Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
jethro

New Research

Recommended Posts

Just because you don't have loads of letters after your name doesn't mean you don't understand the science. Why do you think boards like this exist? It's to learn and discover the workings of Earth's climate. Just because some have a huge amount of letters belonging to them doesn't make them right..

Luke is Tri-Somi 10P+. His consultant has plenty of letters beyond her name yet she still defers to our understanding of how Luke's condition manifests.

Most Dr's now defer to parents of special needs kids as they recognise their individual 'expertise' in the area of their son/daughter.

How many discoveries in Astronomy are made by amateurs?

I'm sure we can , over a narrow field, become experts without having a grand title?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he's nearly as well qualified and experienced as people like Dr Michael Mann and Dr James Hansen - but I'm sure that doesn't mean you accept every word they say :good:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Dev but I find your tone in that post to be really quite argumentative, for arguments sake.

Not at all, I simply asked question that came to mind - that's what this place is about, surely?

SSS raised a point about the significance of cloud feedback - I posted the official IPCC opinion on their importance and the lack of understanding.

SSS also questioned Spencer's results on the basis that he's produced some ropey results - I posted his qualifications and positions held, so that people can see he's actually really rather well qualified to make this study.

Yes, he is. And so are the much derided scientists I mentioned. Also I'll ask again (not specifically directed at you but of anyone here), has Dr Spencer shown there to be a change in cloud cover? I don't think he has.

Quite what Mann, Hansen and other people's perception on CO2 and climate change have to do with what I posted is I'm afraid, beyond me.

it's that if we accept Dr Spencer's work is good and not 'ropey' we should also take the work of Dr's Mann and Hansen on the same basis. I do, I accept their work (part of why I think AGW a big problem) and if Dr Spencer had shown a 1% change in cloud cover I'd take that very seriously as well, because of the implications for climate you post, Again, I don't think he has (which is surely crucial?).

Just because you don't have loads of letters after your name doesn't mean you don't understand the science. Why do you think boards like this exist? It's to learn and discover the workings of Earth's climate. Just because some have a huge amount of letters belonging to them doesn't make them right..

well, yes. And that applies to Mann, Hansen and Spencer.

So, we look at the results of a paper? Which (and I'm sorry to be persistent but it's important) haven't shown a change to cloud cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, I simply asked question that came to mind - that's what this place is about, surely?

Yes, he is. And so are the much derided scientists I mentioned. Also I'll ask again (not specifically directed at you but of anyone here), has Dr Spencer shown there to be a change in cloud cover? I don't think he has.

it's that if we accept Dr Spencer's work is good and not 'ropey' we should also take the work of Dr's Mann and Hansen on the same basis. I do, I accept their work (part of why I think AGW a big problem) and if Dr Spencer had shown a 1% change in cloud cover I'd take that very seriously as well, because of the implications for climate you post, Again, I don't think he has (which is surely crucial?).

well, yes. And that applies to Mann, Hansen and Spencer.

So, we look at the results of a paper? Which (and I'm sorry to be persistent but it's important) haven't shown a change to cloud cover?

Sometimes it's not what is said, but how it's said which creates confusion - the eternal problem of the written word at a distance, in a virtual world.

I've had a quick look at the paper (admittedly not digested fully) but from what I can see, he isn't claiming a change in cloud cover. This study is trying to decipher feedback and radiative forcing, an area of enormous question and the primary reason for the uncertainty in projected future temperature rises. We all know from the laws of Physics that CO2 alone cannot cause much warming, it relies upon the positive feedback of water vapour to cause warming and continued warming.

"The central issue we will examine is that satellite measurements of variations in radiative flux contain a mixture of forcing and feedback and the presence of one will affect the identification and estimation of the other. Our specific interest is a better understanding of the impact that unknown levels of timeâ€varying radiative forcing have on feedback diagnosis and what that might mean for the estimation of climate sensitivity"

And

"It is clear that the accurate diagnosis of shortâ€term feedbacks (let alone longâ€term climate sensitivity) from observations of natural fluctuations in the climate system is far from a solved problem. As we have seen, the presence of non feedback, internally generated radiative forcing confounds the identification of radiative feedback. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the insights provided here, all explained within the forcingâ€feedback paradigm of climate variability, will lead to new and more accurate methods of feedback and climate sensitivity diagnosis from satellite observations, as well as better metrics for the testing the climate sensitivity of coupled climate models."

