Spencer’s Folly « Open Mind

Spencer’s Folly

July 28, 2008 · 125 Comments

Part 1: a Very Simple Model of Temperature Variability around an Equilibrium State

A reader recently linked to a presentation by Roy Spencer called Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: “Smoking Gun” Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System? As time goes by, I have less and less inclination to debunk claims that global warming is “no problem,” especially as most of them are so amateurish that there’s little or no insight about the real climate system to be gained from their demolition, and many of them smack of deliberate deception, i.e., not only are they misleading they’re intentionally so. But this presentation strikes me as different. First, we can learn some things about climate change from studying this dissertation, and second, I get the impression that Spencer really believes what he’s saying.

So let’s take a close look at what Spencer has to say. We’ll start by examining the behavior of his “Very Simple Model of Temperature Variability around an Equilibrium State.” The model is this:

$dT/dt = (F - \lambda T) / C_p$ .

In this equation, T is the surface temperature anomaly (it’s difference from some “reference value”), t is the time, F is the climate forcing anomaly, $\lambda$ is what Spencer calls the “feedback,” and $C_p$ is the specific heat of the climate system. The temperature anomaly T and climate forcing anomaly F are functions of time, but the other quantities are constants. We’ve seen this simple model before; it’s the oft-discussed zero-dimensional one-component climate model.

First it must be mentioned that what Spencer calls “feedback” is not what’s often meant by feedback. The most common use of the word refers to the response of the climate system above and beyond what it would be if nothing else changed in response to temperature change. This “no-feedback” response is rather well known; if extra energy comes in to the climate system (climate forcing), then the climate warms in response, and from basic physics when the climate (or anything) warms, it emits more infrared (long-wave, or LW) radiation. When it has warmed enough that the outgoing LW energy balances the incoming (both LW and short-wave, or SW) energy, we’ve reached a new equilibrium (energy in = energy out), so temperature will be stable at the new, warmer value. The necessary temperature change for a given climate forcing can be computed from the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, and turns out to be just about 0.3 K/(W/m^2) (0.3 Kelvin for every W/m^2 of climate forcing). This is the no-feedback climate sentivity.

But the climate system does change in response to temperature change. For example, warmer air holds more water vapor. Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas itself, greater (absolute) humidity alters the lapse rate of the atmosphere, raising the surface temperature even higher. Also, as the earth warms there’s less ice and snow covering the planet, which changes earth’s albedo (reflectivity to incoming solar energy). As albedo declines, more of the incoming solar power is absorbed into the climate system, so again the temperature rises even further. These are some of the classic feedbacks in climate, which make climate sensitivity even higher.

Spencer is using the word “feedback” in a different sense. When earth warms and hence emits more LW radiation to space, this can be called a feedback too (but in a different sense of the word); it’s the “temperature feedback,” i.e., the change in the radiation budget due to a change in temperature. It’s a perfectly legitimate use of the word, but keep in mind that it’s not the same as the more common meaning which refers to the change above and beyond what it would be with no impact due to changes in water vapor, lapse rate, albedo, clouds, or other factors. For a discussion of climate using the word feedback in the sense Spencer uses, see e.g. Soden and Held 2006, J. Climate, 19, 3354-3360; for a discussion of the more common use of the word see this and this.

But back to Spencer’s simple model. For temperature to be stable, we must have $dT/dt = 0$ , so

$F - \lambda T = 0$ , or $T = F / \lambda$ .

If we make F constant (i.e., climate forcing doesn’t change with time), then equilibrium occurs at the new temperature given by this equation. This tells us the equilibrium temperature change due to a given change in forcing, which tells us the climate sensitivity. So in this model climate sensitivity is $1/\lambda$ .

The simple model can be solved exactly. I’ll define some new variables (just for convenience):

$\theta = F/\lambda$ ,

which we can call the “scaled” forcing function, and

$\omega = \lambda / C_p$ .

Then the simple model becomes

$dT/dt = \omega (\theta - T)$ .

Then the solution is:

$T(t) = T(0) + \omega e^{-\omega t} \int_0^t \theta(s) e^{\omega s} ~ds$ .

Suppose, for instance, that temperature has been stable at its reference value, so $T=0$ , when climate forcing is at its reference value so $F = 0$ . At time $t=0$ , let’s suddenly change the forcing to a new value $F=1$ . Then the value of $\theta$ changes from 0 to $1/\lambda$ . The temperature evolves according to

$T = \omega e^{-\omega t} \int_0^t (1/\lambda) e^{\omega s} ~ds = e^{-\omega t} [e^{\omega t} - 1] / \lambda = [1 - e^{-\omega t}] / \lambda$ .

We see that temperature approaches its new equilibrium value, but with exponential decay; the temperature change doesn’t happen instantaneously because it takes time to accumulate the extra energy to warm the climate system.

I’d like to point out an interesting propery of this simple model. Consider the temperature at time $t + \Delta t$ , where the time “difference” $\Delta t$ is very very small, and supposing that the temperature at time zero is $T(0)=0$ . We see that

$T(t + \Delta t) = \omega e^{-\omega (t+ \Delta t)} \int_0^t \theta(s) e^{\omega s} ~ds$

$= \omega e^{-\omega (t+ \Delta t)} \int_0^t \theta(s) e^{\omega s} ~ds + \omega e^{-\omega (t + \Delta t)} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \theta(s) e^{\omega s} ~ds$

$= e^{-\omega \Delta t} T(t) + \omega e^{-\omega (t + \Delta t)} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \theta(s) e^{\omega s} ~ds$ .

Because we insist that $\Delta t$ is so small, we can be sure that the quantity $\theta$ doesn’t show any significant change in the interval from $t$ to $t + \Delta t$ . Hence we can approximate it (with arbitrary accuracy by making $\Delta t$ go to zero) by its value at time $t + \Delta t$ . This enables us to treat it as a constant under the integral, so we get

$T(t+\Delta t) = e^{-\omega \Delta t} T(t) + [1 - e^{-\omega \Delta t}] \theta(t+\Delta t)$ .

Those of you familiar with statistics may recognize this. Generating new values of $T(t+\Delta t)$ by repeatedly applying this equation is simply the process of exponential smoothing. In exponential smoothing, each new data value $x_n$ generates a new smoothed value $S_n$ which is computed from the new data value, and the preceding smoothed value $S_{n-1}$ by

$S_n = \beta S_{n-1} + (1-\beta) x_n$ .

Treating the forcing term $\theta$ as the “data” $x_n$ , the temperature anomaly $T$ as the smoothed values $S_n$ , and equating the term $\beta$ with the term $e^{-\omega \Delta t}$ , our approximate formulation of the solution of the model equation is equivalent to exponential smoothing. So, if we choose the “time step” $\Delta t$ small enough, we see that solving the simple model is equivalent to computing the exponential smooth of the scaled forcing function. In fact that’s why I’ve expounded at such length about this simple model: to show that its solution is equivalent to an exponential smooth with very short time step.

Both the exact solution of the model, and its approximation as an exponential smooth, are characterized by a “time constant,” which is given by $\tau = 1 / \omega$ . For this first illustrations of the behavior of the model, Spencer uses feedback parameter $\lambda = 4$ W/m^2/K, and he states that the specific heat of the climate system is that of a 50-meter deep “swamp ocean.” I don’t know what numbers he’s using, but as near as I can compute the specific heat for a 50-m deep ocean is about 6.6 W-yr/m^2/K. This gives a time coefficient $\omega \approx 0.6$ per year, or a characteristic time scale of $\tau \approx 1.6$ yr. As far as climate is concerned, that’s way too small a time scale; the actual characteristic time for the climate system is more like 30 years. Later in his presentation, Spencer uses a 1000 m deep ocean, which gives a characteristic time scale of about 32 yr, much more realistic.

The characteristic time which is chosen for the model has profound impact on the behavior of the model in response to various forcing functions. But we’ll see much more about that when we look at how Spencer uses this model, in the next post.

Categories: Global Warming
Tagged: Global Warming

125 responses so far ↓

Bill Illis // July 28, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Reply

The models and the formulae are theoritical constructs. If properly formulated, they model what should happen (assuming the theory is correct.)

But we have had 137 years of global warming and GHG increases already (the ice core data shows CO2 at 280 ppm 137 years ago.)

How come the feedbacks have not shown themselves already. Relative Humidity has been falling (while Specific Humidity has been mostly constant).

Ocean temperatures and global temperatures have risen somewhat but far less than the models and the formulae predict.

Is the lag longer? Is the theory properly constructed?

From 137 years ago, temps have increased by 0.6C (0.7C if you smooth out the recent decline over the past year). From 30 years ago, temps have increased by 0.3C (0.4C). These figures are approximately half of the theoritical increase including if the lag in the feedbacks is 30 years.

Hansen’s 1988 paper also show approximately double the increase which has actually occurred (temps have increased 0.3C (0.4C smoothed) since 1958.) Scenario B projected an increase of 0.85C over this period.

At some point, we need to start using empirical data to assess whether the theoritical constructs are properly formulated.

[Response: How easy it is to disprove global warming, when you just make up stuff. Just one example: the warming in the last 30 years is more like 0.5 deg.C.

Those who are interested in a true comparison of observations with predictions (I doubt that you're among that group) should read this.]

[Response 2: Your "statistics" are remarkably reminiscent of a previous claim by a poster named "John Willit," about cooling in the satellite data, which was shown to be truly idiotic with this graph from this post.

It turns out that "Bill Illis" has exactly the same IP address as "John Willit." What a surprise!]
Ian // July 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Reply

Bill Illis, could you provide more detailed cites for your info/conclusions?

