IPCC science
This thread is for discussion of the IPCC and scientific matters.
Climate Conversation Group
Taking the heat out of global warming
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.
Hot off the press
- May 2012 petrol and diesel prices
- Letters to the Editor
- Our water use raises sea levels
- Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Oil prices are still down
- No treaty, no ETS
- Retirement of Huntly power generator
- Oil prices down as Europe staggers
- … is sauce for the gander
- The end of scepticism
- State of the science
- Reflections on a changing climate
- The real climate deniers
- Let us destroy those myths
- Our world-leading ETS actually hikes hydro
- Levitus rewarmed
- NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt
- Well, where’s your evidence, Renowden?
- Deadly effective manipulation
- Even an oik has freedoms
Latest comments
- Richard C (NZ) on State of the science
- Gary on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on … is sauce for the gander
- Give them enough rope . . . | Open Parachute on … is sauce for the gander
- Alexander K on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Andy on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Ron on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on Oil prices are still down
- Andy on Oil prices are still down
- Andy on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Richard Treadgold on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Andy on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- PeterM on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Andy on Cabinet ETS paper makes my toes curl
- Alexander K on No treaty, no ETS
- Richard Treadgold on No treaty, no ETS
- Andy on No treaty, no ETS
PayPal Tip Jar
To support what we do here,
please drop us a tiny tip. Thank you!
Thank you
Tags
Activists
AGW
Air temperature
Air temperature
Alarmists
Australia
Carbon dioxide
Carbon Sense
Carbon trading
CCG blog
Climate Conversation Group
Climate research
Climate Science
Data quality
Disproving AGW
Economics
Energy
Energy supply
Environmentalism
ETS
General links
Global temperature
Global warming
Hot Topic
IPCC
Journalism
New Zealand
NIWA
NIWAgate
NZCSC
NZ Herald
NZ temperature records
Oceans
Politics
Royal Society
Sceptics
Science bias
Scientists
Sea levels
UK
United Nations
USA
Watts Up With That
What is the evidence
World government
Climate change links
Previous posts
Oil prices
StatCounter
StatCounter
The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Climate Change Reconsidered, was released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at a press conference at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the Third International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
NIPCC THREAD (NIPCC Section)
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/un/nipcc/
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
Posted on February 22, 2012 by Alec Rawls
Guest post by Alec Rawls
“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:
…
Introduction to the “omitted variable fraud” critique, continued
For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)
The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.
>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
…
…
Hard hitting, comprehensive and damning.
But just stating-the-obvious really.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
IPCC Assessment Reports: 2001 (TAR) 1995 (SAR) 1990 (FAR)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
Chapter 6 Third Assessment Report
(Ramaswamy et al, 2001)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf
IPCC SPECIAL REPORTS: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES, ASSESSMENTS and SCENARIOS
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm
The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies
For discussion and the “THE CITIZEN AUDIT REPORT” please refer;
“Controversies and Scandal”
Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies
The curious incident of the added heat at the surface
IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper
IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change
Every prediction or projections, as the IPCC evasively call them, have been wrong
Maximum ‘Residence Time’ of Atmospheric CO2
Plot illustrating how the IPCC’s view of long-lived CO2 is an oulier
Peer-Reviewed Studies: Documenting The Evidence That Disproves The IPCC Global Warming Science – C3
IPCC AR4 Climate Model Simulations
AOGCMs participating in the MMD at PCMDI are listed by IPCC identification (ID).
Along with the calendar year (‘vintage’) of the first publication of results from each model.
Also listed are the respective sponsoring institutions,
How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps
“circular reasoning” at work.
“One of the main arguments from the IPCC is that essentially, we can’t explain temperature changes any other way than with carbon forcings. This is matched with impressive pink and blue graphs that pose as evidence that carbon is responsible for all the recent warming.
This is argumentum ad ignorantiam — essentially they say: we don’t know what else could have caused that warming, so it must be carbon. It’s a flawed assumption.
It’s easy to create impressive graphs, especially if you actively ignore other possible causes, like for example, changes in cloud cover and solar magnetic effects.”
Thus it’s circular reasoning: decide that carbon is a problem; see its “effect” in this graph; declare carbon must be a problem, and rejoice, the models create what we fed them to start with. The Marvel!
