Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Before getting carried away, and prior to discussing the same repeated errors Dr. Spencer continues to make in this latest paper, it should be noted that while he is attempting to call into question some of the climate models used and the projections resulting from those models, this paper, like his earlier works do not refute or deny the climate effects of ghgs, the anthropogenic origins of modern atmospheric ghg concentrations, nor do they suggest that modern warming trends due to these ghg concentrations have slowed or stopped.

Now, if Dr. Spencer is willing to demonstrate his source codes and model details and demonstrate that his "simplified models" and parameters accurately predict current conditions from previous era data so that some measure of empiric qualification can be established, I'd be willing to give his work some deeper consideration. From the brief, and admittedly superficial intial reading of his paper, however, he appears to have "cooked" his alpha parameter from predetermined and selected results, and does not appear to have run and retrograde historic analyses to proof or check his peculiar modelling musings. More than this the specific mainstream climate models chosen as comparisons for his model are older, extremely uncertain calibration sample models of rough estimation and restrictive application/use among modern climate studies and simulations.

 

[Pixel42]

These “feedback” mechanisms are entirely hypothetical constructs

It's hypothetical that the albedo of ice is greater than the albedo of open water or land, and that the less ice there is the warmer the earth's surface gets?

It's hypothetical that warm air can hold more water vapour (a greenhouse gas) than cold air, and that the more water vapour there is in the earth's atmosphere the warmer the earth's surface gets?

It's hypothetical that cold water dissolves more CO2 (a greenhouse gas) than warm water, and that the more CO2 there is in the earth's atmosphere the warmer the earth's surface gets?

It's hypothetical that the sensitivity of global temperatures to relatively small forcings like the Milankovitch cycles cannot be explained without taking the above positive feedbacks into account?

That's a very odd definition of hypothetical.

 

[ginjawarrior]

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

it seems he's just got it review in a reputable journal. thats been jumped on by all the deniers as proof that agw is false.

while i can find a fair bit to discredit spencer and carter i cant find anything as to why this paper doesnt show that "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

i'd be very thankful to anyone who can help show me how that papers is wrong/ doesn't mean what the blog says so i can post that before i explain Roy Spencers I.D credentials

 

[Furcifer]

You've spent a lot of time arguing that the percentage increase in emissions has been constant (your prefered term was "linear" for some reason) which is quite opposite to saying that they're being reduced. In fact, of course, they are increasing.

So they're increasing, and there's been no reduction in emissions. Which is the opposite of what I was saying.

There are other means of generating electricity. It is far more efficient in the medium-term to use natural gas directly for heating (including hot water, of course), but in the short-term (which is what modern capitalism responds to) it was the cheap option. The installed capacity which resulted has, of course, a medium-term lifetime, which is why the UK now imports natural gas to feed into it.

And the "alternative" at the time was coal, which people would complain about as well.

What's "medium-term" mean anyways?

The things which you say "the carbon projects" have wasted their money on. Directly implying that they should not have been invested in.

All these changes reduce CO₂ emissions, thereby (by your peculiar thesis) weakening the economy.

No because there were gross inefficiencies.

Your claim that emissions are being reduced and that economic strength is measured by CO₂ emissions are what's absurd.

More doublespeak. You actually claimed in this thread that emissions dipped world wide during the recession. Now you can't see the direct correlation. Not surprising.

That hardly furthers a rational discussion. It is an established fact that the UK is now dependent for natural gas on the European grid, which is in turn dependent on Russia. You perhaps failed to register the diplomatic concern when Russia was last strong-arming Ukraine over gas, but it was a big issue this side off the pond. That's why liquefied-gas terminals and alternative pipelines are being built, and why the Norwegian long-term strategic approach is turning out very well for them. When it comes to strong economies they're well up there.

It's a phrase intended to point out the ridiculous nature of speculating on what could have been. If the automobile wasn't invented we'd also be in a better place in terms of CO2 emissions. Of course the world would be in a completely different place in history.

 

[lomiller]

This paper by Roy Spencer seems new (published July 2011): On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance.

I do have some doubts about it, e.g. why is a paper about climate sensitivity being published in a journal like Remote Sensing?

Mainly because he can get reviewers who don’t actually know the subject and therefore shoot down the publication. It’s already been pointed out that Spencer’s concept of “internal radiative forcing” is really just feedback so saying it’s “masking feedback” is nonsensical if you have followed the ongoing discussion.

Furthermore, the climate literature already documents that there are multiple lines of evidence that constrain total feedback. For example the forcings that cause glaciers to advance/retreat are entirely too small to do so without significant positive feedback.

