Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Yorkshiresnows

Members
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    York, North Yorkshire
  1. This cannot be a serious post .......... is it !!!!? Extent looking good ..... Anomaly chart showing the past 30 year increasing trend. Latest image looking healthy !!! Y.S
  2. Hi V.P I think I understand the point you are making ....... there is a lot of uncertainty ? Okay, yes agree. Y.S
  3. Hi Pete, Yes I do think that we will need to wait and see. The paper is trying to state something important but as Spencer admits, he had to sanitise it somewhat to get all the reviewers to pass it through. There is a lot more in his book (which I have read) which forms a good backdrop to the paper (some of the results are discussed more openly in here). The point is that the satellite data (limited though it is) are not showing what would be expected from a climate system that is supposed to be super sensitive. That is, what feedbacks can be observed from the satelites are negative and not positive. So that is very important if confirmed as accurate as clearly this would have implications as to the magnitude of impacts that increasing Co2 emissions may have. His theory (goes outside the paper here) allows for the fact that changes in cloud cover (low levels cloud cover) may be expected to occur with long term changes in oceanic cycles - e.g.PDO states (as well as any possible increase in water vapour content of the atmosphere - as per IPCC - don't forget the modals currently assume a complete positive feedback on temperature of increased water vapour with no adjustment for probable changes in cloud cover). As small changes in clouds can impact on the radiative absorption of the oceans and can potentially impact on climate. This could be very important and more research is needed to look into this area. I'd point you also to one of the conclusions in the paper: "The most likely mechanism for this iternal radiative forcing is nonfeedback fluctuations in low clouds, though nonfeedback variations in water vapor or high clouds might be a significant component of the decorrelated portion of the thermally emitted longwave radiative flux". I would expect his next paper where he is looking at "a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability" to be more explicit particularly as his preliminary indications are that the satellite results are "outside the envelope of all the IPCC models". I think that these are very exciting times (and thank God he is at least being acknowledged on here as a scientist, rather than a 'crackpot' as stated from certain quarters on this forum when I presented some of his data and ideas a few months back). Y.S
  4. Hi Folks, Further to the recent postings it would seem that there is likely to be a response to the recent Roy Spencer paper, so I guess we will see what gives. The paper is heavily sanitised but the principal thrust (reading between the lines) is that where there is evidence of feedback forcing this is primarily negative and not positive - that forcing can inherently occur within the closed system ...... which is most likely due to low level cloud changes (but then I have the advantage of having the book, which makes this very clear). Here is the latest from Roy on his blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (emphasis I have added in bold) "I am seeing increasing chatter about one or more papers that will (or already have) debunked my ideas on feedbacks in the climate system. Yet, I cannot remember a climate issue of which I have ever been so certain. I understand that most people interested in the climate debate will simply believe what their favorite science pundits at RealClimate tell them to believe, which is fine, and I can’t do anything about that. But for those who want to investigate for themselves, I recommend reading only our latest and most comprehensive paper in Journal of Geophysical Research. It takes you from the very basics of feedback estimation — which I found I had to include because even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them — and for the first time explains why satellite observations of the climate system behave the way they do. No one has ever done this before to anywhere near the level of detail we do. [unfortunately, our 2008 paper in Journal of Climate, I now realize, had insufficient evidence to make the case we were trying to make in 2008. I believe our claims were correct, but the evidence we presented could not unequivocally support those claims. Only after finishing our most recent 2010 paper did I realize the insufficiency of that previous work on the subject.] Then, once you think you understand the main points we make in the new JGR paper, read any other critiques or criticisms that catch your fancy. As a teaser, one of the clear conclusions the new paper supports is this: The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative. All I ask is that you evaluate whether anyone can come up with a better explanation than what we have given for the structures we see in the satellite observations of natural climate variations. Do not settle for others’ vague arm-waving dismissals based upon preconceived notions or what others have told them. You engineers and scientists from other fields are capable of understanding this, and I am appealing to you to bring fresh eyes to a field where the research establishment has become hopelessly inbred and too beholden to special interests to see that which is staring them in the face. This is the main reason why I wrote The Great Global Warming Blunder…the evidence is simple enough for the science-savvy public to understand. But the experts do not see the evidence because they refuse to open their eyes " Y.S
  5. Fair point Dev ..... but I am not aware that there has been any independent investigative comittees set up to look into the statistical methods he used and which then went on to critisise ..... unlike a certain Dr Mann. Y.S