(It’s too easy, and politicians fall for it. Then they give us more money to do more “modelling”.) – Jo Nova
These graphs are very important.
Please Note:
IPCC simulations categories:-
1. Models using only natural forcings.
2. Models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings
Don’t be fooled by this internal IPCC distinction.
1. and 2. simulations are run on the SAME models: SAME formulations; SAME spin-up datasets (just addition or deletion of the ACO2 driver); and, SAME IPCC Radiative Forcing (RF) methodology (i.e. in their own terms).
NIWA uses the “A” module of UKMO’s UM model that is in the IPCC’s 1. and 2. categories.
See – “CLIMATE MODEL PAPERS”
Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases:
Estimates from climate models in the IPCC AR4
Collins Et Al 2010
See – Climate Models
NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY
Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.’s (AER)
Radiative Transfer Working Group
The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.
A Strange Problem with the IPCC Numbers
Posted on October 23, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach
ABSTRACT
The IPCC says that the expected change in temperature arising from a change in forcing is equal to the change in forcing times the climate sensitivity. The IPCC provides values we can use to estimate the total human and natural forcing change since 1850. The IPCC also proves estimates for the climate sensitivity. These can be multiplied to provide the IPCC expected temperature change since 1850. The value derived (best estimate per IPCC numbers = 1.4 °C warming since 1850) is twice the observed warming (HadCRUT best estimate = 0.7°C warming since 1850).
The “Missing Heat”
More Oddities with the IPCC Numbers
by Willis Eschenbach
“A number of people have said Hey, in your previous post, the missing forcing is going into the ocean, so it’s still “in the pipeline”. I had considered that, but it didn’t make sense. I’ve taken a closer look, and it still doesn’t make sense.
According to the IPCC calculations in that post, about 0.7 W/m2 was missing. Let us assume that it is going into the ocean. Here’s my numbers, please check them. The spreadsheet doing the calculations is here.”
Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations
George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:
Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.
If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.
See “Controversy and scandal”
Global Warming’s Corrupt Science
By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought
Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”
Sunday, October 3, 2010
UN IPCC Scientist Asks Tough Questions
Dr. Judith Curry, IPCC scientist and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, asks some tough unanswered questions of climate science and the IPCC in her new blog post What can we learn from climate models? The post begins with a sobering Short answer: I’m not sure.
This is interesting in light of the fact that essentially all of the IPCC ‘consensus,’ conclusions, and predictions are based entirely upon computer models. In addition, the IPCC admits in the fine print that said models have not been validated and that they don’t even know how to validate the models.
Other tough as yet unanswered questions include:
How did they [climate scientists] manage to reach conceptual consensus in spite of persisting scientific gaps, imminent uncertainties and limited means of model validation?
Why, to put the question differently, did scientists develop trust in their delicate model constructions?
Nature hates straight lines
October 25, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach
Forcing is generally taken to mean downward radiation measured at the TOA (top of atmosphere). The IPCC says that when TOA forcing changes, the surface temperature changes linearly with that TOA forcing change. If there is twice the forcing change (twice the change in solar radiation, for example), the IPCC says we’ll see twice the temperature change. The proportionality constant (not a variable but a constant) that the IPCC says linearly relates temperature and TOA forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”.
Today I stumbled across the IPCC justification of this linearity assumption. This is the basis of their claim of the existence of a constant called “climate sensitivity”. I quote it below.
IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?
11 November 2010 Marc Hendrickx
If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists:
If IPCC Climate Scientists were engineers:
If IPCC Climate scientists were laser eye surgeons:
If IPCC climate scientists were historians:
If IPCC Climate scientists were climate scientists:
And if IPCC climate scientists were fruit pickers:
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. MICHAELS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NOVEMBER 17, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
IPCC Forecasts are Incorrect
Thank you for inviting my testimony. I am a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. This testimony represents no official point of view from either of these institutions and is tendered with the traditional protections of academic freedom.
