like. The observational data is from 2000-2010 whereas the model data is based on the 20th Century reconstructions. There are perhaps reasons why there would be differences. One obvious one is that most of the CMIP3 models do not demonstrate an ENSO cycle - the match with the 20th century is based on the presumption that ENSO effects would balance out whereas radiative forcing changes do not.
2. I would have thought that an atmosphere model forced with an ocean going through an El Nino cycle would behave as the observations - ie. outgoing LW would rise as SSTs rise, then temperatures would rise. The lack of lag in the model may be because more model variability is caused by model clouds than by ocean changes.
3. If he is right, and he has refuted Dessler's estimate of climate sensitivity that Dessler made on the same 10-year database, it doesn't mean that he is also right in his ideas on "internal radiative forcing". I've not read Dessler's paper. I probably would not believe *any* estimate of sensitivity based on 10 years of satellite data.
In respect of sigurdur who is always polite I'm going to keep my comments civil on this thread. If someone wants a row with me they can have it on the Spencer thread that astromet started.
I haven't read Spencer in depth but basically had the same reservations.
However, I think, but may have this wrong, that Spencer's main point is strong positive cloud feedback was not occurring in response to forcing as projected by the models. Should the source of warming affect the feedback? If so why? And if not, why would cloud feedback be delayed?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 29, 2011 16:40:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2011 16:47:29 GMT
His conclusion seems to be circumspect on this point. His refutation seems mainly be along the lines of attempting to show that you can't do what Dessler has done.
NB. looking at Dessler's figure of 0.54+/-0.74 for cloud feedback it's hardly going to end the argument as the range is as wide if not wider than the model ranges already were.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 29, 2011 18:58:51 GMT
Ok...Dressler says this: ""It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation."
At least he is being honest about it and admits that it really has nothing to do with science anymore. I found that statement to be extremely disenhartening.
With this paper, we have a beginning of the understanding of clouds/temps etc and where the missing heat is going. Observations.....instead of paleo climate proxy data.
I know these fellows are Shcmidt/Dressler etc are a bit dense, but to publicly display this is tauwdy to say the least.
I am disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2011 19:59:33 GMT
On Dessler's criticism, I didn't really understand it. I suspect he is focussing on Spencer's hypothesis in general and the last part of the paper rather than the model vs observations part.
Gavin Schmidt's point about constraining climate sensitivity from a few years of satellite data is one I made. I know that others have attempted to do so, but they all give quite large ranges (in line really with Spencer's statement that it is hard to measure).
Gavin's point also that there is no analysis of potential errors in the data is also valid. I would have liked to see some sensitivity studies, and maybe some analyses looking at the SW and LW components separately.
Seems that Spencer is the one being honest about his political motives:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 29, 2011 20:45:05 GMT
Steve: I agree that Spencer honest about his motive. He really does believe that the other folks have sensativity too high, and the dire outcomes they keep talking about are not feasable, given the current understanding of climate.
I think we both feel the same. Let's stick to the science, forget who wrote what. I am reading this published paper again, will prob be done analyzing it as well as I can in another week. I think the responses at Live Science were a bit premature and not worthy of the scientists who spoke.
I think we can all agree that there is missing heat via current models. This paper shows, by extension, that the missing heat is being lost to space. It does NOT refute the greenhouse theory, but seems to provide a better understanding of such, the mechanics of our climate.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 29, 2011 23:27:00 GMT
On Dessler's criticism, I didn't really understand it. I suspect he is focussing on Spencer's hypothesis in general and the last part of the paper rather than the model vs observations part. Gavin Schmidt's point about constraining climate sensitivity from a few years of satellite data is one I made. I know that others have attempted to do so, but they all give quite large ranges (in line really with Spencer's statement that it is hard to measure). Gavin's point also that there is no analysis of potential errors in the data is also valid. I would have liked to see some sensitivity studies, and maybe some analyses looking at the SW and LW components separately. Seems that Spencer is the one being honest about his political motives: Gavin Schmidt's point about constraining climate sensitivity from a few years of satellite data is one I made. And yet IPCC models are said to be robust using.....a few years of data. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 23:13:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lenardo on Jul 31, 2011 0:04:06 GMT
i wouldn't - personally- believe anything real climate said,,,even if they said the sun rises in the east.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 0:16:47 GMT
Richard: Actually, Judith blows real climates analysis out of the water, and the comments in regard to S&B completely blow Real climate out of the water.
Real climate is about worthless anymore. Sad to witness the total lack of scientific discussion there. Has turned out to be a rah rah party with no credibility. Thats what happens when you censor comments.
I have actually found this board to more knowledgeable and informative, and certainly thought provoking than RC ever could be.
Funny how the realists, the actual skeptics pick things apart, while looking at the value as well.
From reading the paper again, with Judiths comments in mind....this paper has tremendous value. TREMENDOUS value. It shows the observations trump the models. Aren't you just amazed?
And most importantly, it really does show that Dressler is all wet. He IS flat out totally wrong. And his comment that science isn't important anymore, that it is the governments job now.....shows that he wasn't a scientist to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 0:17:53 GMT
lenardo: They have been saying the sun rises in the east for years.
|
|