  6. Great post, I was attempting to put something similar down and you beat me to it. Roy Spencer is an Expert in the field ...... perhaps others should not so easily dismiss his findings. Y.S
  7. Hi Folks, A little more on the case for the recent paper by Roy Spencer. The below is taken directly from his blog. Its a nice description of the current situation regarding cloud feedback science (though clearly written from one side of the argument). The emphasis's I have added. I received a question from a reader today regarding why the writer of a recent article ( http://e360.yale.edu...searchers/2313/ the state of the science on cloud feedbacks did not mention our newly published work.The usual suspects were questioned, but there was nothing new there. Cloud feedbacks are just as uncertain today as they were 20 years ago, blah, blah. More of the same. Now, I would like to think our new paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf) demonstrated not only the main reason why cloud feedbacks have remained so uncertain, but why their estimation from satellite data tends to give the illusion of a sensitive climate system. None of the so-called experts mentioned what has been ignored as a potential climate change mechanism: Natural cycles in cloud cover. I had wondered for years why no one investigated the possibility, and our work clarified for me that this indeed is a huge question mark that most researchers do not even realize exists. Unfortunately, I predict it will be at least 2 years before our paper is digested and believed by influential people in the climate community…if even then. (They still think the truth is lurking in computer models somewhere…just turn this knob a little more to the right left…) This brings up the issue of how entrenched some ideas get in the scientific community, and not only for scientific reasons. Dr. Roy in a Previous Millennium In an earlier life, my claim to fame was demonstrating that satellite passive microwave radiometers could be used to measure rainfall over land. My first paper on the subject (actually, my first published paper ever) had the cover illustration on the front of Nature magazine. Ha! If they only knew I would grow up to be a “denierâ€. At the time (1983) the established scientists working with NASA wanted to build the first weather radar to fly in space. While this was a worthy effort in its own right — finally realized with the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) — one of the radar’s original justifications was to measure rainfall over land. My work was apparently providing evidence it was not needed. So, as a post-doc newcomer to the field, I was rocking that boat. For me, that experience was when I lost my innocence. My research worldview was shaken. Scientists are not objective after all! Gasp! Now, even after over 20 years of telling people of all of my subsequent experiences that only reinforced my claim that scientists are not objective, it seemed like no one was particularly worried about this. Then Climategate broke upon the scene. Scientists behaving badly! Gasp! What Was I Talking About? Oh, Yeah, Cloud Feedbacks So, what I am getting around to is that it will take a long time before the climate research community looks at, understands, and believes what we have done. Sometimes I have half-jokingly mentioned that it will probably take an IPCC-ordained scientist to “discover†the same thing. I experienced that behavior, too. NASA research centers can be pretty competitive with each other. If it wasn’t invented at their center, it wasn’t invented. So, getting back to the original question: Why did this science writer not mention my work in his summary article on cloud feedbacks? I’m afraid he’s the last one I would expect to know. Consider: 1) Most scientists, let alone science writers, will not even be aware that our paper has been published. 2) Even if they know it has been published, they won’t bother to read it because they have already heard it conflicts with IPCC orthodoxy. 3) Even if they dare read it, they probably won’t take the time to understand it, and so they will revert to the IPCC party line, anyway. 4) Even if they read it and understand it, they will not recognize its importance. After all, the reviewers made sure our paper was sanitized so that it would not make any outright claims that could potentially shake the faith of the Believers. The reader will instead have to know enough about the field to figure out for themselves what the implications are. Fortunately, I have been getting some good feedback in recent days (Hah! Feedback!). A nice note from Lord Monckton basically said, “NOW I see what you have been talking about!†A blog reader who doesn’t even do climate research read the whole paper and understood it. Now, THAT is cool. But, while this is heartening, we still need the mainstream climate scientists to pay attention. Unfortunately, scientific discovery never was the purpose of the IPCC, and you disagree with them at your professional peril. Y.S
  8. Water vapour as a greenhouse gas is far more potent than CO2 and even small changes in low height cloud cover would have an impact on the radiative budget of the Earth (blocking sunlight and the ocean absorbance of solar irradiation). Of course changes in high level cloud would have an opposite effect, trapping heat. No we don't take the role of clouds as read ... that is the whole point and even the IPCC admit there is a lot more to know about how increasing water vapour in a warming climate will impact on this aspect. It is the biggest uncertainty that there is. So far the climate models all assume a +positive feedback response alone. It is this which is being shown to be highly questionable from Roy Spencers group. You could argue that changes in PDO / AMO and other ocean cyclical factors may also have a role to play in changing the status quo in this regard. I believe (at least from what I have read) that a change in cloud cover of just 1% would be sufficient to account for the warming seen since the start of the 20th century. Would seem perfectly sensible to investigate whether natural cyclical factors have any bearing on the warming seen and whether changes in cloud cover are a possible part of the mechanism. Y.S