My testimony has four objectives
1) Demonstration that the rate greenhouse-related warming is clearly below the mean of climate forecasts from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are based upon changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that are closest to what is actually being observed,
2) demonstration that the Finding of Endangerment from greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon a very dubious and critical assumption,
3) demonstration that the definition of science as a public good induces certain biases that substantially devalue efforts to synthesize science, such as those undertaken by the IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and
4) demonstration that there is substantial discontent with governmental and intergovernmental syntheses of climate change and with policies passed by this House of Representatives.
Continues…..
I like this in regard to the “missing heat” that is either in the deep ocean (Trenberth, Renowden) or the troposphere (Santer, Thorne):-
“.An additional and important discrepancy between the models and reality extends into the lower atmosphere as well. In the lower atmosphere, climate models expectations are that the degree of warming with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations should be greater than that experienced at the surface, with the lower atmosphere warming about 1.4 times faster than the average surface temperature. Despite claims that observations and models are in agreement (Santer et al., 2008), new analyses incorporating a large number of both observational datasets as well as climate model projections, clearly and strongly demonstrate that the surface warming (which itself is below the model mean) is significantly outpacing the warming in the lower atmosphere—contrary to climate model expectations. Instead of exhibiting 40% more warming than the surface, the lower atmosphere is warming 25% less—a statistically significant difference (Christy et al., 2010).”
Lawrence Solomon: Has the IPCC discovered the Sun?
The IPCC is investigating the Sun as a driver of global warming
The IPCC for the first time will investigate “in depth” the role of global cosmic rays in climate change, according to a report last week in the Hindustan Times. Many solar and space scientists believe that cosmic rays, whose ability to enter Earth’s atmosphere is regulated by the Sun, are a dominant factor in global warming.
The turnaround in the IPCC position was announced by the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, in a communication with India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh. The announcement followed the release of a paper by U R Rao, the former chairman of Indian Space Research Organization, that showed cosmic rays alone were responsible for 40% of global warming. These findings by one of Pachauri’s most distinguished countrymen, rebutted IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other man-made causes were responsible for more than 90% of global warming. ………continues
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/25/lawrence-solomon-has-the-ipcc-discovered-the-sun/#ixzz1C5M1Xzgj
I saw the original paper and I can’t quite make the connection that the IPCC will suddenly change course mid-flight. It would take away their raison d’etre
However, the paper looks interesting
The paper is interesting at least for the reason by Lawrie in this comment:-
Whether Cosmic particles are a major or minor driver in modulating the earths climate is less important than the fact that the Indian scientific community is conducting research into factors other than CO2. Not only are they conducting research they are being supported by their government. Would it not be so here in Australia where government research is limited to CO2 and any scientist not in agreement is derided and ostracized. Many thanks to the Indian scientists who are living in the real world and not the dreamworld of the IPCC.
from: Lawrie
The IPCC is being forced to address just a part of the raft of natural influences on climate. There is nowhere near conclusive understanding of how combinations of solar/lunar/cosmic/celestial factors manifest in climate but the IPCC discounts all but TSI.
If even a small amount of funding was directed to those factors in NZ as compared to $15m over 4 years focussed on GHGs then we would all be a great deal wiser – and the 15 mill could go towards paying off debt instead.
Massive Climate Model Failure: IPCC Models Unable To Predict Pacific Ocean Variability With Any Confidence
Read here. Scientists know that the variability of the northern Pacific has a huge impact on global climate. If IPCC climate models are ever to successfully predict future climate changes, they first need to be able to predict the variability of the northern Pacific ocean. A new study by Furtado et al. confirms what has long been suspected, the IPCC climate models are unable to deal with the Pacific ocean variability.
The North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) is composed of two identified patterns of ocean variability. The first is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the second is the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO), neither of which can be consistently predicted by the IPCC’s models.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/08/massive-climate-model-failure-ipcc-models-unable-to-predict-pacific-ocean-variability-with-any-confi.html
A round up of selected background and responses to date, to the A. E. Dessler 2011 [D11] paper “Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget”. Keeping in mind that it is still in print and being revised subject to early criticism. Also related is Dessler 2010 [D10]
The D11 paper responds to “On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance”, Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell 2011 [SB11] and “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications”, Richard S. Lindzen, and Yong-Sang Choi 2011 [LC11].
