PDA

View Full Version : IT'S OFFICIAL: Climate models are wrong. Again.



LWW
08-02-2011, 02:52 AM
YET ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN (http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html) of the alarmist mythology from reCount Dracula:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 02:39 PM
Nothing new in science is official. It's a conditional finding that must be replicated to have any standing.

What this says will not be accurately understood by reading a Forbes Magazine report from an oil-company financed think tank author. Hell, the reporting of scientific results is usually f-d up by normal newspaper headline writers and reporters who DO NOT necessarily have a giant trillion dollar industry telling them what to write.

Reading the article, one may notice that nowhere is the term 'alarmist' used, a hint to the bias of the oil company-financed think tank author who puts this into his report.

As for how definitive these results are, it requires ignoring the text of the paper, and the cautionary remarks of its principle author in his press conference remarks (linked from the Forbes article, which see).

For a flavor, here are the relevant hedge words in the paper:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thus, we must conclude that time-varying radiative forcing exists in the satellite observations, as evidenced by the radiative gain/loss couplet patterns seen in Figures 3 and 4. Diagnosis of feedback cannot easily be made in such situations, because the radiative forcing decorrelates the co-variations between temperature and radiative flux. For example, no matter what feedback is specified when the simple model is only radiatively forced, the regression coefficient at zero time lag for a sufficiently long model simulation is always near-zero. We believe this effect has led to low biases in previously diagnosed feedback parameters from satellite data.

Determination of whether regression coefficients at various non-zero time lags might provide a more accurate estimate of feedback has been recently explored by [14], but is beyond the scope of this paper. Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.</div></div>

and

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is. More recent work which attempts to minimize non-feedback influences [14] might well provide more accurate feedback estimates than previous studies.</div></div>

As the main author explained in his press conference (his remarks in quotes after what he's talking about is described in the first paragraph):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”</div></div>

In fact, his results show MORE radiative forcing than expected, accounting for the heating he admits occurred, as the data shows, since the non-radiative forcing has been analyzed downwards, assuming his looking at these regression data is legitimate and holds up under further investigation.

He throws up his hands and says no one can figure out what is going on, that it is too complicated.

But let's let the <s>industry spokesman</s> sorry, "independent" expert, tell us what it all means.

cushioncrawler
08-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Yes, i reckon that an expert summary in laymans terms iz needed, and of course there will certainly be many such summarys available shortly, i will see.
My reading tells me that the GW models are on the low side. But it iz confuzing -- he-they mention more than one model -- inklooding a model i think for calibrating the satellite.
mac.

moblsv
08-02-2011, 10:40 PM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...rming-alarmism/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/)


1) The data comes from satellites put into space by NASA, but NASA is in no way involved in this study.
2) If this study actually significantly contradicts our knowledge of global heating, why has it been published in Remote Sensing, and not a more reputable journal?
3) They only interviewed the guy from the University of Alabama who lead the study
4) The author works for The Heartland Institute
5) They seem to have replaced the words "accurate" and "accepted by the scientific community" with "alarmist"
6) Source on UN's involvement? Seems like they threw that one in just to go for the "UN = bad" reaction that a lot of people have

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 12:52 AM
Your linked article includes a link to RealClimate's takedown, which see:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”
Filed under:

Climate Science

— mike @ 29 July 2011

Guest commentary by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.
</div></div>

The rest. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/)

Qtec
08-03-2011, 01:14 AM
LWW thinks GW is all a conspiracy . He will grab at any straw.

Q

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 02:21 AM
Climate Denial Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair

Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird. July 6, 2011

When debating climate deniers, often they will bring up the names of the few scientists with actual credentials who remain skeptical that climate change will be disastrous for the planet. Roy Spencer is usually high on the list. The self professed “Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show”, Spencer is most famous for being conspicuously, repetitively, and stubbornly wrong with regard to some of the most critical satellite temperature measurements. Roy has a new book, which is not about climate, but is rather some kind of manifesto of his free-market economics beliefs.

The book was recently announced on his website, and in a curious answer to a comment, Roy Spencer let slip what he’s really been doing all these years.

The complete comment-

Nicholas, I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.

And here we thought the most important thing was the objective, scientific truth.

In the video below, you can hear him fessing up to messing up the most critical observations of his career.