  9. Its funny how predictable certain folks are ........ Anyway, I'd suggest that what this does show is that the mechanics of feedback and forcing are complicated with many unknowns still to be unravelled. The role of clouds is (and as the IPCC admits) on feedback is still an unknown quantity that could potentially be a big player. Why don't you and SSS read the book ...... now that he has published data on his central claim, you can at least get over the 'its in a book and therefore has not been peer reviewed and is therefore crap' stance. You might actually like what you see. Better still, go and post your views on his blog and see if you get a response. I see that he is answering comments on the paper at the moment. Or you could just rubbish another paper that dares to question the 'consensus view' on climate forcing. Y.S
  10. Hi Folks, There is a new piece of research by Roy Spencer' group on the role of that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research: The papers title is: "On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing" http://www.drroyspen...ll-JGR-2010.pdf As a synopsis this paper puts meat on the central claim of Dr Spencers most recent book " The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists" and Dr Spencer's belief that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. This as a result, the climate system giving the illusion of positive cloud feedback. Here's a following extract from Dr Spencers blog (http://www.drroyspencer.com/), discussing the publication: "Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue. While the paper does not actually use the words “cause†or “effectâ€, this accurately describes the basic issue, and is how I talk about the issue in the book. I wrote the book because I found that non-specialists understood cause-versus-effect better than the climate experts did! This paper supersedes our previous Journal of Climate paper, entitled “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration“, which I now believe did not adequately demonstrate the existence of a problem in diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system. The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves. Back to the Basics Interestingly, in order to convince the reviewers of what I was claiming, I had to go back to the very basics of forcing versus feedback to illustrate the mistakes researchers have perpetuated when trying to describe how one can supposedly measure feedbacks in observational data. Researchers traditionally invoke the hypothetical case of an instantaneous doubling of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere (2XCO2). That doubling then causes warming, and the warming then causes radiative feedback which acts to either reducing the warming (negative feedback) or amplify the warming (positive feedback). With this hypothetical, idealized 2XCO2 case you can compare the time histories of the resulting warming to the resulting changes in the Earth’s radiative budget, and you can indeed extract an accurate estimate of the feedback. The trouble is that this hypothetical case has nothing to do with the real world, and can totally mislead us when trying to diagnose feedbacks in the real climate system. This is the first thing we demonstrate in the new paper. In the real world, there are always changes in cloud cover (albedo) occurring, which is a forcing. And that “internal radiative forcing†(our term) is what gives the illusion of positive feedback. In fact, feedback in response to internal radiative forcing cannot even be measured. It is drowned out by the forcing itself. Feedback in the Real World As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.) Unfortunately, there is no way I have found to demonstrate that this strongly negative feedback is actually occurring on the long time scales involved in anthropogenic global warming. At this point, I think that belief in the high climate sensitivity (positive feedbacks) in the current crop of climate models is a matter of faith, not unbiased science. The models are infinitely adjustable, and modelers stop adjusting when they get model behavior that reinforces their pre-conceived notions. They aren’t necessarily wrong — just not very thorough in terms of exploring alternative hypotheses. Or maybe they have explored those, and just don’t want to show the rest of the world the results. Our next paper will do a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability. Preliminary indications are that the satellite results are outside the envelope of all the IPCC models. No doupt some will find this interesting .... and others will not !! Y.S
  11. Hi Jethro, Thanks for posting those links. Y.S
  12. Yes it was .... it provided a clear means to show that past climate was pretty flat until most likely human derived greenhouse gas emissions forced an unprecedented rise in temps. The whole IPCC third summary report centered its arguments around this issue ...... and that graph. Its not the be all and end all, I agree, but it was made an important issue in selling the whole greenhouse gas derived global warming issue to the general public. But, if there were past periods where similar temperature changes had occureed on a global scale, this then opens the possibility that natural cyclical events / drivers have a role to play. Surely to god at least that point isn't up for debate ?
×
×
  • Create New...