Tamino, just trying to understand so far – what is the (average) “age” of the data that are smoothed, and, more to the point, how are newer vs. older data weighted by the function? Is the data “age” the same as the delta-t “time step”?

[Respose: The "average age" of data smoothed by an exponential smooth is the same as the "characteristic time scale" $\tau$ . Note that because of the factor $e^{-\omega \Delta t}$ , the "smoothing coefficient" $\beta$ changes as we change the "time step" $\Delta t$ , in just such a way as to keep the "average age" constant.

Note also that in this context, "exponential smoothing" is just a name (borrowed from statistics); what we're really doing is computing a (very precise) approximation of the exact solution to the given differential equation; by making $\Delta t$ go to zero, we make the "exponential smooth" go to the exact solution. But it's useful to be aware that the solution for $T(t)$ from the zero-dimensional one-component equation is mathematically identical to the exponential smooth in the limit as $\Delta t$ goes to zero.]
Paul Middents // July 28, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Reply

Relative humidity falling?

Increase in lower-stratospheric water vapour at a mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere site from 1981 to 1994

S. J. Oltmans & D. J. Hofmann

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6518/abs/374146a0.html

“WATER vapour in the atmosphere is the key trace gas controlling weather and climate, and plays a central role in atmospheric chemistry, influencing the heterogeneous chemical reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone. Although in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere the radiative1 and chemical2 effects of water vapour are large, there are few measurements of water-vapour concentration3–10 and its long-term variation11–13 in this region. Here we present a set of water-vapour profiles for altitudes from 9 to 27 km, obtained at Boulder, Colorado, during 1981–94, which show a significant increase in water-vapour concentration in the lower stratosphere over this time. The increase is larger, at least below about 20–25 km, than might be expected from the stratospheric oxidation of increasing concentrations of atmospheric methane14,15. The additional increase in water vapour may be linked to other climate variations, such as the observed global temperature rise in recent decades”

Increases in middle atmospheric water vapor as observed by the Halogen Occultation Experiment and the ground-based Water Vapor Millimeter-wave Spectrometer from 1991 to 1997
Authors:
Nedoluha et al

“We therefore conclude that there has been a significant increase in the amount of water vapor entering the middle atmosphere. A temperature increase of ~0.1K/yr in regions of stratosphere-troposphere exchange could increase the saturation mixing ratio of water vapor by an amount consistent with the observed increase. ”

As my hero, Hank, would say–you can look this stuff up!”
Paul Middents // July 28, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Reply

Sorry, omitted the link for Nedluha:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JGR…103.3531N
thingsbreak // July 28, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Reply

It’s probably worth mentioning that Spencer features a pretty thoroughly debunked temperature reconstruction from Energy + Environment (Loehle 2007) on his homepage.

He may well believe what he says, but he is quite obviously selecting data to fit his conclusion. Which shouldn’t really surprise anyone given his history of rejecting mainstream science.
tamino // July 28, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Reply

Hank Roberts: your latest comment was sent to the spam queue, and I accidentally hit “delete” instead of “not spam.” Please resubmit.
Hank Roberts // July 28, 2008 at 8:01 pm | Reply

ok, from memory:
at the Nedula page, don’t fail to click the link for papers that have cited this one — follow it forward in time:
· Citations to the Article (53)
and
· Refereed Citations to the Article
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1998JGR…103.3531N&link_type=REFCIT&db_key=PHY&high=

And looking up the claim above, I suspect it’s from the “Friends of Science” site where there’s a page on Miskolczi and Spencer making the statements about humidity (with pointers to some NASA sources for the broad statements about humidity change, but it’s a NASA page where you can generate charts by specifying details from a large database, and the details matter; I don’t know them.)
B Buckner // July 28, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Reply

The atmospheric data base for water vapor is a mess, and there are no measured world wide data that support a trend relative humidity in either direction. See chapter 3 of AR4.
Joseph // July 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm | Reply

Ocean temperatures and global temperatures have risen somewhat but far less than the models and the formulae predict.

What is this claim based on? If I’m reading that right, it would mean that hindcasts generally overcast. I’m pretty sure that’s mistaken.
David B. Benson // July 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm | Reply

Ray Pierrehumbert, in his “Climate Book” or in the co-authored CaltechWater.pdf, makes the point that relative humidity ought to remain about constant, irrespective of temperature.

The argument is so easy that even I can reproduce it: if the relative humidity goes up, it rains more; if the relative humidity goes down, it rains less. This is a simple negative feedback.
Ray Ladbury // July 29, 2008 at 1:32 am | Reply

Tamino–very timely. I believe Hank is correct in his explation of the origin of the “decreasing RH canard. Miskolczi’ minions are spewing this stuff right and left in the denialosphere–their way of trying to diminish the role of feedback. I think that in part because water vapor is so variable, denialists have identified this as one area where they can maybe find a few papers that at least seem to support some of their contentions.
Rattus Norvegicus // July 29, 2008 at 3:59 am | Reply

I first saw the RH claim at Watt’s site, for what it’s worth.
Ted Nation // July 29, 2008 at 5:16 am | Reply

Tamino, some weeks ago I sought a response to claims made in a Spencer co-authored paper from Realclimat. So far I haven’t seen anything that is on point. Since you are addressing a Spencer issue, I thought you might address it. Here is one of my posts on Realclimate:

In #117 above I sought a response to a paper for which Roy Spencer was the lead author. It now appears to have also included Christy as a co-author and claimed a response of tropical cirrus clouds that should require modellers to lower sensitivity value by as much as 75%. Now Spencer is claiming that the climate science community is ignoring their results. (See “The Sloppy Science of Global Warming” posted March 20, 2008 on “Energy Tribune”).

“By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.

What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.”

The paper in question appears to be,

Article title: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
Published in: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS in August, 2007.

I don’t put a great deal of stock in what Spencer and Christy do but I would like to see some authoritative response to this paper.

[Response: I only chose to address this work by Spencer because I think it will lead to some enlightenment about the climate system. As I said in the post, I have less and less inclination to debunk; more and more it seems to be just a waste of time, and it's a strategic mistake to let the denialist side set the agenda. So I have no plans to expound on any other work by Spencer.

You might consider the value of ignoring it, and devoting your time to learning some *real* climate science.]
Hank Roberts // July 29, 2008 at 5:56 am | Reply

> sought a response … haven’t seen anything
> that’s on point

It appears nobody found a “point” to comment on. Look the paper up in Scholar: “cited by 3″ — Spencer cites himself,. in two later papers, plus Heartland cites it. That’s all the interest. It hasn’t led to anything interesting.

Compare this to another article on the same subject, one Spencer cites — but so do quite a few other scientists who found it helpful.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=forward-links&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2001)014%3C2129%3ATIOTEN%3E2.0.CO%3B2

At some point all we bystanders can say is, well, nobody in the field found it interesting. Then look at Google and say, well, the denial and coal industry PR sites sure talk about it a whole lot and just about nobody else does.

And think, well, that’s that for that.
dhogaza // July 29, 2008 at 6:00 am | Reply

Well, I tried googling for Spencer’s 2007 cirrus cloud research, and indeed, the hits that come back all seem to come from the usual suspect denialist sites.

This tells me something: it’s possible Spencer’s largely being ignored by mainstream climate scientists. It’s also possible they think he’s a bit of a kook, and it’s very possible that his past track record – the decade-old claim that UAH’s temp reconstructions (full of errors) from satellite data disproved the existence of global warming – plays a role.

Reputation counts.

And this doesn’t help his reputation:

Spencer wrote in 2005, “Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.”

Note that Aguillard v. Edwards, the court case that triggered the transformation of explicitly biblical Creation Science into faux-secular Intelligent Design, was ruled on in 1989, which is less than 20 years ago.

So Spencer’s really talking about “studying” evolution back when the alternative was known as Creationism and no effort was made to hide its affiliation with Genesis.

Nothing wrong with faith, but when faith clouds one’s scientific judgement, one’s reputation tends to suffer …
Gavin's Pussycat // July 29, 2008 at 11:58 am | Reply

Ted Nation,

I took the trouble to read the Spencer at al. 2007 paper some time ago. It is a good and valid paper, but as I remember, there are some serious caveats to be made, one of which is mentioned in the paper itself.

The main caveat IIRC is that tropical intraseasonal variations are not necessarily (i.e., probably not) a valid model for greenhouse forced secular change.

Don’t remember the details though.
Phil B. // July 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Reply

Tamino, since most sunlight is absorbed in the first fifty meters of the ocean depth and with warm water being less dense than cold, isn’t a fifty meter ocean model more appropriate than a 1000 meter ocean?
Barton Paul Levenson // July 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Reply

For one thing, a “swamp model” normally refers to a world ocean 1 meter deep, not 50 meters deep. Swamps are not generally 50 meters deep. Spencer isn’t too familiar with the models he’s critiquing.
Timothy Chase // July 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Reply

Ted Nation wrote:

Article title: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
Published in: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS in August, 2007.

I don’t put a great deal of stock in what Spencer and Christy do but I would like to see some authoritative response to this paper.

Nothing I say is all that “authoritative,” but briefly, Spencer is studying the Madden-Julian Oscillation as a means of determining the effects of higher temperatures upon cloud formation over the ocean. But there is only one problem: as this is an oscillation, what you are dealing with is periodic behavior which by its very nature dynamic, not static, yet you are trying to draw conclusions about what will essentially be static from it – what happens when the higher sea surface temperature forces the system to equilibrium – and the clouds that are associated with that equilibrium.