This is entirely independent of whatever uncertainty there may be in cloud feedback, so Spencer’s arguments that the uncertainly of the feedback created by clouds is large enough that total feedback may not be very large is irrelevant. We have other sources for estimating the lower bounds of total feedback so looking at one line of evidence that says maybe feedback could be lower or higher than current accepted numbers isn’t useful.

 

[DC]

Bad Astronomy's take on "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...low-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

 

[Trakar]

well its seemed to spread every where as "definitive proof" that agw is false

have you got any links that debunk it?

On published scientific papers, it generally isn't an issue of "debunking" so much as it is of understanding what is and is not actually being said, and then examining the methods and practices to insure their proper and typical application, and then the papers results/conclusions need to be examined and compared to the mainstream understandings. With Dr. Spencer this process often takes a bit of time as he does have a very good understanding of the mainstream science and is often rather subtle in his distortions of it. Luckily, he isn't a typical denier (who vary their approach and point of attack according to the "flavor of the day"), but rather a true believer in his own alternative understanding regardless of how many times it is compellingly demonstrated to be flawed and without merit. I say "luckily" because this means that it is almost always easy to zero in on where his hypotheses and papers diverge from the mainstream by looking for the same issues he has repeatedly been shown to be in error and held in disrepute by his peers previously.

I don't do blogs, but I would assume that any of those run by mainstream climatologists such as Realclimate, Tamino, Grumbine, etc., will have, or soon will have, appropriate expositions up within the week. As well, there are the information sites like Skepticalscience, Yale Environment 360, and http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/ will probablyhave pieces up shortly, if they don't already, at least hitting the high points.

The key thing, is that the paper, having passed legitimate peer-review, in a legitimate, hard science journal, is unlikely to be majorly wrong or incorrect in its generalities, but, this doesn't mean that it is being properly characterized by the deniers or even the authors (outside of the bounds of the journal). This isn't so much an issue of "debunking" the paper, but more simply of properly discerning what the paper is actually saying, how this compares with modern, mainstream understandings, and how this all differs from the assertions and claims of those attempting to use the paper as a club.

I'll look at the paper in more detail over the next week or so and try to outline any problems and discrepancies (as I perceive them).

 

[Trakar]

Apparently I need to learn doublespeak. First it's these measures are effective at reducing CO2 then there's been no reduction in CO2 and in fact it's increasing at an alarming rate. On one hand we need to pay for externalities from fossil fuels and on the other we already are.
..

As none of the "doublespeak" issues you mention are being promoted, I must assume that your trouble is in translating your understandings to properly qualified and clear English. No one has stated that measures currently in place are effectively reducing CO2, nor is there any sign that the proper accounting of and inclusion of CO2 externalities is being currently accomplished. If you have cite and reference of instances where you believe this to be the case please present them and I will be happy to try and clarify any misunderstandings that are occurring.

 

[Trakar]

it seems he's just got it review in a reputable journal. thats been jumped on by all the deniers as proof that agw is false.

while i can find a fair bit to discredit spencer and carter i cant find anything as to why this paper doesnt show that "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

i'd be very thankful to anyone who can help show me how that papers is wrong/ doesn't mean what the blog says so i can post that before i explain Roy Spencers I.D credentials

Dr Spencer's beliefs regarding issues other than AGW are irrelevent and offtopic to this thread. The focus should be upon the facts and hypotheses presented in the paper. Don't be distracted by what others are claiming the paper implies, focus on what was actually done, and what the results actually demonstrate.

 

[lomiller]

it seems he's just got it review in a reputable journal. thats been jumped on by all the deniers as proof that agw is false.

while i can find a fair bit to discredit spencer and carter i cant find anything as to why this paper doesnt show that "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

i'd be very thankful to anyone who can help show me how that papers is wrong/ doesn't mean what the blog says so i can post that before i explain Roy Spencers I.D credentials

First of all you need to understand what Spencer is actually arguing.

For a long time there has been a lot of uncertainly of exactly the effects clouds have. They have properties that could make them either a positive or negative feedback and it the science was not sufficiently developed to say which. One end of this range was that they were a fairly strong negative feedback; the other was that they were a fairly strong positive feedback. If in fact the real number fell towards the negative feedback side of that it would mean the expected warming from our CO2 emissions would be smaller and possibly manageable, a position Spencer supported.

The people actually using climate models to make predictions, however, choose the middle ground that the positive and negative feedback components roughly offset each other so they were neither strong positive or negative feedback overall. Spencer is trying to argue that this approach may overestimate the amount of warming we can expect.

As the science has developed the range of possibilities has narrowed and is closing in on the assumption that the feedbacks really do offset each other for the most part. Spencer is now trying to challenge these new results and argue that the uncertainty is still large.