The IPCC acknowledge that their Models do not do a good job of unravelling this puzzle, it really is one of, if not the biggest uncertainties in the science of AGW. As fas as I can see, Spencer is simply trying to further that knowledge.

I still don't see the relevance of Mann and Hansen here. Sorry. All science papers should be pored over, taken apart and reconstructed, if it can be shown that there are problems with either the process or conclusions, these issues should be raised and addressed - I don't care who's name is on the paper. Science progresses by this process, how can we have confidence in the system without this system of checks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it does science a great dis-service to not publish papers (for free) so we can all lend a hand in understanding our lives. Many on here are fully able to digest the paper and maybe help direct the 'drive' into areas that matter even more?

Trouble is GW, it is a costly business publishing material to a high standard [i know: our society publishes a peer-reviewed, journal of record]. It would be great to publish for free, but you cannot cover the costs you need that way.

BUT, as I've said before, email one of the authors and they will almost always give you a free PDF off-print or link to somewhere where their work is published in precis or for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Spencer does himself no favours at all by his use of sideswipes at other, 'IPCC sanctioned', reputable scientists??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good tip Roo.

Trouble with publishing is that cover sales rarely leave any room for manoeuvre, it's advertising which generates the profits; imagine the hoohar over which ads were acceptable and which were not for a science journal of any kind, accusations of "being in the pay of" flying all over the place.

Only way out of it that I see is government sponsorship as part of the funding for the research, can't see that happening any time soon.

IMO Spencer does himself no favours at all by his use of sideswipes at other, 'IPPC sanctioned', reputable scientists??

Agreed, but they all seem to be at it these days. The days of scientists being content to let their work speak, rather than themselves seems long gone - publicity and fame seems to feature far too high in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mycroft

it's that if we accept Dr Spencer's work is good and not 'ropey' we should also take the work of Dr's Mann and Hansen on the same basis. I do, I accept their work (part of why I think AGW a big problem) and if Dr Spencer had shown a 1% change in cloud cover I'd take that very seriously as well, because of the implications for climate you post, Again, I don't think he has (which is surely crucial?).

well, yes. And that applies to Mann, Hansen and Spencer.

The big diference between Mann,Hansen and Spencer is that Spencer has never hid his

data, methods,Man and Hansen seem to think they can come up with a theory and produce a paper, but won't tell anyone how they came to the conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is, afaik, true. But, how come climate does indeed change? We all accept climate changes? So there are other effect than clouds? So why are some people so unwilling to accept the bit about CO2? Yes, if (IF) clouds change by 1% that would have a big effect, but so is a doubling of CO2. And has Dr Spencer shown a 1% change, or indeed any change? Perhaps someone can point out where he does, because I can't see where he does?

Yes, he's nearly as well qualified and experienced as people like Dr Michael Mann and Dr James Hansen - but I'm sure that doesn't mean you accept every word they say :good:

Two excellent points. If we can actually have some corroborated evidence of cloud cover changes driving temperature, then there would be something interesting to talk about. It is interesting how some people repeat falsehoods about Mann and Hansen and others despite exonerations (I think, by now, their methods are the most public of all!). Spencer hasn't had any enquiries go after him because to date his cloud results haven't been that important, or very good.

Jethro, you're right about clouds being highlighted by the IPCC - they are of course crucial, and your excerpt shows this is not a topic the scientific community are ducking. But holding a senior position and having awards etc does not give you a free ride to the truth - you are still judged on the quality of what you produce. On that score (to use the above examples), to date Hansen and Mann have scored much more highly than Spencer, despite blogosphere attempts to muddy reputations. If Spencer comes up with the goods and shows the necessary changes in cloud cover, then all well and good, but so far he hasn't.

Why are people so quick to accept the word of Spencer, yet equally quick to dismiss the results of thousands of other scientists that happen to point to a single alternative conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two excellent points. If we can actually have some corroborated evidence of cloud cover changes driving temperature, then there would be something interesting to talk about. It is interesting how some people repeat falsehoods about Mann and Hansen and others despite exonerations (I think, by now, their methods are the most public of all!). Spencer hasn't had any enquiries go after him because to date his cloud results haven't been that important, or very good.