To see the problem with this, imagine trying to calculate the relationship between the climate’s sensitivity to solar insolation – on the basis of the difference in temperature between day and night. Obviously you can’t draw a conclusion regarding the temperature that the earth would be if days were as dark as nights simply on the basis of how cold the nights are – because nights haven’t had the chance to achieve equilibrium.
chriscolose // July 29, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Reply

On Watts blog concerning relative/specific humidity changes, see my post:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/is-the-atmosphere-drying-up/

On the details of Spencer’s 2007 paper, Timothy Chase is right in that he’s looking at the MJO:

in its winter form, the MJO starts in the warm Indian Ocean or West Pacific with clouds, convection, and rain… propagates eastward, and continues past the dateline to cooler, drier ocean regions where the clouds, convection, and rain disappear but the oscillation remains in the wind field. At this point the large-scale temperature anomaly reaches its peak as the effect of the original heating anomaly over warmer water is felt elsewhere. By calling this the peak of the MJO he’s sure to associate drying with warming, when what he’s really seeing is just a propagating wave moving to a different region of the world where the air is drier – this has nothing to do with feedback. Apples and oranges. What’s more, by only looking at ocean, he biases the summer ISO also by missing the clouds and rain that move from the Indian Ocean to south Asia when the monsoon begins.
conard // July 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Reply

Tamino,
Looking forward to the next post on the subject.

Dhogaza,
Given your moniker I am sure this is a sensitive subject but why parrot others comments here? What is to be gained from this? My search on this site did not turn up comment links but I know that his beliefs on biological origins have been commented on time and time again and are of little value. Something more interesting may be inferred from the RSS / UAH pissing contest. How did Spencer react when Mears or Wentz or Prabakhara discovered an error in the UAH calcs? How did Mears react when Spencer / Christy found an error in RSS? That may tell us something more interesting and certainly much more relevant.

An aside,
There is a fellow a few offices down from mine that listens to Rush Limbaugh everyday. When I have questions in his field I do not hesitate to ask nor do I discount his answers but take them at full value. However, I do wish he would wear headphones …
Thomas // July 29, 2008 at 8:42 pm | Reply

“Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas itself, greater (absolute) humidity alters the lapse rate of the atmosphere, raising the surface temperature even higher.”

Sure you didn’t get that second part backwards? Higher temperature with more water vapor ought to lower the lapse rate, and since the temperature at the tropopause is more or less fixed this effect cools the surface. (This negative feedback is still lower than the positive one from the extra IR-absorbtion).

[Response: Right you are, my mistake; for example, Bony et al. (2006, J. Climate, 19, 3445) show that estimates of lapse-rate feedback are almost all negative, averaging about -0.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2.]
Timothy Chase // July 30, 2008 at 2:28 am | Reply

chriscolose wrote:

… By calling this the peak of the MJO he’s sure to associate drying with warming, when what he’s really seeing is just a propagating wave moving to a different region of the world where the air is drier – this has nothing to do with feedback…

I think I prefer the way you put things. And incidentally, I didn’t realize that one of the big holes in Spencer’s approach was independent of feedbacks. In either case, it might be nice if you expanded your critique of the paper into a piece — if that appealed to you.
Richard // July 30, 2008 at 2:46 am | Reply

I would like Dhogaza to justify the statement that the satellite dataset from UAH is full of errors. I would also like him to verify that the GISS temperature dataset is error free (that would be a complete joke!). I not he is on his usual Ad Hominem attack stance.

Is Dhogaza suggesting that you cannot be a viable scientist and hold religious views at the same time?
Paul Middents // July 30, 2008 at 3:15 am | Reply

Perhaps The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 can provide improved water vapor data:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18103
Hank Roberts // July 30, 2008 at 4:55 am | Reply

> UAH
While it’s a bit old now, this is worth reading;
it’s certainly full of corrections!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/
E.g.:
[Response: You should probably stick to the RSS version. The UAH version has had so many corrections by now that, were it a palaeo record, you would be howling for its blood. I wonder if anyone has ever seen their code? - William]
dhogaza // July 30, 2008 at 7:02 am | Reply

I would like Dhogaza to justify the statement that the satellite dataset from UAH is full of errors.

Their analysis, not the raw dataset, was full of errors (note the past tense).

For justification of my claim try google …

I would also like him to verify that the GISS temperature dataset is error free (that would be a complete joke!).

No dataset is error free, silly. However there’s a considerable difference between having errors that lead to relatively small error bars around a trend that matches well with trend data generated independently, and an error in analysis (as was done by UAH) that “shows” the world is cooling, not warming, while other datasets and expectations from physics and (yes) modeling efforts show warming.

Is Dhogaza suggesting that you cannot be a viable scientist and hold religious views at the same time?

No, I’m suggesting that someone who rejects modern biology in favor of creationism might just be allowing their religious views to color their views. And that if someone does so in one area of science, they might well do so other areas of science.

You don’t have to reject science in order to be religious, but if your religious views cause you to reject science, your objectivity regarding science is a legitimate issue.
Ray Ladbury // July 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Reply

At the risk of straying off topic, I think it is important to understand why creationism/ID cannot ever be considered science. By its nature, ID posits the intervention of “an intelligence”. Each intervention is in effect a parameter of the theory. Indeed, the decision by the “designer” to intervene or not is itself a parameter. In effect, the number of parameters of the “theory” is unlimited, so it has zero predictive power. (You can see this easily if you look at it in terms of Information Theory.)

The fact that Spencer or any other ” scientist” does not comprehend this is in and of itself sufficient to make me question his understanding of science.
Dano // July 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Reply

The fact that Spencer or any other ”scientist” does not comprehend this is in and of itself sufficient to make me question his understanding of science.

Nah.

He just wants to promulgate an agenda. He understands the science all right.

Best,

D
Richard // July 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Reply

Dhogaza,

Are you honestly suggesting that the world is still warming at an ever increasing rate? If so, you must be in some sort of information vacuum. The satellite dataset (far more accurate than the GISS dataset) clearly shows no substantial warming since 2001. The dataset also shows no exponential warming at all and when compared with the level of CO2 increase, no provable relationship between temperature anomaly and CO2. The models are wrong Dhogaza. They are running counter to the actual global temperature changes.

[Response: Considering that satellites don't measure lower-tropospheric temperature but only infer them from combinations of other channels, and that there are at least 4 different interpretations of how this should be done -- none of which agree, some being is dramatic disagreement with each other -- the claim that satellite estimates are "far more accurate than the GISS dataset" is ridiculous.

Attempting to define climate trends based on data "since 2001" identifies you as a statistically naive cherry-picker.]

What expectations from Physics do you refer to? I can’t think of any so please enlighten us.

As for Roy Spencer, I as a biologist have no problem with his ideas on ID. Modern biology, as you put it is rapidly changing. The current paradigm of evolution is whilst in favour at the moment is not a hard and fast law and is subject to change if evidence arises that causes it to be reconsidered. He is entitled to his views and it in no way diminishes his scientific legitimacy when it comes to climate science.

[Response: the fact that you have no problem with his ideas on "ID" rather says it all.]
conard // July 30, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Reply

William,
If you are aware of other UAH errors other than the 4 known corrections let us know. You also completely ignored the 2008 correction to the RSS calcs. Common sense suggests the use of both products– if you are swayed by appeals to authority I can provide a quote from Gavin.

According to Dr. Christy at least one section of the UAH source code was made available for purpose of duplication. I do not pretend to know the issues surrounding public access to UAH or RSS product codes perhaps you can shed some light on the subject.

Ray,
Christy is a Baptist. Does that disqualify him for the same reason adherents of ID are disqualified?
Ray Ladbury // July 30, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Reply

Richard, Oh dear. That’s all. Just, oh dear.
dhogaza // July 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Reply

As for Roy Spencer, I as a biologist have no problem with his ideas on ID.

Did you mean to say “barimologist”?

Christy is a Baptist. Does that disqualify him for the same reason adherents of ID are disqualified?

Christy has written about how his views towards possible global warming has been shaped in large part by his religion and his experience as a missionary to Africa.

In short, he believes that efforts to mitigate CO2 production would doom Africans to poverty forever, and that nothing should be done to stand in the way of economic growth of third-world countries.

Does that impact his work on climate science?

Why were he and Spencer so eager to publicize “the wooden stake in the heart of the AGW hypothesis” a decade ago, when their work on satellite temp reconstructions conflicted with the surface temp record?

At least Christy hasn’t taken on Spencer’s role as “Rush Limbaugh’s climate science advisor”. Spencer’s having done that is yet another blow against his credibility, given Rush’s long-term record as a science denialist (all things conservation biology, for starters).
dhogaza // July 30, 2008 at 6:08 pm | Reply

Let me say that Christy appears to have distance himself from Spencer’s outright nuttery (the topic of these two posts by Tamino). His scientific credibility is intact, though as I pointed out to mitigate or reduce CO2 production regardless of whether or not his scientific beliefs turn out to be false.

Spencer, though, has pretty much left the fold regarding serious science. As he himself points out, the mainstream is largely ignoring him.

Of course he claims it’s a politically-motivated conspiracy but, no, that’s just plain silly.
dhogaza // July 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Reply

oops something got deleted up there before I hit submit … I mean “he (christy) opposes steps to mitigate or reduce CO2 production…”
Hank Roberts // July 30, 2008 at 6:15 pm | Reply

conard

It appears you are attempting to reply to “William” but he’s not currently posting in this thread here. He is quoted in a posting I made above. His actual posting from which I quoted was in 2005 in the thread
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/
David B. Benson // July 30, 2008 at 7:14 pm | Reply

For what its worth, RSS gives the same warming rate same the surface global temperatures products, which I recall as 0.19 K/decade. UAH gives 0.17 K/decade.