Background
Background on the SB11 paper:-
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecast of global warming – Spencer/Gentry
Background on the LC11 paper:-
New Paper By Lindzen & Choi On Climate Sensitivity – Anthony Watts
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer :-
Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science – Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
Hatchet Job on Spencer, Braswell, Soon and Baliunas
Resignations, retractions and the process of science – Gavin Schmidt
Hatchet job on Lindzen and Choi 2009 (rectified by LC11 – silence from RealClimate since)
Lindzen and Choi Unraveled – Fasullo, Trenberth and O’Dell
D11 press release
Texas A&M prof says study shows that clouds don’t cause climate change
Summary as to what the controversy is all about.
A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change …and Why Dessler, Trenberth, and the IPCC are Wrong – Roy Spencer
SCORE: IPCC :1 Scientific Progress: 0
Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper – Roy spencer
A radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later
Rise of the 1st Law Deniers – Roy Spencer
Re IPCC usual suspects dissing SB11
Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back – Roy Spencer
Responses re D11
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study – Roy Spencer
More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us – Roy Spencer
The Stone in Trenberth’s Shoe – Steve McIntyre
The Spencer-Braswell & Dessler papers – Anthony Watts
Spencer & Braswell: Part III – Judith Curry
Andrew Dessler: clouds don’t reflect light – Lubos Motl
Responses re D10
CERES and the Shortwave Cloud Feedback – Troy CA at Lucia’s
More on Dessler 2010 – Steve McIntye
———————————————————————
My favourites from Steve McIntyre:-
Re D11
Re D10
It seems the Team have a problem now that the hatchet is in different hands (and I don’t think it will be buried either).
Have I missed any good science oriented responses?
Politically related posts here
Bombshell at Tallblokes:-
Bill Illis: Clouds account for most of the variability in net radiation at TOA
Over on the Spencer Good, Bad and Ugly response to Dessler 2011 thread on WUWT, Bill Illis quietly drops this little bombshell:
Bill Illis says:
September 10, 2011 at 10:11 am
“I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77).”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/bill-illis-clouds-account-for-most-of-the-variability-in-net-radiation-at-toa/
Using Dessler’s own data!
Or as Tallbloke puts it – holy moley!
Also at WUWT:- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/bill-illis-clouds-account-for-most-of-the-variability-in-net-radiation-at-the-top-of-the-atmosphere/
From what I can gather, Dessler 2011 (D11) basically restates Dessler 2010 and Trenberth et al 2010 in lines 79 – 95. All D11 has done is put the focus back on the former papers and as the results and comments of McIntyre, Illis, Spencer and many others now show early on – the Team has a problem.
The two previous papers:-
“A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade”
A. E. Dessler, 2010 (D10)
“Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation”
Trenberth et al, 2010 (T10)
Obviously there’s some oddities in D11 (“THE BAD” etc) but there’s 3 interlinked papers in question that are the big picture: D11, D10 and T10 that must be read and dissected in conjunction because they all hang together (consistent as D11 says Line 92). If the D10 – T10 “consistency” is shown to be non-existent by errors in either paper, then the Team will be at loggerheads with each other – and they can’t let that happen.
SB11 addresses D10 but is there a paper that similarly addresses T10?
There’s a lot a stake, have I got this right?
More background from Spencer’s blog.
New Results on Climate Sensitivity: Models vs. Observations
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/new-results-on-climate-sensitivity-models-vs-observations/
1) RADIATIVE ENERGY ACCUMULATES DURING WARMING IN ADVANCE OF THE TEMPERATURE PEAK
2) RADIATIVE ENERGY IS LOST DURING COOLING AFTER THE TEMPERATURE PEAK
Dessler 2010 only addressed ZERO time lag.
And this:-
In his paper [D10], Dessler dismissed all of the evidence we presented with a single claim: that since (1) the global temperature variations which occurred during the satellite record (2000-2010) were mostly caused by El Nino and La Nina, and (2) no one has ever demonstrated that “clouds cause El Nino”, then there could not be a clouds-causing-temperature-change contamination of his cloud feedback estimate.