Jethro, you're right about clouds being highlighted by the IPCC - they are of course crucial, and your excerpt shows this is not a topic the scientific community are ducking. But holding a senior position and having awards etc does not give you a free ride to the truth - you are still judged on the quality of what you produce. On that score (to use the above examples), to date Hansen and Mann have scored much more highly than Spencer, despite blogosphere attempts to muddy reputations. If Spencer comes up with the goods and shows the necessary changes in cloud cover, then all well and good, but so far he hasn't.

Why are people so quick to accept the word of Spencer, yet equally quick to dismiss the results of thousands of other scientists that happen to point to a single alternative conclusion?

Well the IPCC state that cloud cover changes of just 1% would make a drastic difference, so I'd say that is something interesting to talk about. I'd also consider it to be something which is important; it is after all something which the IPCC consider to be very important, I doubt they just dismiss studies which try to provide answers.

I'm not saying Spencer should get a free ride, in fact I said in my last post that every paper should be torn apart, regardless of who has written it. You dismissed Spencer in a rather flippant manner and said he produced ropey results, that gives the impression that he's some crackpot who hasn't got a clue - that's plainly wrong. He's an eminently qualified scientist. I find it somewhat hypocritical to chastise folk for dismissing a scientist you support and in the same post, do exactly the same to one you do not. You can't have it both ways.

Why is it that despite the IPCC stating categorically that the science is imperfect, that there is still a great deal of unknowns that every time any piece of work comes along which augments the theory, (but questions the magnitude of our influence), it is dismissed contemptuously, and yet another piece comes along emphasising our influence and it is greeted with open arms and unquestioning praise?

Those thousands of other scientists who happen to point to a single conclusion are the same ones saying they don't know everything. Should we limit climate studies to just those scientists who have contributed to the IPCC? Should we make it a closed shop and only accept papers from those who agree with the consensus? Or should we have an open mind and consider contributions from all, so long as they have sound science to support their papers?

If this paper from Spencer falls apart upon peer review, so be it but until then I think it should be considered with an open mind, not dismissed off-hand based primarily upon who he is.

Hand on hearts folks, would this be dismissed in such a manner if Mann or Hansen had written it? Spencer's at least as qualified as them to do this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the IPCC state that cloud cover changes of just 1% would make a drastic difference, so I'd say that is something interesting to talk about. I'd also consider it to be something which is important; it is after all something which the IPCC consider to be very important, I doubt they just dismiss studies which try to provide answers.

Oh, I agree if someone, some data, showed a increase in cloud cover or 1% most people like me would gulp. But, no one has. Dr Spencer hasn't.

I'm not saying Spencer should get a free ride, in fact I said in my last post that every paper should be torn apart, regardless of who has written it. You dismissed Spencer in a rather flippant manner and said he produced ropey results, that gives the impression that he's some crackpot who hasn't got a clue - that's plainly wrong. He's an eminently qualified scientist. I find it somewhat hypocritical to chastise folk for dismissing a scientist you support and in the same post, do exactly the same to one you do not. You can't have it both ways.

Why is it that despite the IPCC stating categorically that the science is imperfect, that there is still a great deal of unknowns that every time any piece of work comes along which augments the theory, (but questions the magnitude of our influence), it is dismissed contemptuously, and yet another piece comes along emphasising our influence and it is greeted with open arms and unquestioning praise?

Those thousands of other scientists who happen to point to a single conclusion are the same ones saying they don't know everything. Should we limit climate studies to just those scientists who have contributed to the IPCC? Should we make it a closed shop and only accept papers from those who agree with the consensus? Or should we have an open mind and consider contributions from all, so long as they have sound science to support their papers?

If this paper from Spencer falls apart upon peer review, so be it but until then I think it should be considered with an open mind, not dismissed off-hand based primarily upon who he is.

Hand on hearts folks, would this be dismissed in such a manner if Mann or Hansen had written it? Spencer's at least as qualified as them to do this work.

I don't dismiss Dr Spencer (who has been/is a significant figure in the satellite temperature field), but I don't think he's added anything with this paper.

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree if someone, some data, showed a increase in cloud cover or 1% most people like me would gulp. But, no one has. Dr Spencer hasn't.

I don't dismiss Dr Spencer (who has been/is a significant figure in the satellite temperature field), but I don't think he's added anything with this paper.

The paper isn't about increased cloud cover.