Unless I slipped a decimal point. But if so its the same mistake both places.
Petro // July 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Reply

Ray, you presented a powerful way to debunk ID. Thank you!
conard // July 30, 2008 at 9:41 pm | Reply

Hank Roberts,
Thank you. I saw the [Response: ...] and assumed that there was a new moderator in town. Silly mistake.
Hank Roberts // July 30, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Reply

Conard — you can reach him over at Stoat, and likely at RC. Here, too, sometimes.
I guess he’d know who you are? Give us a pointer if you have or create a current summary, it’s always better to read what the researchers write than what others say someone says about them!

And as an amateur reader, I find the researchers usually disagree far less about what their respective papers and instruments say than the commentators do (see the ‘Journalistic Whiplash’ thread at RC for much more on _that_ problem).
conard // July 30, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Reply

dhogaza,
Thanks for chiming in. You did not directly answer the question you cited. Oh well, at least I get to look forward to hearing Ray on the subject.

Regarding Dr. Christy: You seem to acknowledge that a dilemma does or may exist and have made a choice or by other means are aligned with a view counter to Dr. Christy. Should we save a known number of people now from a grim and certain fate or save unquantified others several decades from less certain unqualified fate? Tough call. Did he really say “nothing should be done”? I got the impression he was more in line with the CCC. Hmm.

More to the point: Does a decision or sympathy either way amount to an unethical systematic bias? As for Dr. Spencer’s I would like to see the evidence that an acceptance of ID necessitates a cold temperature bias of a few hundredths of a degree. He may be a nutter or hold nutty beliefs but A does not follow B.

[Response: Here's my opinion: accepting ID necessitates denying overwhelming scientific evidence because of one's religious prediliction.

I also think the "save a known number of people now from a grim and certain fate or..." is a false and misleading dichotomy.]
conard // July 30, 2008 at 11:49 pm | Reply

Tamino,

On ID– I am prepared to go much further. However, A still does not follow B. On a more happy note I am glad to see that you ignore A and confront B on its own terms.

“misleading dichotomy”: perhaps. A topic for a future article?

[Response: Perhaps.]
Ray Ladbury // July 31, 2008 at 12:27 am | Reply

Conard,
You will notice that my argument against ID had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science and information theory. Were I religious, I would consider the theological implications of ID at least as disturbing as its lack of scientific credibility. After all, any “designer” that would design in sickle-cell anemia as a remedy against malaria is one sadistic SOB.

I would not venture to speculate whether Spencer’s acceptance of ID correlates with his rejection of good climate science. I would contend that a scientist who accepts ID either has a limited grasp of science or has not thought through the implications of ID.

Petro, thanks, I realized this when I was re-perusing Akaike’s paper on his Information Criterion. I have not seen a reasonable counter argument, but that may have more to do with the fact that most IDiots don’t understand information theory.
nanny_govt_sucks // July 31, 2008 at 1:40 am | Reply

I think that there’s something that is overlooked in the whole ID/evolution debate: It’s GOOD to have a competing theory.

I don’t know enough about ID to even comment on its veracity or lack thereof. Ray make some points that seem to blow it out of the water. But even if it is completely and 100% BS I think it causes us to continually examine and fortify the prevailing evolution theory. Let the ID crowd throw stones. Evolution should be strong enough to withstand them and if it is not, then more work needs to be done.

Ultimately, competition is good for science.
Richard // July 31, 2008 at 1:59 am | Reply

Tamino,

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I am not inferring climate on the basis of data from 2001. I specifically said there has been no warming since 2001. I also stated there has been no rapidly increasing warming throughout the whole satellite dataset (nearly 30 years which is the timescale that the IPCC define as needed for climate signature).

To suggest that the satellite data is somehow in conflict is disingenuous. Different channels measure different atmospheric aspects. To also suggest that satellites do not measure temperature directly is also disingenuous. Such a situation certainly has not stopped the modelers from using data from indirect measurements (e.g. let’s dump the directly measured radiosonde data from the tropics and replace it with thermal windshear measurements as a “TRUER” measure of actual temperature).

The MSU has been truthed and continues to be truthed. The instruments on board the satellite are constantly calibrated. That is far more than can be said for GISS which has somehow forgotten every rural station temperature in Australia after 1992 and managed to remember every urban station to 2008. Give me a break. Modelers are working with a seriously flawed database (GISS).

[Response: While the satellites do measure temperature directly, the temperatures they measure are for very large sections of the atmosphere, and do NOT include the lower troposphere. Read my comment again: "satellites don't measure lower-tropospheric temperature but only infer them from combinations of other channels." The TLT "channel" is not an MSU measurement, it's an artificial construct derived from a combination of MSU channels 2 (mid-troposphere with stratospheric influence) and 4 (lower stratosphere with slight tropospheric influence). I guess you didn't know that, because it's abundantly clear that when it comes to satellite MSU measurements, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

As for its showing "no rapidly increasing warming throughout the whole satellite dataset," there are at least FOUR constructions of the TLT "channel" from other channels, only the UAH analysis indicates less warming that the surface temperature (GISS) data; the RSS and UW analyses show nearly the same warming rate as GISS over the same period and the Vinnikov & Grody analysis shows MORE warming than GISS. Considering that the four constructions of TLT don't agree nearly as well as GISS, HadCRU, and NCDC surface estimates, the claim that MSU estimates of lower-troposphere temperature have been "truthed" is just your version of "truthiness."

The only "seriously flawed database" under discussion is in your head.]
Richard // July 31, 2008 at 2:02 am | Reply

As for Intelligent Design and Evolution. I am pretty agnostic on both.
Hank Roberts // July 31, 2008 at 5:14 am | Reply

> examine and fortify the prevailing
> evolution theory

Nonsense. Good science tears at it, not fortifies it.
Punk eek. Lateral gene transfer. Methylation.

Sheesh. Fantasy that the IDers are helping.
Richard // July 31, 2008 at 5:53 am | Reply

Well. I don’t know how you can say that the RSS data analyses track those of GISS. I have both on my wall. I am looking at them and I can say categorically that the RSS data more closely tracks the UAH data. The RSS data show no warming since 2001 and no rapidly increasing warming since the series began in 1979. Correct me if I am wrong but it is not the lower troposphere that is important in terms of global warming signatures but the mid-tropospheric region where the global warming signature would be best reflected. After all isn’t this why the tropical radiosonde data have been rejected by the “model is right and nature is wrong brigade”? It is precisely because the radiosonde data did not confirm the mid-tropospheric global warming signal that the models predicted?

Also, you have not addressed the issue of rural station data drop-out that I previously mentioned.

[Response: You REALLY don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not at all.

The "signature" you talk about is enhanced mid-troposphere warming in the *tropics*, not the entire globe. The fact that you call it a signature, as though it's a crucial part of AGW, proves that you're just parroting denialist propaganda; enhanced tropical tropospheric warming is expected whatever the cause of warming, be it greenhouse gases or increased solar energy or whatever. The real "signature" of greenhouse-gas warming is stratospheric cooling, but you don't regurgitate that from your denialist sources because they don't like to talk about it -- since it's been confirmed.

You have an annoying habit of either not paying attention to what I say, or deliberately ignoring or twisting it. I didnt' say RSS tracks GISS, I said the trend over the span of available data of RSS matches that of GISS -- which it does. But you didn't know that, because it's absolutely undeniable that when it comes to MSU estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I even had to inform you that they're not actual measurements but an artificial construct from other MSU channels, and had to do so twice because the first time I did so you called me a liar.

Your rhetoric is truly idiotic, and it's not even original -- you're just regurgitating what's on a dozen or more lame denialist websites. This blog is about making a valuable contribution to discussion of climate science. It looks like that excludes you.]
Richard // July 31, 2008 at 5:55 am | Reply

sorry, mid-troposphere more important than lower troposphere in determining a global warming signal.
JM // July 31, 2008 at 6:27 am | Reply

nanny_govt_sucks: “Ultimately, competition is good for science.”

Yes it is. But the ID crowd aren’t doing any science at all. What they are doing is trying to get ID into schools.

The are competing for the minds of children, not in the competition of ideas in the search for truth.
dhogaza // July 31, 2008 at 7:16 am | Reply

Richard, I’m not surprised. Science denialism seems to be a syndrome …
NGS:

I think that there’s something that is overlooked in the whole ID/evolution debate: It’s GOOD to have a competing theory.

And I’m really happy that the Flat Earth Society has kept the debate regarding the geometry of the earth alive. It’s GOOD to have a competing theory. Just think how unproductive science would become if it were allowed to ignore this important debate. And, let’s teach the earth-geometry controversy in the schools, too! 14 year old kids should get to decide for themselves, right?

OK, enough. One reason I keep raising the ID issue is that it does serve to separate the wheat from the chaff, in some sense. It’s always useful to know just how deep one’s denial of science runs.

When people tell me “I think ID is scientifically as plausible as modern evolutionary biology”, and then tell me, “I think climate science denialism is just as credible as climate science”, well, that’s a pattern, isn’t it?
Barton Paul Levenson // July 31, 2008 at 11:56 am | Reply

nanny writes:

I think that there’s something that is overlooked in the whole ID/evolution debate: It’s GOOD to have a competing theory.

Except that ID isn’t a “theory” because it makes no clear predictions and implies no research program.
dhogaza // July 31, 2008 at 12:14 pm | Reply

Yes it is. But the ID crowd aren’t doing any science at all. What they are doing is trying to get ID into schools.

Science denialism is never about promoting alternative hypotheses or theories within science to explain the natural world.