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 02:23 AM
Posted by: Barry Bickmore | February 28, 2011
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2 The following is PART 2 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). If you haven’t read Part 1, you should probably do so before reading this. See also Part 3.

Summary of Part 2: Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.

The Mantra

It wasn’t easy slogging through Roy Spencer’s latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, because although it’s only 176 pages, it’s incredibly repetitive. There is page after page of carping about how dense and corrupt his colleagues and the IPCC are, how hypocritical Al Gore is, and so on. Most of this is just mildly annoying, but in my opinion, the language he uses in some of the messages he repeats ad nauseum is patently dishonest. One such mantra is the claim that the climate science community has donned ideological blinders that prevent them from investigating natural sources of climate change. Here are a few examples.

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 02:26 AM
“Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”
Filed under: Climate Science— mike @ 29 July 2011
Guest commentary by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.

The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce but use of slightly different datasets, such as the EBAF CERES dataset, changes the results to be somewhat less in magnitude. And some parts of the results do appear to be significant. So are they replicated in climate models? Spencer and Braswell say no, but this is where attempts to replicate their results require clarification. In contrast, some model results do appear to fall well within the range of uncertainties of the observations. How can that be? For one, the observations cover a 10 year period. The models cover a hundred year period for the 20th century. The latter were detrended by Spencer but for the 20th century that should not be necessary. One could and perhaps should treat the 100 years as 10 sets of 10 years and see whether the observations match any of the ten year periods, but instead what appears to have been done is to use only the one hundred year set by itself. We have done exactly this and the result is in the Figure..
[ed. note: italics below replace the deleted sentence above, to make it clearer what is meant here.]

SB11 appears to have used the full 100 year record to evaluate the models, but this provides no indication of the robustness of their derived relationships. Here instead, we have considered each decade of the 20th century individually and quantified the inter-decadal variability to derive the Figure below. What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, using the EBAF dataset (in black). Then we show results from 2 different models, one which does not replicate ENSO well (top) and one which does (second panel). Here we give the average result (red curve) for all 10 decades, plus the range of results that reflects the variations from one decade to the next. The MPI-Echam5 model replicates the observations very well. When all model results from CMIP3 are included, the bottom panel results, showing the red curve not too dis-similar from Spencer and Braswell, but with a huge range, due both to the spread among models, and also the spread due to decadal variability.

cushioncrawler
08-03-2011, 02:39 AM
The Great Global Warming Blunder: Roy Spencer asserts (and Morano parrots), “I predict that the proposed cure for global warming “ reducing greenhouse gas emissions “ will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”
By Joe Romm on Apr 20, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Uhh, guys, doctors still use medicinal leeches!
Few folks have been as wrong about climate science as Marc Morano and Dr. Roy Spencer. So it’s no big surprise to see this laughable screaming headline on ClimateDepotted:



Morano apparently couldn’t spend 30 seconds on Google to find the link to Spencer’s post on his new memoir, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Climate Scientist who Wrote this Book. [Okay, I may have changed the subtitle a little bit, but it's Spencer who insists on using unintentionally ironic titles for his novels, like Climate Confusion.]

For those who don’t follow the professional disinformers closely, Spencer (and John Christy) famously made a bunch of analytical blunders and spent years pushing the now long-overturned notion that the satellite data didn’t show significant warming (see “Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?“). Now Spencer is claiming that “When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal” that the climate system is insensitive to carbon dioxide. Yes, well, he has the secret recipe for properly mis-interpreting satellite data.

But it’s the leeches stuff that shows he also can’t even be bothered to spend 30 seconds using Google to check his own analogies. Here’s the screen capture before he edits it:




So many whoppers, so little time. First, of course, it is simply basic physics that carbon dioxide traps heat — that’s why they call it a greenhouse gas (see, for instance, Exclusive new analysis by climatologist Ken Caldeira explains “the burning of organic carbon warms the Earth about 100,000 times more from climate effects than it does through the release of chemical energy in combustion”).

Second, that human activity is responsible for most (if not essentially all) recent warming is also pretty straightforward physics (see “What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?“). If you want to understand why scientists are so certain that CO2 is such a big driver of our climate, you should watch Richard Alley’s lively talk AGU video, explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History.”

Third, to falsify basic climate physics you can’t just float your own unproven idea — you would actually have to come up with a mechanism that would negate the well-understood warming from all that carbon dioxide. Good luck.