Has the paper been peer reviewed yet? Has there been any critical assessment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard Co2 theory of feedback: Co2 increases the amount of radiation trapped in the atmosphere. This leads to changes in the climate system, that act to further modify the amount of radiation trapped/received/not reflected by earth, with a net effect that earth has a higher tendency to absorb radiation than can be explained by Co2 alone. The two most important feedback factors are an increase in water vapour (not cloud), which is a greenhouse gas, and a decrease in ice cover. Cloud cover is a third important factor and the IPCC do not know if clouds make things better or worse, and this accounts for most of the uncertainty in estimates of Co2 warming.

I have read Spencer's paper and do not fully understand it, but from what I can tell, his approach is to measure the changes in radiation, and see how much temperature changes as a result of these changes in radiation. However the measurement of changes in radiation already takes into account any feedbacks that may be occuring, and so this appproach cannot measure Co2 feedback, as Co2 feedback acts to alter the radiative forcing that Spencer uses as in input into his calculations.

So what is Spencer actually measuring? He himself states that he is only measuring what he calls 'feedback' on a short term basis - up to a few weeks. And on such time frames, what happens when the radiative balance of the earth changes? Some of this goes into increasing the temperature of the earth, and some is absorbed by the ocean's large heatcapacity. I believe Spencer is measuring the ocean's capability to absorb short term changes in radiation as heat content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS THE AIRBORNE FRACTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CARBON DIOXIDE INCREASING?

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009

doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

PDF (Knorr 2009)

Comment (from both 'sides') here, and, here

Whatever you conclude there is a subtle point in here, this does not claim that CO2 levels are not rising. Or that they are rising fast. It is the much more subtle point that the sequenstration levels of some GCM's seems to be considered (more or less) constant, such that once a threshold value is attained no more CO2 can be sequestered, and therefore that CO2 will rise exponentially from that point (a tipping point, effectively) however the observations do not support that hypothesis.

Other research that counters this idea such that the sinks are losing their ability to sequester CO2 (so the airborne fraction is rising) is here (Quere 2009)

Interesting stuff.

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS THE AIRBORNE FRACTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CARBON DIOXIDE INCREASING?

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009

doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

PDF (Knorr 2009)

Comment (from both 'sides') here, and, here

Whatever you conclude there is a subtle point in here, this does not claim that CO2 levels are not rising. Or that they are rising fast. It is the much more subtle point that the sequenstration levels of some GCM's seems to be considered (more or less) constant, such that once a threshold value is attained no more CO2 can be sequenstered, and therefore that CO2 will rise exponentially from that point (a tipping point, effectively) however the observations do not support that hypothesis.

Other research that counters this idea such that the sinks are losing their ability to sequester CO2 (so the airborne fraction is rising) is here (Quere 2009)

Interesting stuff.

Yes, it is interesting (if rather old news) and, of course, I don't agree with the WUWT line.

Now, to the subtle point. I've skimmed the pdf and I can't see where they say what you say they do (not saying they don't btw - might be my bad). Further I don't understand what you say: "It is the much more subtle point that the sequenstration levels of some GCM's seems to be considered (more or less) constant, such that once a threshold value is attained no more CO2 can be sequenstered, and therefore that CO2 will rise exponentially from that point (a tipping point, effectively) however the observations do not support that hypothesis." If sequestration rates are considered constant why does that imply at some point they sudden aren't? But, hey, I do need to read the paper (though, as ever, I'm not sure I'm really at a research scientists level).

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is interesting (if rather old news) and, of course, I don't agree with the WUWT line.

Now, to the subtle point. I've skimmed the pdf and I can't see where they say what you say they do (not saying they don't btw - might be my bad). Further I don't understand what you say: "It is the much more subtle point that the sequenstration levels of some GCM's seems to be considered (more or less) constant, such that once a threshold value is attained no more CO2 can be sequenstered, and therefore that CO2 will rise exponentially from that point (a tipping point, effectively) however the observations do not support that hypothesis." If sequestration rates are considered constant why does that imply at some point they sudden aren't? But, hey, I do need to read the paper (though, as ever, I'm not sure I'm really at a research scientists level).

Sorry I should be clearer - the subtle point (or inference) is my own and is based on this "Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found." (in the first paragraph) since it is reasonable that an upward trend in the airborne fraction is down to the ability of the sinks to sequester CO2.

As it happens I don't think that it's quite the 'Bombshell from Bristol' *sigh*, from WUWT, either - since radiative balances are based on airborne quantity, not fraction. It's just interesting that the models need a tweak, and, perhaps, that the severe scenarios played out (+6C/100years), which are almost certainly based on sink saturation, become that little bit more questionable - in my mind, it is evidence to move the variance of scenario output down a notch - quantitative estimate? No more than 1C/100years to 2100AD would be my guess.