Science denialism is all about protecting one’s worldview from the consequences of research, be it evolution conflicting with biblical literalism, climate science conflicting with fossil fuel profits or the political relevancy of free-market extremism, medicine conflicting with tobacco industry profits …
Ray Ladbury // July 31, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Reply

Nanny, It is good to have a competing SCIENTIFIC theory. ID is not a scientific theory because as I show above, it cannot make verifiable predictions. Have you considered WHY it is good for a theory to have competition? One reason is because most statistical methods are best suited to distinguishing between two competing hypotheses. Information theory tells us that we can never know which theory is correct–only which is better given our data. However, eventually, one theory is so successful that its superiority over all alternatives becomes insurmountable. {The Ptolemaic theory is dead, long live the heliocentric theory of the solar system.} This happens most rapidly when there aren’t many good theories to begin with–as was the case with theories of speciation prior to Darwin.

A theory that posits an omnipotent or nearly omnipotent being as an active participant can not ever be a scientific theory, because said theory can never predict but only explain. On the other hand, science is entirely agnostic on the matter of how the laws of the universe originate, and so does not preclude the existence of omnipotent beings–ala Spinoza. Science might even allow said being to intervene with sufficient infrequency that said interventions could not be distinguished from chance. In my opinion it is as silly to try to apply science to the subject of deities (or the lack thereof) as it is to try to bring deities into science.
thingsbreak // July 31, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Reply

I think it’s worth noting that although of late, Spencer has pushed the ID line and did the typical “I’m not saying the Designer is the Christian god” hand waving, elsewhere he explicitly states that he not only believes that the Christian God is the literal Creator of Life, the Universe, and Everything™, but that he does so based upon the scientific evidence he has examined. He also states that he has thoroughly examined the Bible and finds it to be basically without errors.

Being religious certainly does not disqualify anyone from producing good science, but when someone goes so far as to state that they have fully vetted fairly literal religious dogma against the evidence and find it scientifically sound- as in the case of the diversity of life on Earth, or the evolution of our solar system- it raises serious questions about one’s ability to differentiate between the scientific and the supernatural. When we see the same person repeating the far right wing lie about DDT and malaria, who also happens to be member of several pro-industry, market fundamentalist think tanks, a fairly obvious pattern emerges. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Spencer may genuinely hold the beliefs he does, but it becomes fairly obvious that he is deliberately ignoring all evidence to the contrary and providing little if any solid evidence in favor of his own non-scientific beliefs.
cce // July 31, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Reply

I created this image to show how each of the 4 major temperature analyses tracks with one another in the context of longer time scales.

http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg

The anomalies are adjusted so that the trends intersect in January 1979, so if one analysis was diverging from the others, it would become increasingly obvious as time goes on. The analysis that diverges the most is UAH. It shows some 20% less warming than RSS from 1979 to 2007.

This is the same, except since 1979 only (trends begin at 0,0)

http://cce.890m.com/temp-compare.jpg

A short guide to temperature measurement issues:
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=17
Ray Ladbury // July 31, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Reply

Thingsbreak says of Spencer: “He also states that he has thoroughly examined the Bible and finds it to be basically without errors.”

Well, there is that one little embarassing problem of equating pi to 3, but that’s only a 5% error, right?
nanny_govt_sucks // July 31, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Reply

Yes it is. But the ID crowd aren’t doing any science at all. What they are doing is trying to get ID into schools.

Well, let’s be clear. They are trying to influence the government to put ID into government school books. Of course, the problem here is our “one-science-fits-all” government schools. Privatization of education is the answer – if a parent wants his kid to learn ID then they can send him to an ID school.
dhogaza // July 31, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Reply

When we see the same person repeating the far right wing lie about DDT and malaria.

Oh … he’s one of those, I didn’t know. How discouraging …
kevin // July 31, 2008 at 5:47 pm | Reply

HB/Tamino: “The real “signature” of greenhouse-gas warming is stratospheric cooling, but you don’t regurgitate that from your denialist sources because they don’t like to talk about it — since it’s been confirmed.”

I’ve seen at least one of them talking about it, at a Kiwi site called “Hot Topic.” Someone with the handle HarryTheHat has been repeatedly claiming that, among other things, there has been no stratospheric cooling since (I think ) 1994. Other posters have tried to educate HarryTheHat, to no apparent effect.
dhogaza // July 31, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Reply

Well, let’s be clear. They are trying to influence the government to put ID into government school books. Of course, the problem here is our “one-science-fits-all” government schools.

No, the problem here is our “only-science-shall-be-taught-as-science” government schools.

Get the difference?

You have a problem with that?

ID can be taught in public schools. However, it has to be taught honestly, for what it is, which is not science, and without promoting it as “the correct world view”. Every religion can be taught as long as the rules are followed.

I didn’t learn poetry in high school science class. Why should I learn thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths there?
nanny_govt_sucks // July 31, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Reply

I didn’t learn poetry in high school science class. Why should I learn thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths there?

But what if someone WANTS to learn poetry or thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths in their science class AND wants it taught as true science?

Will you deny that choice to them?

With a government curriculum that tries to satisfy everyone, someone is always left out.
Dano // July 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm | Reply

But what if someone WANTS to learn poetry or thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths in their science class AND wants it taught as true science?

Will you deny that choice to them?

Pfffft.

na_gs twists himself into a contorted pretzel to maintain some semblance of ideological relevance.

By using this supremely weak argument, na_gs also supports teaching high school physics students how to make a perpetual motion machine, and high school chemistry students how to make gold from lead.

You’ve reached a new level of self-parody, na_gs. Step back, look at what you write when you comment, take a breath, and come back when you’re composed and lucid.

Best,

D
Phil Scadden // July 31, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Reply

It would have to be the ultimate in consumerism to believe you have only the truth you want. This is a worrying trend – you only get news from providers that conform to your political opinions, buy your education from providers that only teach what you approve, and now only want science that is to taste. Sadly there is only one reality – even sadder, there is no way to ensure that only those who ignore it suffer the consequences of denial.
Barton Paul Levenson // July 31, 2008 at 10:11 pm | Reply

Ray Ladbury writes:

Thingsbreak says of Spencer: “He also states that he has thoroughly examined the Bible and finds it to be basically without errors.”

Well, there is that one little embarassing problem of equating pi to 3, but that’s only a 5% error, right?

The guy writing was a political chronicler and probably didn’t know any geometry. He wasn’t trying to say anything about pi, he had probably never heard of the concept. He was trying to say how cool Solomon’s building projects were. The builders of the bronze pool probably used the Egyptian estimate of 3.16 for pi (cf the Rhynd papyrus). The chronicler gave an approximate figure. As a scribe, he wasn’t about to go out there and measure it; that was work for slaves or paid workmen.

Read for context.
Barton Paul Levenson // July 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm | Reply

Nanny writes:

Well, let’s be clear. They are trying to influence the government to put ID into government school books. Of course, the problem here is our “one-science-fits-all” government schools. Privatization of education is the answer – if a parent wants his kid to learn ID then they can send him to an ID school.

For once we agree. Beyond a core curriculum assuring literacy and numeracy, the government’s role should be limited to providing an equal playing field through vouchers. Let fundamentalists send their kids to fundamentalist schools, Communists send theirs to Party schools, etc. The fundamentalist kids won’t be able to get work as biologists, but that’s their problem — if they really want to, they can learn biology in a real school.
zen // July 31, 2008 at 10:30 pm | Reply

NGS: “But what if someone WANTS to learn poetry or thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths in their science class AND wants it taught as true science?”

Then I would say that person has abandoned reason, and I would worry about the society that produced such a mind.
David B. Benson // July 31, 2008 at 10:46 pm | Reply

Yes, there does seem to be an anti-enlightment trend since the advent of the internet.

Maybe it was there all along but those memes had no way to spread themselves far and wide.
nanny_govt_sucks // July 31, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Reply

By using this supremely weak argument, na_gs also supports teaching high school physics students how to make a perpetual motion machine, and high school chemistry students how to make gold from lead.

What’s wrong Dano? Are you afraid that such ideas would not be naturally selected against in an ecosystem of free ideas? Do you prefer a curriculum “Intelligently Designed” by a central cadre of bureaucrats?

I have faith in evolution, both in biology and in society. Do you?
Hank Roberts // July 31, 2008 at 11:41 pm | Reply

> free ideas

School boards. Standard tests.

Riiiiiight.
Trying_to_make_sense // July 31, 2008 at 11:43 pm | Reply

Steering clear of who should design the curriculum, but addressing the evolution theme: one thing to keep in mind is that evolution is slow. Do we consider the people that were taught alchemy instead of chemistry as collateral damage?

Btw, (1) Thanks Tamino for this series (which is quite different from the discussion that seems to have overtaken the thread). Very informative.
(2) Thanks Lazar for the link in the open thread.
Ray Ladbury // July 31, 2008 at 11:55 pm | Reply

Barton, you misinterpret my intent in referring to the Bible equating pi to 3–it is only a problem if you believe the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. Only then is there no room for clerical error, human prejudice, human ignorance or even metaphor. If you assume that the Bible is the work of fallible humans who were products of their time, no matter how wise or even divinely inspired, the heresy of literalism is avoided. Faith can grow without having to embrace absurdity.
I hope that you know that although I am an agnostic myself, I respect your faith.
Ray Ladbury // August 1, 2008 at 12:22 am | Reply

Nanny, They can teach whatever they want–just don’t call it science , because it demonstrably is not science. Or should we start teaching Spanish in English class and Home Economics in Social Studies, too?
nanny_govt_sucks // August 1, 2008 at 12:47 am | Reply

What’s your point, Hank?
David B. Benson // August 1, 2008 at 1:04 am | Reply

Ray Ladbury // August 1, 2008 at 12:22 am — Humpty-Dumptyism?
Hank Roberts // August 1, 2008 at 2:55 am | Reply

Nan, the notion of setting up a generation of schoolkids to learn either science or pseudoscience, then watching to see which ones survive in the economy, is about the coldest-hearted experiment I can imagine.