The problem with all this is that it looks at only a single line of evidence on the subject. The newer results for cloud feedback and the older model assumptions for it both allow you to reproduce and explain significant real world climate events like our current climate change and global climate history whereas if Spencer’s hypothesized negative feedback and low climate sensitivity are correct than major warming like you see when glaciers retreat would basically be impossible without some massive new forcing that just happened to line up exactly with the orbital variations thought to cause glaciations/de-glaciations.

 

[Trakar]

it seems he's just got it review in a reputable journal. thats been jumped on by all the deniers as proof that agw is false.

while i can find a fair bit to discredit spencer and carter i cant find anything as to why this paper doesnt show that "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"
...

Exactly and specifically, what in this paper leads you to believe that it will "blow a gaping hole" in mainstream climate understandings?

 

[Mikemcc]

Dr Spencer's beliefs regarding issues other than AGW are irrelevent and offtopic to this thread. The focus should be upon the facts and hypotheses presented in the paper. Don't be distracted by what others are claiming the paper implies, focus on what was actually done, and what the results actually demonstrate.

Barry Bickmore rips Spencer's model to pieces here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/

 

[Trakar]

...More doublespeak. You actually claimed in this thread that emissions dipped world wide during the recession. Now you can't see the direct correlation. Not surprising. ...

Big difference between acknowledging that in the current paradigm of predominatly fossil-fuelled energy generation, a drop in economic activity is likely reflected in a decrease of the rate of CO2 emissions,...and your assertion that the statement by Capel* was "...patently false and couldn't be further from the truth...", as you were called upon.

*(CapelDodger's statement - "...The strength of an economy is not defined by the amount of carbon dioxide it generates." and as he further qualified in the context of the rest of his post "...Economies which are scrabbling to cope with the impacts of AGW will not be strong, despite the fact that repairing damage counts towards GDP. Strong economies are sustainable, at least in the medium-term, and the fossil-fuel model is not. It was the model which got us where we are but it's not the model of the future. Things change. Economies can be ahead of the game or they can be like the USA today, fading fast and living in denial.").

 

[macdoc]

For a long time there has been a lot of uncertainly of exactly the effects clouds have. They have properties that could make them either a positive or negative feedback and it the science was not sufficiently developed to say which. One end of this range was that they were a fairly strong negative feedback; the other was that they were a fairly strong positive feedback. If in fact the real number fell towards the negative feedback side of that it would mean the expected warming from our CO2 emissions would be smaller and possibly manageable, a position Spencer supported.

The people actually using climate models to make predictions, however, choose the middle ground that the positive and negative feedback components roughly offset each other so they were neither strong positive or negative feedback overall. Spencer is trying to argue that this approach may overestimate the amount of warming we can expect.

As the science has developed the range of possibilities has narrowed and is closing in on the assumption that the feedbacks really do offset each other for the most part. Spencer is now trying to challenge these new results and argue that the uncertainty is still large.

The problem with all this is that it looks at only a single line of evidence on the subject. The newer results for cloud feedback and the older model assumptions for it both allow you to reproduce and explain significant real world climate events like our current climate change and global climate history whereas if Spencer’s hypothesized negative feedback and low climate sensitivity are correct than major warming like you see when glaciers retreat would basically be impossible without some massive new forcing that just happened to line up exactly with the orbital variations thought to cause glaciations/de-glaciations.

excellent explanation.

Without the sensitivity and feedback of C02 both in warming a cooling ( when it's not Anthro C02 it's not a forcing it's a feedback ) then the earth could not cycle between ice and less ice as the Milankovich cycles on there own are insufficient to account for the shift.

MLV is the trigger, C02 in atmosphere or ocean is the catalyst if you like magnifying that small forcing into a larger one.

Along come us and messes up the slow drift towards another ice age due to orbitals and digs up a bunch of sequestered fossile carbon, burns a lot of forest releasing carbon trapped there, plows a bunch of ground releasing more carbon and grazing huge herds of methane producing cattle to stoke the warm up even more.

So somewhere about 2 thirds the way down the Holocene drift from Holocene Optimum to next ice age the global energy balance lurched away from the drift to cooler to an accelerating upward curve to warmer.

To climate and C02 levels not seen in many millions of years......

Without the sensitivity to C02 ( and other GHG like methane ) - there cannot be these changes......tracked both now and historically when previous releases of C02 occurred from the Deccan Traps.

So Spencer et al have the monumental task of trying to stay within known atmospheric physics yet try to postulate some as yet unknown negative feedback that would make the certainty of a +4 C rise into an unlikely event by 2100.