Fourth, the analogy to leeches, of course, shows how little effort Spencer puts into checking what he writes. I actually thought it was pretty well known that people are still using medicinal leeches. Google will quickly lead you to a bunch of popular articles and peer-reviewed medical studies. Here’s the “European medical leech” entry in Wikipedia:

Medicinal leeches are now making a comeback in microsurgery. They provide an effective means to reduce blood coagulation, relieve venous pressure from pooling blood (venous insufficiency), and in reconstructive surgery to stimulate circulation in reattachment operations for organs with critical blood flow, such as eye lids, fingers, and ears.

Doh!

It is downright bizarre that both Morano and Spencer are proud of an analogy that is so anti-scientific on both ends it actually makes the exact opposite point from the one they are trying to make.

Fifth, and this is a truly egregious whopper, Spencer argues that because “nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces” it is somehow “logical” that “nature “” that life on Earth “” has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.” Presumably by “nature” he means natural land and ocean sinks (as opposed to the atmosphere). Yet he is way too clever a guy to be unaware of the fact that “The global oceanic sink removed 26% of all CO2 emissions for the period 2000-2008.” In short, of the CO2 which Spencer asserts “nature “” that life on Earth” is “gobbling up,” half is going into the ocean and acidifying it, helping to render it inhospitable to marine life (see discussion at Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred).

So Spencer is blatantly misrepresenting the most basic understanding we have of the “natural” CO2 sinks. There is little doubt that the staggering amounts of CO2 we are pouring into the air aren’t our “friend” — especially if we listen to Spencer and his fellow disinformers and keep doing nothing to restrict emissions.

Caldeira has made exquisitely clear that “carbon dioxide is the right villain.” He says, “I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies…. Carbon dioxide emissions represent a real threat to humans and natural systems.”

As for Spencer, he keeps getting debunked as fast as he can print his global warming blunders. Back in 2008, I wrote about RealClimate’s multiple takedowns. RC utterly skewered one Spencer dis-analysis “” misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he did (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post.

Spencer of course was wrong “” dead wrong “” for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing “” indeed encouraging “” the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?

That’s an awful lot to swallow.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything climatologist Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 and subsequent independent research.

Michael Mann himself recently wrote of Christy and Spencer:

A few years ago, independent teams of scientists got a hold of their satellite data and after repeated questioning of them about their methods found that there were two critical errors in their algorithm. One of them was a sign error in the diurnal correction term, the other was an algebraic error. Once those errors were corrected by other scientists, the Christy and Spencer claim that satellite data contradict surface evidence of warming evaporated.

Once some serious climatologists look at Spencer’s latest work, it will no doubt turn out to be another great global warming blunder.

LWW
08-03-2011, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing new in science is official. It's a conditional finding that must be replicated to have any standing.
</div></div>

You would have some credibility if you looked at Goremon theology with the same skepticism.

You don't ... and that's sad.

To make it easy for you ... you and the entire Goremon cult accepted the original model predictions without any concern that their predictions be verified.

Now that someone has checked them out and found them to be woefully deficient, do you denounce the earlier results?

No.

You cling to the lie like a drowning man clings to a reed.

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW thinks GW is all a conspiracy . He will grab at any straw.

Q


</div></div>

What's that phrase? Spoon-fed?

Another right wing jump the gun, misrepresent the finding, and claim something the paper doesn't even claim.

The man's actual conclusion is very modest, and doesn't say what the captive right wing press portrays. And that's with his using an extremely simplistic model that he massaged to get this result.

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing new in science is official. It's a conditional finding that must be replicated to have any standing.
</div></div>

You would have some credibility if you looked at Goremon theology with the same skepticism.

You don't ... and that's sad.

To make it easy for you ... you and the entire Goremon cult accepted the original model predictions without any concern that their predictions be verified.

Now that someone has checked them out and found them to be woefully deficient, do you denounce the earlier results?

No.

You cling to the lie like a drowning man clings to a reed. </div></div>

The basic claims have all been multiply-verified by other scientists, well before Gore summarized them, and after his summation as well. The question is the end result, how much extra warmth, and how much extra melting and sea rise.

The margin of error shows it could be more or less than the amount suggested, with the possibility it could be MORE as much or more than that it could be less.