Yes, it’s being done now, in some school districts and a lot of home-schooling.

And you want to make it happen everywhere?
Ted Nation // August 1, 2008 at 3:10 am | Reply

Thanks to those who responded to my request for some debunking of Spencer’s August 2007 paper. The comments on the Maden-Julian Oscillation were particularly informative.

I was a bit taken put off by Tamino’s response but I can understand his time limitations and frustration with the garbarge that the skeptics and denialist put out. However, if we are going to do anything effective to respond to climate change, we have to engage the issue politically as well as scientifically. Those of us, such as myself, who have a good lay understanding of climate science and try to engage in political discussions to advance mitigation efforts, have a real need for sites like this one and Realclimate to provide responses to arguments based on peer reviewed scientific articles such as this one.

I apologize if my request helped divert comments from the subject of the article.
nanny_govt_sucks // August 1, 2008 at 3:19 am | Reply

Hank, we’re talking about ideas, not life or death! Get real.
Ian Forrester // August 1, 2008 at 5:01 am | Reply

Hank – “Nan, the notion of setting up a generation of schoolkids to learn either science or pseudoscience, then watching to see which ones survive in the economy, is about the coldest-hearted experiment I can imagine”.

Yes, but the pseudoscience ones would all get jobs in politics :-)
dhogaza // August 1, 2008 at 5:45 am | Reply

This is a great thread, NGS finally exposed, naked for view.

But what if someone WANTS to learn poetry or thinly-disguised biblical-based creation myths in their science class AND wants it taught as true science?

Will you deny that choice to them?

Yes, happily.

Hank, we’re talking about ideas, not life or death! Get real.

This is the stupidest rationale for teaching kids that 2+2=5 and all science is wrong that I’ve *ever* heard of.
nanny_govt_sucks // August 1, 2008 at 6:51 am | Reply

Will you deny that choice to them?

Yes, happily.

Even if that meant using force? Seriously, will you point a gun to someone’s head and say “you must not learn what you want to learn”?

[Response: You're being ridiculous. The discussion was about teaching creationism in public schools as though it were science. NOT about forcing people at gunpoint not to learn creationism, not even in their own homes.

Not that either has anything to do with the thread topic.]
Lazar // August 1, 2008 at 11:12 am | Reply

Nags,

Hank, we’re talking about ideas, not life or death!

It is about life and death.
The life of the child, and the rights of the child.
A society is decadent beyond belief that allows ‘guardians’ to ruin the future of their care. That is simple neglect not much different from malnutrition. Production is increasingly automated, remaining real work is highly specialized and the market is extremely competetive. Society protects the weak of its members through government law, that includes the rights of children to decent education. Once a child understands what the options are and entail, then if they choose to study ID or any other nonsense that ought to be their choice.
Barton Paul Levenson // August 1, 2008 at 11:28 am | Reply

Ray,

No problem. I didn’t really think you were mounting some kind of anti-theist or anti-Christian attack. I’m just used to seeing the “Bible says pi = 3″ meme all over the internet, and I’ve gotten into the habit of correcting wherever I see it. You’re right about literalism, of course.
steven mosher // August 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Reply

How did Tamino’s splendid takedown of Spencer Folly turn into a food fight about the utterly inane theory of ID?

Ah yes, Dr. Digression Dehog riding his hobby horse.

Tamino, I don’t know what you think about CA.
I don’t care ( not in a mean way ) but one rule SteveMc has is no discussion of evolution or religion. discussions about science get heated enough . yes I am guilty of throwing more than my share of burning bags of poop. But I think
that digressing into discussions about evolution is actually counter productive. Let me put it this way, If I took a discussion about global warming and turned it into a discussion about the accuracy of the temperature record, people could make a claim that I was distracting people from the real issue. So now this discussion of Spencers errors has turned into a mosh pit about ID.

Dehog. you and I don’t get along. We don’t see eye to eye. That’s ok. In real life we might. but when you divert the discussion about spencer’s climate science mistakes into a discussion about his other mistaken beliefs, you actually do harm to your cause.

hank, can you help here?

[Response: I agree. The discussion of ID, and of public-school science education, may be interesting and important but it's off topic. So: please no more.]
dhogaza // August 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Reply

Dehog. you and I don’t get along. We don’t see eye to eye. That’s ok. In real life we might.

Nah, I don’t take to people who put forward unsubstantiated claims of scientific fraud in person, either.

but when you divert the discussion about spencer’s climate science mistakes into a discussion about his other mistaken beliefs, you actually do harm to your cause.

It wasn’t my intent to derail it.

I stand by my belief that Spencer’s belief in creationism and (as mentioned by another poster above) DDT mythology *is* relevant to his credibility as a climate scientist.

No more, no less.

I can’t say I’m surprised that certain other people here who deny climate science also appear to deny modern biology, but it wasn’t my intent to start a discussion about it.

BTW I’m fully sympathetic to McIntyre’s not allowing discussion of evolution on CA.

Because the number of regulars there who deny modern biology might well be embarrassingly high and not at all helpful in his effort to present denialism as credible scientific skepticism.

But I doubt that very likely motive has never crossed your mind, has it?

Is the impact of creationism, DDT denialism, tobacco smoke harmfulness denialism, etc on the credibility of one or more players in the debate not relevant?

Believe me, if Hansen wrote that he’s “studied the data and has come to the firm conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS”, his scientific credibility would be severely shaken.

And McIntyre and the like would be among the first sharks attracted to the blood in the water …

For an example, Lynn Margulis gained a lot of fame due to who work on endosymbiosis, in particular regarding mitochondria.

Do you think her HIV/AIDS denialism has no impact on her credibility when her fellow biologists are introduced to some of her far-out ideas regarding symbiosis and evolution?

[Response: Everybody's had a fair chance to air their viewpoint of creationism and Spencer's attachment to religiously-based "scientific" beliefs. So: no more discussion in this thread about that, or about HIV/DDT/whatever.]
steven mosher // August 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm | Reply

here’s one for folks to chew on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-poi-pachauri_thinkaug03,0,6989806.story

I’m gonna handle my carbon footprint in my next lifetime.

Hmm. Seems this idiot ( ok IPCC guy ) thinks he can handle his carbon footprint over many lifetimes. Sounds good to me. Groundhog day!

So, lets apply dehog logic here to this mans beliefs. Believes in reicarnation believes in global warming. What to conclude? Dehog logic using spencer as an example? idiot on one account, idiot on the second count.

Discuss. should be fun
steven mosher // August 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Reply

Dehog

I apologized for my bad metaphor within minutes of making it. I apoligized here repeatedly. The same way Dr. Hansen apologized for his bad coal car metaphor. Your willingness to accept his apology and denial of mine, speaks volumes about your openness to dialog. I don’t wish to fight you here, especially when tamino is trying to make substantial contributions to a fair and open dialog. So, respecting him, I will stand down.

have the last word if you like.
dhogaza // August 4, 2008 at 5:32 am | Reply

So, lets apply dehog logic here to this mans beliefs. Believes in reicarnation believes in global warming. What to conclude? Dehog logic using spencer as an example? idiot on one account, idiot on the second count.

Except I’ve already pointed out I don’t equate Christy with Spencer, and Christy is an avowed conservative, fundamentalist Southern Baptist whose *political* views are partially shaped by his experiences as having been a missionary to Africa (he has explained this in writing).

It is obvious, though, that he works to separate his religious and political views from his science. Some might argue as to whether or not he’s entirely successful at this, but he clearly works at it.

My evaluation of Spencer is based on his apparent departure from science in regard to climate issues, and his willing dishonesty in that regard. I look at his creationist beliefs as being supporting evidence that he’s willing to ignore scientific evidence that conflicts with his religious beleifs.

So in regard to this “IPCC dude” you mention, I lack data. If I saw evidence that his belief in reincarnation woo also permeates his objectivity regarding climate science then, yes, I would say this undermines his credibility, too, and I would have no problem saying why it does so.

But I’d want to see such evidence, first, as I have in Spencer’s case.

Of course neither case speaks to the credibility of climate science per se, nor to others involved. Spencer’s beliefs have nothing to do with McIntyre’s dishonesty, for instance.
steven mosher // August 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Reply

Well, dehog, Then I’ll just say that I’ll fight warming in my next lifetime, like the good scientist Pachauri suggests he will do. Hey, he’s the IPCC, if it works for him it works for me.

I believe the moon is made of green cheese. I also
believe that 2 + 2 =4. The dehog conjecture WRT to Spencer is that one wrong belief in one area of science translates or “teleconnects” to wrong beliefs in another area of science.

The dehog conjecture, wrong about evolution therefore wrong about climate, has no empirical evidence.

Hank? go find us a study

In point of fact dehog, Spencer is likely wrong about both. These errors may be connected, they may not. Bristlecone brain. maybe the two are connected. But you havent established that. You’ve merely speculated.

I could also speculate. I could speculate that people who believe in reincarnation, Like Pachauri, are demented. And so I should Reject what they say about science. How could I trust anyone who believes it will take him 6 lifetimes
to erase his carbon footprint.

Oh.. wait.. That sounds like the perfect delayer plan. Groundhog day. Bring on Bill Murray.

And so, now comes the question. If my religion or my moral code allows me to delay action on global warming what does dehog say?

Pachuari’s religion allows him to believe that he’s got multiple lifetimes to get carbon neutral.