The problem is he has to explain at the same time why it did not occur some 12 million years ago when

a) C02 concentrations were high
b) the global temperatures were also high......

If the temps went up then.....as atmospheric/oceanic physics dicate.....why NOW would that mechanism not work.

bottom line - its a fools quest

 

[Furcifer]

our very own ID proponent....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

got any more musty rocks to peer under looking for cranks.....

Got Science?

I don't care how many climate scientists go to church on Sunday, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're intending to run a smear campaign of course.

 

[Trakar]

Bad Astronomy's take on "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...low-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

I agree with Dr Plait, especially with regards to the Forbes article which is what he is predominantly discussing. The paper itself, as I stated previously, is more subtle in its qualifications and conclusions. Dr Plait references a LiveScience article outlining review comments by some climate scientists, that I haven't yet looked at, and probably won't until after I've done a more thorough assessment of the paper on my own, but it may be of some value to those whose detailed climate science understandings and familiarity with Dr. Spencer's particular penchants are more limited.

 

[Furcifer]

This is entirely independent of whatever uncertainty there may be in cloud feedback, so Spencer’s arguments that the uncertainly of the feedback created by clouds is large enough that total feedback may not be very large is irrelevant. We have other sources for estimating the lower bounds of total feedback so looking at one line of evidence that says maybe feedback could be lower or higher than current accepted numbers isn’t useful.

Nonsense. Even NASA admits clouds present the largest uncertainty in climate models. Downplaying the effects of clouds on climate is dishonest and misleading. It's part of the alarmist agenda that seeks only to fear monger and not further scientific study.

 

[Trakar]

...Furthermore, the climate literature already documents that there are multiple lines of evidence that constrain total feedback. For example the forcings that cause glaciers to advance/retreat are entirely too small to do so without significant positive feedback.

This is entirely independent of whatever uncertainty there may be in cloud feedback, so Spencer’s arguments that the uncertainly of the feedback created by clouds is large enough that total feedback may not be very large is irrelevant. We have other sources for estimating the lower bounds of total feedback so looking at one line of evidence that says maybe feedback could be lower or higher than current accepted numbers isn’t useful.

Of primary importance when looking at feedbacks are the time frames involved for system equilibration due to changes. In general, my understandings are reflected in the principles that there are short-term, or near immediate effects to some planetary scale variables, mid-term (interaction with other variables) effects and long-term (overall climate forcing to new plateau equalibria) factorizations. In general, "climate" is at its finest definition in the mid-term expression, much shorter than this and we are looking more at weather than climate, long-term climate epochs are made up of mid-term climate trends, and weather patterns are made up of short-term forcings and impacts equilibrating into mid-term systems and trends.

 

[macdoc]

I don't care how many climate scientists go to church on Sunday, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're intending to run a smear campaign of course.

You may not care as is evidence by your support of a crank scientist in your equally futile quest to downplay the reality and the scale of consequence of AGWbut if he fails in one region of science his thinking is flawed.
There is fact every reason to think his approach and conclusions would be flawed in this case and they are.....only a few like minded cranks as fellow travellers.

You make a comment about NASA admits and per usual not a smidgeon of support nor do you evidence the scale of uncertainty C02 levels were also high. So what physics has changed that would all of a sudden introduce some phantom negative feedback.
Perhaps in fact the "uncertainty" lies in the direction of a positive feedback - magnifying the role of GHGs. Uncertainty cuts both ways......and recent evidence shows that indeed clouds under some conditions are minor magnifiers and under other conditions show minor negative feedback. Bottom line - it's irrelevant in the larger picture tho quite relevant to regional degree of change such as monsoons and perhaps storm development.

If NASA you say is correct in the "largest uncertainly" perhaps you should in turn accept NASA's position....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

• The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

• Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

more

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

from th same NASA site

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

so what's it to be?? you going to cherry pick NASA conclusions to fit your agenda of downplaying AGW??
or face the reality of a rapidly - in geologic frame of reference - changing global climate with the change magnified in the northern regions.

The evidence is long in......trying to deny it's reality or unfolding consequences becomes like Spencer's ID quest.......in the realm of pathos.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. Even NASA admits clouds present the largest uncertainty in climate models. Downplaying the effects of clouds on climate is dishonest and misleading. It's part of the alarmist agenda that seeks only to fear monger and not further scientific study.

Since I am not downplaying the uncertainly this isn’t an issue. The fact remains that while Spencer’s preferred value for cloud feedback just falls within the uncertainty allowed for by the physics (circa 2008 and before) this value is not consistent with the observed climate history of the earth so his preferred value is not plausible.