Nevertheless, all this stuff is like crack cocaine for the climate blogosphere-Curry

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Why isnt there a thread on the Spencer v Dressler brouhaha?

    the story has all the aspects of the climate controversy. unequal peer review, cherrypicking, Hockey Team bullying, climate model bashing, feedback uncertainties, grandstanding, you name it and its there. I guess it got overshadowed by the much less interesting CERN story.

    easy to find on any climate blog, both AGW or skeptical. I reccomend reading both sides.
     
  2. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    [​IMG]

    Spencer on his new paper back in July. Our Refutation of Dessler (2010) is Accepted for Publication « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
    how prescient of him. the paper set off a shit storm, Trenberth ( a grand poobah of the hockey team) got upset and made an underling fall on his sword for failing to hold up the paper in peer review for the usual months or years.
    Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
    Wolfie actually apologized to Trenberth! but, hey it may pay off down the line.

    then Dressler writes a rebuttal paper and it gets peer reviewed and accepted for publication in just six weeks! smells like IPCC deadlines are approching fast. unfortunately rushed papers are crappy papers and the blogosphere is all over it. Spencer's understated response to it- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
    even more fun to watch is the technical discussions (which often include the data and code) at Climate Audit More on Dessler 2010 « Climate Audit

    anyways, you get the idea. there are huge holes in the understanding of climate systems, climate scientists are notoriously weak at statistics, blah, blah, blah. I wish it wasnt true but it is. I wish peer review wasnt corrupted by politics but it is.
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    I still cant believe no one is talking about this. the latest twist is that Trenberth gets to put his critcism of SB11 in the journal with no peer review and no response from the authors. accept the same day as it was submitted. interesting. skeptical science gets tied up in review for months or years, often to get rejected for bogus reasons while the warmist side gets immediate pal review and acceptance, even when they are obviously flawed. remember this doosey of a climategate email?

     
  4. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,181
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen


    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting & dana1981

    Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

    Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

    Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Posted on 8 September 2011 by dana1981 & Rob Painting

    Andrew Dessler's new paper, which we first examined in a post yesterday, has some very far-reaching implications in terms of refuting climate "skeptic" myths. In fact, its results are relevant to three seperate myths in the Skeptical Science database. As a result, we have incorporated the findings of Dessler (2011) into the three myth rebuttals as follows.
    ........
    Spencer is getting his backside handed to him and losing credibility within his science. I find clouds causing the ENSO a fucking joke as the Enso is caused by pressure differences across the pacific...What is a bigger pressure forcer then the ocean? Seriously. Sure, I believe that the Atmosphere plays a smaller role in the enso, but the ocean is king. You think the godforsaken Atmosphere is going to cause upwelling 200 meters below the surface of the ocean? Don't think so.

    The ocean has a thousand times as much heat as the whole atmosphere and works in its own methods. The Atmosphere is controlled by it; not to say that wind can't upwell shallow water to the surface to cool the surface...but as a feed back.

    Also the enso isn't a forcer of warming or cooling over the mid to long term as the heat just gets moved around the oceans. Within Nino years most of the heat is centered near the surface over the eastern and central Pacific, but cooler waters are found over the western pacific at the surface, but on the other hand in Nina years the colder upwelled waters are at the surface with most of the heat 200-500 meters below the surface within the western pacific....Yes, some gets to the surface, but no where near what is near the surface during a nino year within the eastern Pacific. That is the reason that the world warms and cools with the enso.

    If I was Spencer, I'd stick with what he is GOOD at like satellite temperature measurements. I am serious.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    this is what I was talking about before. skepticalscience has created a strawman, distorted what the papers say, and anyone who doesnt get additional informed opinions is left with an incorrect understanding of the proceedings.

    here is skepticalscience's precis-
    here is the abstract of SP11-
    Spencer is saying that the data and models dont match up. Dessler says they do but his confidence levels are so low as to be ridiculous. it is always easier to show something is wrong and Spencer has put a major dagger into climate model's handling of clouds, feedbacks and sensitivities. most of the criticisms of SP11 also apply to Dessler10,11. McIntyre thinks both are pretty much crap btw. you will certainly find more actual info on the many of the skeptical site such as the links to the data, code to do the figures yourself, etc.

    this whole saga also points out (again) the massively different standards that non mainstream papers are held to compared to team papers
     
  6. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,632
    Thanks Received:
    3,082
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,712
    And Spencer knows nothing about satellites!
    Either that or he DELIBERATELY used the opposite sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic satellite calculations!
     
  7. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,181
    Well, more lower clouds would of course mean less solar energy making it into the ocean and more reflected to space, but within a warming world the "clouds" become higher within the Atmosphere as the atmosphere expands.

    Some studies that were done within the tropics shown that the forcing of clouds is more positive or neutral in natural.

    "Lauer et al. (2010) is not alone in its conclusion that the low-level cloud cover feedback will be positive. Other studies analyzing satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), and the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) such as Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have indicated that cloud optical depth of low marine clouds might be expected to decrease with increasing temperature. This suggests a positive shortwave cloud–climate feedback for marine stratocumulus decks."

    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    What is the net feedback from clouds?

    "To the extent that iRAM results for cloud feedbacks in the east Pacific are credible, they provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity."