We should ban that religion. Or charge them an extra heavy carbon tax
dhogaza // August 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Reply

Mosher:

The dehog conjecture, wrong about evolution therefore wrong about climate, has no empirical evidence.

Me, earlier:

My evaluation of Spencer is based on his apparent departure from science in regard to climate issues, and his willing dishonesty in that regard. I look at his creationist beliefs as being supporting evidence…

Mosher’s acting just like a denialist, bringing a strawman and a match to a debate.
dhogaza // August 5, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Reply

So, respecting him, I will stand down.

have the last word if you like.

And, like so many other denialists, a man of his word …
luminous beauty // August 5, 2008 at 7:47 pm | Reply

Mosh,

The difference between Pachauri and Spencer is Pachauri is making a joke about his native religious tradition and Spencer’s religious beliefs are a joke.

Likewise, you are more a joke than the joker you think yourself to be.

If you want to be taken seriously, it isn’t enough to merely apologize for just the most egregious of your multitudinous mis-statements, but show a determined willingness to reform your thinking from its demonstrated affinity for phony propaganda.

How about it? When will it be Truth or Consequences time for Mosh?
dhogaza // August 5, 2008 at 10:13 pm | Reply

The difference between Pachauri and Spencer is Pachauri is making a joke about his native religious tradition…

In other words, Mosher scammed me because I took him at his word, when he posted that Pachauri really believes what Mosher said.

Bad on me. Trust Mosher … bad idea.
Ray Ladbury // August 5, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Reply

Not to flog the ID horse, but Steve, wouldn’t you agree that the scientific judgment of someone who does not perceive that ID can never be a scientific theory would have to be considered suspect at least? At least reincarnation and other religious beliefs are mooted to manifest beyond the physical realm.
Neil Fisher // October 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Reply

Tamino said:

enhanced tropical tropospheric warming is expected whatever the cause of warming, be it greenhouse gases or increased solar energy or whatever.

I have seen this stated many times, but I am confused – because this “hot-spot” doesn’t seem to be appearing. The skeptics say this is evidence that AGW is bunk, while the believers say as Tamino does, that it’s not CO2 specific. No-one seems to be suggesting that the “hot-spot” is actually there. Assuming it’s not, this would indicate either: 1) there is no warming (which seems unlikely) or 2) the models are incorrect (seems more likely). Either of which is somewhat disconcerting, to say the least!

[Response: "No warming" is not a realistic probability -- the theory behind warming doesn't depend on computer models, and frankly, the warming has been observed.

You've left out a very realistic possibility -- that the data are inconclusive. We don't have an accurate portrayal of the temperature-altitude profile, and the satellite data can be interpreted in numerous ways, as evidenced by the divergence between the results from UAH, RSS, UMd, and UW.]
Joel Shore // October 9, 2008 at 2:37 am | Reply

Neil,

To add to what Tamino said, it is particularly important to note that the paper by Santer et al. in Science on this subject a few years ago showed that, in fact, the expected tropical tropospheric amplification is seen for the temperature fluctuations that occur on monthly-to-yearly timescales. It is only for the multidecadal temperature trends that the amplification is not seen. This observation severely constrains ways in which the models could be wrong. (I.e., they could be wrong only because some process coming in on longer than yearly timescales is causing the amplification to break down.)

Furthermore, the data and model agreeing well for the fluctuations is with data that is most strongly reliable. The divergence between model and data occurs (with the data diverging, while the model continues to predict amplification) precisely for the observational data that is least reliable. (I.e., both the satellite and radiosonde data have known problems that would likely lead to spurious long term trends while not significantly affecting the fluctuations over shorter timescales.)

These two factors taken together (along with some recent work attempting to correct or re-analyze the data that bring it in better agreement with the modeling) suggest that the problems with the long term trends are more likely to lie in the data than in the models.
nanny_govt_sucks // October 9, 2008 at 2:57 am | Reply

Tamino, Spencer has responded here: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm . Can you comment?
Hank Roberts // October 9, 2008 at 3:14 am | Reply

> Hank? go find us a study

You’ve placed orders before, I recall.

I will make homework help available with a note from your teacher or school librarian accounting for your difficulty. Glad to help those needing help.
Randall Semrau // October 9, 2008 at 5:17 am | Reply

You are a joke, Pal. Spencer’s feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing.

Let’s see if we can get BOTH feet in our mouth, shall we ?

[Response: Spencer's work does whatever it has to do to get the answer he *wants* to get so he can discredit the danger of global warming. He retreats to the "time-varying" mantra because he wants to *justify* his folly -- using such short time spans that you don't really explore the feedback at all.

I suggest you take your feet out of your mouth. With your head so far up your ass, it must be really painful.]
Steve Bloom // October 9, 2008 at 10:51 am | Reply

That’s a dodge, not a response.
Duane Johnson // October 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Reply

Tamino,

Your response to Randall Semrau // October 9, 2008 at 5:17 am, appears to more intemperate than his own rather intemperate response. Your statement is the logical equivalent of someone saying “Mann’s work does whatever it has to do to get the answer he *wants* to get so he can emphasize the danger of global warming. He retreats to the “cherry picking” of proxies because he wants to *justify* his folly .”

Both statements offer nothing, other than the opinion of the originator.

I enjoy your didactic posts, but cringe when your apparent anger causes you to respond in such a manner.
Martin Audley // October 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Reply

Re: nanny_govt_sucks // October 9, 2008 at 2:57 am

Tamino: Will you actually respond to the point (that Spencer has stated your analysis is irrelevant, because your mathematics refers to constant forcing only?)
Phil. // October 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Reply

Martin Audley // October 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Re: nanny_govt_sucks // October 9, 2008 at 2:57 am

Tamino: Will you actually respond to the point (that Spencer has stated your analysis is irrelevant, because your mathematics refers to constant forcing only?)

Since the last Para of Tamino’s original post refers to a forthcoming sequel Spencer’s ‘rebuttal’ rather misses the point:

“The characteristic time which is chosen for the model has profound impact on the behavior of the model in response to various forcing functions. But we’ll see much more about that when we look at how Spencer uses this model, in the next post.”
Neil Fisher // October 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Reply

Joel said:

…suggest that the problems with the long term trends are more likely to lie in the data than in the models.

Presumably, you suspect that there is insufficient data to find what you expect, not that the data is actually incorrect, yes? Perhaps it is your expectations that are incorrect. Perhaps the models have neglected some important real-world effect. Perhaps some assumptions used in the modelling do not hold. Coming from an engineering background, I would personally suspect *any* model that consistently disagrees with measured data. Such models can still be useful of course, but one must consider known mismatches of model output with reality to be a defective model first and foremost!
Phil. // October 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm | Reply

Spencer keeps on coming up with this old canard too! “Proof that this indeed happens is the recent medical theory that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria. Two Australian medical researchers were scoffed at by the medical community for 20 years before the bacterial basis explanation was finally accepted.
In fact Marshall & Warren’s work was published in 83 in the Lancet, a prestigious medical journal. The National Health & MRC of Australia fully funded Marshall & Warren’s work starting in 1984! In 1990 the World Council of Gastroenterology recommended eradication of H. pylori as a cure for ulcers.
In 1997 the US CDC launched an education campaign to highlight the link between H. pylori and ulcers. So Marshall & Warren’s work led to world-wide recognition in less than 10 years from the original study and 5 years after Marshall’s self infection results were published. They received the Nobel prize for the work 22 years later! (That’s actually fairly rapid, a former member of my department has just been honored for the work he did here in 1961!)

If that’s ’scoffing’ I wish someone would start treating my work that way!
HankRoberts // October 10, 2008 at 12:29 am | Reply

> will you
He did:

“… Spencer’s … “time-varying” … using … short time spans that … don’t really explore the feedback at all.”
Gavin's Pussycat // October 10, 2008 at 5:35 am | Reply

>> suggest that the problems with the long term trends are more likely
>> to lie in the data than in the models.

> Presumably, you suspect that there is insufficient data to find
> what you expect, not that the data is actually incorrect, yes?

No. That the data actually contains spurious long-term trend patterns. Like, the sensor technology in the radiosondes changing over time. Or the satellite data observing the “mid-troposphere” also taking a bite along from the cooling stratosphere. Etc…
Joel Shore // October 10, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Reply

Neil:

What Gavin’s Pussycat said. In particular, it is understood that better shielding of the temperature sensor in radiosondes over time has led to a spurious cooling trend. The satellite data, in addition to being affected by cooling from the stratosphere, also has various other issues such as the splicing together of the data from different satellites, so as a result, the analyses of the same data by different groups yields considerably different results for the multidecadal trends (while giving excellent agreement on the fluctuations on shorter timescales).

As for the models: The prediction that temperature fluctuations or trends in the tropics will be magnified as you go up in the troposphere comes from an extremely basic piece of physics referred to as moist adiabatic lapse rate theory. (The basic idea being that as parcels of saturated air rise, expand, and cool in the atmosphere, in a warmer parcel a larger amount of water vapor has to condense out than for a colder parcel…which, because condensation releases latent heat, means that the warmer parcel cools less as it rises than the colder parcel does.)

And, as I noted, the fact that the observations agree with this theory for temperature fluctuations (on monthly to yearly timescales) and only disagree for the longterm trends severely constrains any attempts to “fix” the models to make them better match the observations. In fact, I have not even heard of any plausible mechanism proposed that could explain why the predictions of the moist adiabatic lapse rate theory would break down for the multidecadal trends while still holding for the monthly to yearly temperature fluctuations.
Snorbert // October 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm | Reply

Your description of the moist adiabatic lapse rate theory is a sensible description of the differences between the heat conveyed to the upper troposphere by wet and dry parcels of air.