But we now have clear evidence that El Nino and La Nina temperature variations are indeed caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/on-recent-criticisms-of-my-research/
And this:-
Dick Lindzen has chimed in on my side in recent days, but Andy [Dessler] continues to claim that – at least during the 2000-2010 period in question — I have provided no evidence that clouds cause climate variations.
This is remarkably similar to how Kevin Trenberth rebutted my last congressional testimony…”clouds don’t cause climate change”, is approximately what I recall Kevin saying.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dessler-spencer-cloud-feedback-debate-update/
Commentary (in their inimitable style) from C3 Headlines:-
Spencer Cloud Research Uses IPCC Gold-Standard HadCRUT Data, But New Dessler Study Avoids Gold-Standard Benchmark
New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work’s shoddiness.
Supposedly, Dessler’s new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.
Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.
It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn’t the case, why not use the gold-standard?
Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn’t take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so “positive.”
>>>>>>>>>
“non-IPCC dataset” – ironic.
Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth
He he!
Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day
Posted on September 16, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes:
Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized.
The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process for O’Donnell et al 2010 or the comment by Ross and me on Santer et al 2008. The Trenberth article was accepted on the day that it was submitted:
CA readers are well aware of long-term obstruction by the Team not simply regarding details of methodology, but even data. Trenberth objects to incompleteness of methodological description in Spencer and Braswell 2011 as follows:
Obviously these are principles that have been advocated at Climate Audit for years.I’ve urged the archiving of both data and code for articles at the time of publication to avoid such problems. However, these suggestions have, all too often, been resolutely opposed by the Team. Even supporting data, all to often, remains unavailable. I haven’t had time to fully parse Spencer and Braswell as to reproducibility but note that Spencer promptly provided supporting data to me when requested (as did Dessler.) In my opinion, Spencer and Braswell should have archived data as used and source code concurrent with publication, as I’ve urged others to do. However, their failure to do so is hardly unique within the field. That Trenberth was able to carry out a sensitivity study as quickly as he did suggests to me that their methodology was substantially reproducibile, but, as I noted above, I haven’t parsed the article.
Trenberth observes that “minor changes” in assumptions yielded “major changes” in results, concluding that the claims in Lindzen and Choi 2009 were not robust:
read the rest here: More Hypocrisy from the Team [Climate Audit link]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/16/trenberth-gets-a-rebuttal-to-spencer-and-braswell-published-turnaround-1-day/
The Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology study focuses on LOW cloud but the Spencer – Braswell vs Dessler – Trenberth argument is about the NETT effect of all clouds.
The argument however is being couched in warmist terms by Team cheerleaders i.e in a “warming world” blah-de-blah, see this Live Science article: Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change”:-
And,
Therefore, the controversy is in five parts:
1) The cause of cloud variation
2) The sign of the feedback from the nett effect (CLD) of the variation.
3) Relationship between CLD forcing and temperature
4) Difference between models and observations
5) Climate change
Opposing positions:-
Team says 1) is caused by temperature only,
Others say 1) is caused by a solar-cosmic dynamic.
Team says 2) is positive only (Dessler 0.54 w/m2/K)
Others say 2) is weakly negative (McIntyre -0.96 w/m2/K)
Team says 3) is temperature >>> clouds only
Spencer-Braswell says 3) is temperature >>> <<< clouds
Team says 4) is agreement using instantaneous relationship
Others say 4) is no agreement using lagged relationship that is more significant than instantaneous
Team say climate warms only
Others say climate warms and cools
[I'll need to check 2) and 4) at some stage]
An increase in LOW cloud (see Carnegie study) caused by 1) is this action in 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) depending on other (e.g. high cloud) variations:-
Team: temperature >>> + CLD >>> temperature increase >>> disagreement >>> climate warms
Others: solar-cosmic >>> – or + CLD >>> temperature decrease or increase >>> disagreement >>> climate cools or warms
Obviously the Team say there is agreement in models vs observations but Dessler neglects the bigger picture.
Obvious also is that the cause of evaporation in the Carnegie study (let alone an increase) and low cloud formation as a result of it is very complex in 1) for both Team and Others and we need to know as much about the process as possible.
More from Live Science, this time by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer:-
The El Niño/La Niña cycles seem to be a point-of-difference for the Team but I can’t yet get my head around how this fits into the controversy given the deficiency in Dessler’s paper (lag vs instantaneous CLD forcing – temperature relationship).