    "In another recent paper, Clement et al. (2009) analyzed several decades of ship-based observations of cloud cover along with more recent satellite observations, with a focus on the northeastern Pacific. They found that there is a negative correlation between cloud cover and sea surface temperature apparent on a long time scale—again suggesting a positive cloud-climate feedback in this region."
    Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements

    "However, a response to this paper, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation (Trenberth et al 2010) revealed a number of flaws in Lindzen's analysis. It turns out the low climate sensitivity result is heavily dependent on the choice of start and end points in the periods they analyse. Small changes in their choice of dates entirely change the result. Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes."

    "Debunked by Murphy

    Another major flaw in Lindzen's analysis is that they attempt to calculate global climate sensitivity from tropical data. The tropics are not a closed system - a great deal of energy is exchanged between the tropics and subtropics. To properly calculate global climate sensitivity, global observations are required.

    This is confirmed by another paper published in early May (Murphy 2010). This paper finds that small changes in the heat transport between the tropics and subtropics can swamp the tropical signal. They conclude that climate sensitivity must be calculated from global data."

    [/quote] So since it is easy to transfer from tropics to the rest of the globe; we all know the hadley cells and how air raises within the tropics and moves northward all around the world. So this makes a lot of since. It just doesn't make any sense to use -20 to 20 north/south within a open system as the earth to figure globally
    wouldn't you agree it should be global in nature if you went to measure it against something like a "global" event such as global warming
    right back to the question we started out with...The oceans are a store; much alike a battery that compiles energy year after year...Clouds are a feed back that comes from the oceans. The oceans warms and then the moisture evaporates off of them into the Atmosphere...When they're in the Atmosphere they cool with height(height=cooling through lapse rate). When the "gas"/vapor(water vapor) raises it expands as it cools...When it reaches its dew point it condenses into clouds. That is called condensation...When the water droplets get big enough(cloud nuli) they fall back to the surface...Oceans control this cycle through as if they cooled=less moisture moving into the Atmosphere to make clouds. Remember my post about 6 months ago when I posted to westwall how a 50 degree day can have far less moisture at its saturation point then 80 degree air...Well there it is. This means that clouds ARE A FEED BACK...Cool the ocean and you will have less precipitation.

    Also the ocean as Desser says is a store of heat that takes a hell of a long time to warm or cool. Case in point 20/1 by the energy of the oceans to clouds.
    The enso cycles are caused by a pressure change within the SOI between 120 east and south America. Pressure is caused by "temperature" differences that cause difference within density...Low pressure is caused by rising air, which is more likely over a warm body of water, while the high pressure is caused by denser air that is caused by air convergenging at the surface, which forms a deeper column of air(higher pressure) pushing down the the surface...Winds flow from high to low pressure.... Warm water moves to surface and evaporates and forms more clouds...BUT the clouds formed by nina are over the southwestern Pacific(throughout the world, but in different positions from nino), so not everything is uneven...this and the fact that most measurements within these scientific studies show a rising of the clouds as the atmosphere expands and a neutral to positive forcing should tell you something; as the trend points it. IS IT possible that they have a slight negative forcing, sure, but not likely to have much effect.[quotes]


    Simulating marine boundary layer clouds over the eastern Pacific in a regional climate model with double-moment cloud microphysics


    Domain-averaged (30°S–30°N, 150°–60°W) feedback parameters from iRAM range between +1.8 and +1.9 W m−2 K−1. At most locations both the LTS and cloud amount are altered in the global warming cases, but the changes in these variables do not follow the empirical relationship found in the present-day experiments.
    AMS Journals Online - The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2011
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

    What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.
     
  9. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    I know it doesn't matter to a true believer like you rocks, but numerous studies have shown that the bulk of ice loss in the arctic is due to wind, not warming.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    [ QUOTE=Old Rocks;4157073]Ian, Spencer, Lindzen, and the rest constantly are telling us that the climate is far less sensative than what Hansen says it is. Yet, the Arctic is responding far faster than even Hansen thought it could, and the loss of ice in the cryosphere is far more than even the 'alarmists' were predicting.

    What we have is real events, not models or hypothesized positive and negative feedbacks, telling us that the climate is far more sensative to the GHGs than anyone has thought. The ongoing weather events worldwide are demostrating that, and we see the practical effect in the prices on the grocery shelves.[/QUOTE]

    actually Old Rocks, what L+C, S+B are saying is-
    1. because cloud systems are so complex and beyond being able to be calculated on a small grid the climate modellers made assumptions that were written into the models.
    2. when run the climate models produce a picture that is different than reality, such the notorious 'missing hot spot'.
    3. to improve mankind's knowledge of heat transport by clouds LC and SP have been examining specific events where cloud systems 'burp off' large amounts of energy.

    the modellers are proud and protective of their models and dont want to hear anything that will detract from their findings. the other side is making first steps in an area that will have to be investigated sooner or later anyways. the fight is over whose conclusions will prevail. and funding of course. because there is a large possibility that this area of study could flip the models on their head the mainstream scientists have not been in any rush to investigate and indeed have seen fit to quibble over details rather than run with the important idea of understanding an area that holds some of the largest uncertainties in climate studies.
     

Share This Page