Does it follow that the warming in the upper troposphere would accelerate if the assumption of increased absolute humidity that the modelers make were true? It would seem to me that higher humidity at the surface would convey even more moisture to the upper troposphere and thereby release even more latent heat. Furthermore, is it not reasonable to conclude that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere would also increase its rate of heating by providing more carbon dioxide molecules to absorb heat and thereby increase the temporary heat storage in the upper troposphere?

It would seem to me that the claim that the hot spot in the upper troposphere that the models predict does not appear actually means that the measured rate of heating is far less than the models predict. It would also seem that the rebuttal, “enhanced tropical tropospheric warming is expected whatever the cause of warming, be it greenhouse gases or increased solar energy or whatever.” does not rebut the actual claim.

[Response: Let's be clear: the data are not yet sufficiently precise to contradict the predictions of climate models. See this and this.]
Joel Shore // October 10, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Reply

Snorbert, taking each question in turn:

“Does it follow that the warming in the upper troposphere would accelerate if the assumption of increased absolute humidity that the modelers make were true?” First off, increased absolute humidity is not an assumption but a prediction of the climate models…and one that is pretty well verified. (Of course, it might have some dependence on others assumptions made in the modeling.) But, no, I don’t think that follows. The concepts of moist adiabatic lapse rate theory only apply to air that is already saturated with water vapor.

“Furthermore, is it not reasonable to conclude that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere would also increase its rate of heating by providing more carbon dioxide molecules to absorb heat and thereby increase the temporary heat storage in the upper troposphere.” I don’t think so. The current understanding is that the vertical distribution of the warming in the troposphere is dominated by the moist adiabatic convective processes. The same distribution is predicted by climate models whether the warming is due to increases in greenhouse gases or increases in solar forcing (although the two mechanisms predict very different things for the stratosphere).

In response to your last comment, as Tamino notes, the data is just too poor to reach a conclusion. The result you get depends on whose satellite analysis you believe or whose analysis or re-analysis (or which version) of the radiosonde data you believe.

However, even if there really is a real significant discrepancy between what the models predict and what is happening, I think it is still important to understand that, while this shows a limitation of the models, it does not say anything about what is causing the warming. It is also worth noting that this effect of the higher levels of the troposphere warming more than the surface provides a negative feedback in the climate models since it means that the surface does not have to warm as much as it otherwise would in order to warm the higher levels (from where most of the emission of infrared radiation back out into space occurs). So, all else being equal, saying this doesn’t happen would seem to reduce or eliminate a negative feedback and thus raise the climate sensitivity. At any rate, this is all very speculative because, like I’ve made it clear, my vote is that the problems with the data on the trends at the multidecadal timescales are so severe that there is really no compelling reason ath this point to believe the models are wrong on this.
Neil Fisher // October 12, 2008 at 9:49 pm | Reply

Joel said:

…I think it is still important to understand that, while this shows a limitation of the models, it does not say anything about what is causing the warming

given that attempts at mitigation and/or adaptation are based on the projections of these models, and that these attempts involve trillions of dollars of public money, full, timely and honest disclosure of such limitations is vital.

….the problems with the data on the trends at the multidecadal timescales are so severe that there is really no compelling reason ath this point to believe the models are wrong on this.

And no confirmation that they are correct either. As I said, it appears that we do not have enough/good enough data – or so it appears to me. Therefore, the models remain speculative – that is, they have not been verified; at least, not yet, on this particular aspect.
dhogaza // October 12, 2008 at 11:11 pm | Reply

And no confirmation that they are correct either.

There is plenty of evidence that the models are robust. Just because *one* model prediction can’t be confirmed because of limitations in available observational data doesn’t mean that *all* model predictions are likewise unconfirmed.

that is, they have not been verified; at least, not yet, on this particular aspect.

Which in your mind is reason to ignore them, no matter how much confirmation there is in other aspects.

That’s just plain dumb.
Gavin's Pussycat // October 13, 2008 at 4:43 am | Reply

Therefore, the models remain speculative – that is,
they have not been verified

The “model” that climate doesn’t change no matter how much stuff we go on pumping into the atmosphere, is even less verified. In fact it has been falsified at a fair level of confidence.

You may not like this, but policy making under uncertainty is the standard. If you wait with action until the models are certain, you wait too long.
Neil Fisher // October 13, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Reply

Which in your mind is reason to ignore them, no matter how much confirmation there is in other aspects.

What leads you to this conclusion? Did I not say that the models can still be useful even if not complete and correct? Please do not put words into my mouth – especially when it should be clear that they do not represent my views.

You may not like this, but policy making under uncertainty is the standard.

It most certainly is ;-)

If you wait with action until the models are certain, you wait too long.

Perhaps – but that is not the point. The point I am trying to make is that we should have as much information as possible precisely because we know it’s not certain. And by far the most useful information in such circumstances is the level of certainty of what we do know. By playing down the uncertainties, you take a big risk – if you are “sure” (or perhaps more accurately, say you are) and it doesn’t happen the way you say, then your credibility takes a big hit. Then, when you really *are* certain, you may not be believed. Better to stick to the facts – complete with uncertainties, and let people decide for themselves what risks are to be taken.
Chugg // October 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm | Reply

I’ve been wondering about the correlation of both hot and cold temperatures on Earth and Mars,Would the recent heavy snow falls here on Earth and the recent snowing of the Mars ice caps be just a coincidence or does it suggest the Sun plays more of a role than the National “Geographic Global Warming Fast Facts” Section puts it:http://tinyurl.com/2quqex

“Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun’s output are “negligible” as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.”
______
ID vs Creation
There has been a third theory since the UFO Disclosure Project.I assume it’s quite acceptable socially to talk on that subject now.
What would one call it AID (Alien Intelligent design)?
Any thoughts?
David B. Benson // October 16, 2008 at 6:52 pm | Reply

Chugg // October 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm — Too early to say about Mars, although this was to me an interesting observation.

For earth, the variation in insolation over a sunspot ‘cycle’ is thought to cause about 0.1 K difference in global temperature; that is a lot! So far we have over 200 days with but at most a few sunspots; this has not happened for at least 50 years. So it being a bit cooler recently in some localities might be blaimed on the sun.
Steve // December 7, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Reply

George Carlin says all that needs to be said on the issure.
Miles // December 11, 2008 at 12:55 am | Reply

Seems the climate modelers from Real Climate are extremely sensitive to critic about their computer programs. Flat Files or database tables with after the fact data does well to correct this problem, as I’m sure they’re aware. At least you allow criticism on this site, as opposed to RC where the site is more of a public flogging disguised as scientific discussion – thanks for that.

[Response: Your characterization is false; RC tolerates disagreement better than I do. And the data and results of the latest Mann et al. paleoclimate reconstruction are readily available.]
David B. Benson // December 11, 2008 at 1:54 am | Reply

Miles // December 11, 2008 at 12:55 am — There is a recent post by Rasmus on RealClimate which points out some of the continued weaknesses of some aspects of AOGCMs. But the major conclusions are certainly not in doubt.

The story about how this came aout may be read in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
dhogaza // December 12, 2008 at 12:32 am | Reply

At least you allow criticism on this site, as opposed to RC …

Miles, aren’t you the least bit embarrassed posting such drivel when anyone reading your post can see its false by spending a few moments reading RC by themselves?
Miles // December 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm | Reply

My goal is not to get into a war with anyone – but to point out weaknesses where I see them – of course you’re free to disagree. People who are genuinely trying to wade through this information and come to their own conclusions prefer to be treated in a respectful manner. We all have our areas of expertise and can be condescending towards anyone of lesser technical knowledge, however it doesn’t help persuade anyone over to your side.
luminous beauty // December 13, 2008 at 12:11 am | Reply

Miles,

Have you anything to say besides vague complaints about perceived manners?

If manners is your primary criteria for making a scientific determination of fact, it doesn’t inspire much respect for your critical thinking skills.
dhogaza // December 13, 2008 at 12:48 am | Reply

My goal is not to get into a war with anyone – but to point out weaknesses where I see them – of course you’re free to disagree.

But the weakness you “see” doesn’t exist. RC threads are full of criticism of the mainstream view of the science.

You undermine your own credibility when you post something that any lurker can see is false with a few moments work.
Todd // December 18, 2008 at 6:31 am | Reply

Reviewing the postings on many climatology sites as a lurker, I am alarmed at the spirited defense of pet models and apparent massaging of data. I understand that science is not performed in a vacuum. My background is nuclear physics. But I worry that the hypothesis holds sway over observation for some researchers.
Ray Ladbury // December 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Reply

Todd, If you have a background in nuclear physics, why are you going to “climatology sites” for your information. Why not go to the original papers in peer-reviewed journals. Also, Realclimate .org is a pretty reliable source for the science.
Your comment is a bit vague. What “hypothesis”? What “observation”?

	Scott Mandia on Message from Santer
	Hank Roberts on MacGruber!
	Hank Roberts on Central England Temperatu…
	merve kayhan on Central England Temperatu…
	Riccardo on Not Computer Models
	george on Cyclical? Not.
	Deech56 on Not Computer Models
	J SMITH on Cyclical? Not.
	Riccardo on How Long?
	Riccardo on Cyclical? Not.
	carrot eater on Cyclical? Not.
	Ray Ladbury on Not Computer Models
	Douglas Watts on Cyclical? Not.
	Lamont on Cyclical? Not.
	Nathan on How Long?

Open Mind

Spencer’s Folly

July 28, 2008 · 125 Comments

125 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment

Support Your Global Climate Blog

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

astronomy

Blogroll

Global Warming

mathematics

July 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jun				Aug »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31