I think a key difference is that D10 contends that clouds can only produce feedbacks – and cannot provide the initial forcing.
D11 says that the temp changes Spencer saw were the result of ENSO, not clouds. ie the cloud behaviour was a reaction.
Spencer seems to say that the ENSO was itself driven by clouds. ie the cloud behaviour was the prime mover.
The El Niño/La Niña point-of-difference.
Spencer responds to this:-
With this:-
And this:-
So,
Dessler says: El Niño/La Niña “not caused by clouds”
Spencer says: El Niño/La Niña “caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes
And Dessler refuses SB10 and SB11 as demonstrations of El Niño/La Niña being caused by changes in clouds.
Now Trenberth has a comment on SB11 in Remote Sensing (linked at CA) that is the subject of this article by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:-
“More Hypocrisy from the Team”
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/16/more-hypocrisy-from-the-team/
See also more background here:-
“More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us” by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/more-thoughts-on-the-war-being-waged-against-us/
I’ve Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now -and Before
October 8th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
…sometimes, the most powerful evidence is right in front of your face…..
I never dreamed that anyone would dispute the claim that cloud changes can cause “cloud radiative forcing” of the climate system, in addition to their role as responding to surface temperature changes (“cloud radiative feedback”). (NOTE: “Cloud radiative forcing” traditionally has multiple meanings. Caveat emptor.)
But that’s exactly what has happened. Andy Dessler’s 2010 and 2011 papers have claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that in the context of climate, with very few exceptions, cloud changes must be the result of temperature change only.
Shortly after we became aware of Andy’s latest paper, which finally appeared in GRL on October 1, I realized the most obvious and most powerful evidence of the existence of cloud radiative forcing was staring us in the face. We had actually alluded to this in our previous papers, but there are so many ways to approach the issue that it’s easy to get sidetracked by details, and forget about the Big Picture.
Well, the following graph is the Big Picture……..
[See plot and details]
What this graph shows is very simple, but also very powerful: The radiative variations CERES measures look nothing like what the radiative feedback should look like. You can put in any feedback parameter you want (the IPCC models range from 0.91 to 1.87…I think it could be more like 3 to 6 in the real climate system), and you will come to the same conclusion.
And if CERES is measuring something very different from radiative feedback, it must — by definition — be radiative forcing (for the detail-oriented folks, forcing = Net + feedback…where Net is very close to the negative of [LW+SW]).
The above chart makes it clear that radiative feedback is only a small portion of what CERES measures. There is no way around this conclusion.
[...]
I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/ive-looked-at-clouds-from-both-sides-now-and-before/
Our GRL Response to Dessler Takes Shape, and the Evidence Keeps Mounting
October 12th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Dessler’s paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system.
To whet your appetite, here is a draft version of one of the illustrations (click for the large version). It clearly shows the large discrepancy which exists between the IPCC climate models and satellite observations in the way they show the Earth shedding excess radiant energy in response to warming. This is central to question of how much warming can be expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, because the less radiant energy the model’s shed per degree of warming, the more the models continue to warm.
>>>>>>>>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/
The Law of “it”
If it is settled it is not science.
If it is science it is not settled.
Therefore IPCC Climate Science is NOT science, it is HIWTYL BS.
HIWTYL….Heads I Win Tails You Lose.
BS………….Bureaucratic Science (Akin to what a bull does)
Prominent Chinese Climate Scientists Conclude IPCC Is Worthless: “restricted by its political tendencies”
Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail…empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.
Read here. The world’s science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN’s IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.
The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC’s “consensus” climate science:
(1) “it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,”
(2) “over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration,” since “for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,”
(3) “there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature,” and
(4) “the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere.” [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Unfortunately, the establishment apparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/11/prominent-chinese-climate-scientists-conclude-ipcc-is-worthless-restricted-by-its-political-tendenci.html
Great to see Earth Scientists stating the obvious – although the reaction to this coming from China is predictable.
Just read ‘Chivers on cosmoclimatology’ at Bishop Hill:-
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/11/chivers-on-cosmoclimatology.html
AM says:-