Or, alternatively, increase the uncertainty range by the same amount.

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may well be misunderstanding things a tad here; but, shouldn't research into anything begin with some sort of observation?

Could it be, that cloud feedback has remained a mystery because no-one has yet observed any change in global cloud-cover that can be attributed to GHG emissions? How can one analyse the results of a phenomenon that remains, as yet, unobserved?

Which, I guess (I think others may be saying much the same thing?) is why I don't think Spencer's paper is really all that illuminating?

I think we'll all need to wait and see... :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may well be misunderstanding things a tad here; but, shouldn't research into anything begin with some sort of observation?

Could it be, that cloud feedback has remained a mystery because no-one has yet observed any change in global cloud-cover that can be attributed to GHG emissions? How can one analyse the results of a phenomenon that remains, as yet, unobserved?

Which, I guess (I think others may be saying much the same thing?) is why I don't think Spencer's paper is really all that illuminating?

I think we'll all need to wait and see... :drinks:

The problem with clouds are that, I reckon, it is impossible to construct a proxy of them, so that any result, or experiment with them isn't a statistically secure as it should be. We'd need decades of satellite data (perhaps in the infra-red, perhaps as radar - probably both) covering the whole globe such that we "know" everything else, and the variance must be down to clouds.

Unfortunately, we don't "know" everything else so it is hard (read: impossible) to deduce cloud variance over time, especially pre-satellite era. Indeed if the cloud variance isn't (more or less) constant, then we'd need to adjust the radiative budget to account for it, but then would that invalidate a whole host of other things?

Too many questions, in my view, to come to a view, apart from acknowledge that the problem exists; I'm not even sure there is a research path, here, either ...

(I would construct a grided skew-t model, and then perform direct observations, from satellite and from radiosondes to correspond to postive and negative radiation and correlate it with the gridded skew-t you'd then be able to analyse the GCM going forward in time by simple pattern matching (neural-network) and adjust therein. The problem with this is that you'd need someone in every grid on the globe doing this every, say, six hours. Not very practical! And, of course, the primary assumption is that the radiative balance somehow causes clouds - and there is some cursory evidence that this might not, always, be the case, and the secondary assumption is that info on a skew-t is correlated with cloud-type of which I am certainly not sure of)

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may well be misunderstanding things a tad here; but, shouldn't research into anything begin with some sort of observation?

Could it be, that cloud feedback has remained a mystery because no-one has yet observed any change in global cloud-cover that can be attributed to GHG emissions? How can one analyse the results of a phenomenon that remains, as yet, unobserved?

Which, I guess (I think others may be saying much the same thing?) is why I don't think Spencer's paper is really all that illuminating?

I think we'll all need to wait and see... :air_kiss:

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

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

A solar only scenario was rejected partially on a sensitivity basis:

Solar cycle length, greenhouse forcing and global climate

P. M. Kelly & T. M. L. Wigley

Nature 360, 328 - 330 (26 November 1992); doi:10.1038/360328a0

where the solar 'results might be considered implausible because of the extreme sensitivites implied' and thus reject the solar hypothesis which had the best fit to explain the variance to the climate histories tested.

Of course, they also go on to explain that the credibility of the experiment 'with solar forcing alone must be considered low, as it is illogical to neglect greenhouse forcing'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A solar only scenario was rejected partially on a sensitivity basis:

Solar cycle length, greenhouse forcing and global climate

P. M. Kelly & T. M. L. Wigley

Nature 360, 328 - 330 (26 November 1992); doi:10.1038/360328a0

where the solar 'results might be considered implausible because of the extreme sensitivites implied' and thus reject the solar hypothesis which had the best fit to explain the variance to the climate histories tested.

Of course, they also go on to explain that the credibility of the experiment 'with solar forcing alone must be considered low, as it is illogical to neglect greenhouse forcing'

Hi V.P

I think I understand the point you are making ....... there is a lot of uncertainty ?

Okay, yes agree.

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and yet, you, continue to fail to answer the question. Do you know what the question is?

BTW , which one?:whistling:

(I mean Nottingham or Manchester? you wouldn't want to mix them up in Moss side on a saturday night!!!)

Edited by Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...