New NASA Data

[meteorologist]

http://news.yahoo.co...-192334971.html

http://pielkeclimate...-braswell-2011/

http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

[burkecountync]

Glad to see it. I always have been skeptical of global warming and climate change, and now to have an actual report to help validate claims against global climate change, it is very nice. Thanks for the post.

[Sunny and Warm]

you made a new thread and all you did was link. Don't you have an opinion to share with us? After all, this is a message board on a science website. Commentary is encouraged.

[WeatherRusty]

The meaning and implications of this study are being grossly twisted and misconstrued by third party interpretations. Read the actual study posted above (the 3rd link given in the OP).

No offense to the skeptical, but this is an example of how political interests i.e, The Heartland Institute, intentionally confound the science.

[meteorologist]

you made a new thread and all you did was link. Don't you have an opinion to share with us? After all, this is a message board on a science website. Commentary is encouraged.

My opinion is:

The link(s) are worthy of being posted.

The link pdf is an important article in the controversy of global warming.

There are posters on this forum who would have a far more credible opinion as to the significance of this data than I.

And.... one other thought:

I almost always choose not to do anything but post a link; why? Because the contents of the link can be used as the validity of posting. I'm not prepared to get into a debate/conversation to defend the author/idea(s) of the link.

[tacoman25]

The meaning and implications of this study are being grossly twisted and misconstrued by third party interpretations. Read the actual study posted above (the 3rd link given in the OP).

No offense to the skeptical, but this is an example of how political interests i.e, The Heartland Institute, intentionally confound the science.

You don't think this could have implications for climate science, as it indicates the climate models are signficantly flawed?

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

[Msalgado]

Its the same model Spencer has used for some time now. That op ed linked above just presents it at something new. Its not.

[WeatherRusty]

You don't think this could have implications for climate science, as it indicates the climate models are signficantly flawed?

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Read the original study. It concerns the difficulty in discerning radiatively forced original temperature change from feedback induced temperature change as observed in the satellite data. In other worlds, it is very difficult to determine climate sensitivity from analysis of OLR. That is what the scientific paper is presenting. When using other methods for determining climate sensitivity, such as historical change to radiative forcing due to orbital parameters and volcanic eruptions we get a sensitivity between about 2C-4.5C for an external radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Climate models employing a range of suspected climate sensitivity obviously give differing results. Since we are still not sure of equilibrium climate sensitivity the models can only spit out a range of possible outcomes. The above study highlights the difficulty in determining climate sensitivity from satellite data containing a mix of forcing and feedbacks, and other natural variabilities.

[BethesdaWX]

Rusty, the paper and Roy Spencer himself also describe the the errors in IPCC GCM's in radiative release timables. Care to explain why the paper is "bogus" so I can respond? CO2 physics don't matter, these are the physical properties plugged into the IPCC models even before CO2 forcing application. I am getting an education in particle physics, so I think I may know where your misinterpretation of the physical meaning may be. If now, how about you email Roy Spencer...he gave his email on the paper itself if you have any questions...misinterpretations are easy within this area of climate science, and it seems you have misinterpreted the meaning behind the paper.

And otherwise you're speaking of a PHD scientist with a higher education in the field of climate science than you have at this point, as well as the peer reviewing of the paper and publishing.

So lets have at it Rusty

http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/

Spencer's direct quote: "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

I am assuming your problem is the timeframe referenced? As in, 3 months? This is actually a bigger problem for longer term forcing such as CO2, because the same physical mechanisms will apply. Not that 3 month's after CO2 increase we begin losing energy, but more-so the magnitude lost even during a warming cycle itself, between the 3 least sensitive and 3 most sensitive GCM's, is small. Obervations in this manner indicate a much larger loss that will continue through a warming cycle. So even when CO2's RF properties are added, you still have the base radiative release error that will be present throughout the warming cycle, as long as we warm.

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

Ignore the timeframe, but more-so the discrepancy extrapolated.

When using other methods for determining climate sensitivity, such as historical change to radiative forcing due to orbital parameters and volcanic eruptions we get a sensitivity between about 2C-4.5C for an external radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

So what? The Mechanism for which CO2 warms the planet is not the same seen within solar radiation/insolation. You're can't lose radiative energy earlier in a warming cycle when in is ISR increase because that very increase in incoming energy will be released upon transaction at the surface...and there is equilibrium to take into account as well, but it is the same application. For CO2, we're talking trapped LW radiation, a supposed imbalance...in this case how much energy can escape due to atmospheric processes at the tropopause/stratosphere is very important, the same process occurs, but the logorithmic effect will be much more dramatic. If these satellite measurements are correct, it would be near 15-fold, maybe 20-fold ormore at the largest zone of discrepancy.

Its the same model Spencer has used for some time now. That op ed linked above just presents it at something new. Its not.

This type of analysis is new. The model used is simply a comparison of satellite data to IPCC models with the realm of applied physics & the coinciding result.

[tacoman25]

Read the original study. It concerns the difficulty in discerning radiatively forced original temperature change from feedback induced temperature change as observed in the satellite data. In other worlds, it is very difficult to determine climate sensitivity from analysis of OLR. That is what the scientific paper is presenting. When using other methods for determining climate sensitivity, such as historical change to radiative forcing due to orbital parameters and volcanic eruptions we get a sensitivity between about 2C-4.5C for an external radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Climate models employing a range of suspected climate sensitivity obviously give differing results. Since we are still not sure of equilibrium climate sensitivity the models can only spit out a range of possible outcomes. The above study highlights the difficulty in determining climate sensitivity from satellite data containing a mix of forcing and feedbacks, and other natural variabilities.

Nevertheless, when the OLR data is not matching up with what climate models show, I don't think that is easily dismissable. That's a very important component to the temperature outcomes the climate models produce.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, the paper and Roy Spencer himself also describe the the errors in IPCC GCM's in radiative release timables. Care to explain why the paper is "bogus" so I can respond? CO2 physics don't matter, these are the physical properties plugged into the IPCC models even before CO2 forcing application. I am getting an education in particle physics, so I think I may know where your misinterpretation of the physical meaning may be. If now, how about you email Roy Spencer...he gave his email on the paper itself if you have any questions...misinterpretations are easy within this area of climate science, and it seems you have misinterpreted the meaning behind the paper.

And otherwise you're speaking of a PHD scientist with a higher education in the field of climate science than you have at this point, as well as the peer reviewing of the paper and publishing.

So lets have at it Rusty

http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/

Spencer's direct quote: "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

I am assuming your problem is the timeframe referenced? As in, 3 months? This is actually a bigger problem for longer term forcing such as CO2, because the same physical mechanisms will apply. Not that 3 month's after CO2 increase we begin losing energy, but more-so the magnitude lost even during a warming cycle itself, between the 3 least sensitive and 3 most sensitive GCM's, is small. Obervations in this manner indicate a much larger loss that will continue through a warming cycle. So even when CO2's RF properties are added, you still have the base radiative release error that will be present throughout the warming cycle, as long as we warm.

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

Ignore the timeframe, but more-so the discrepancy extrapolated.

So what? The Mechanism for which CO2 warms the planet is not the same seen within solar radiation/insolation. You're can't lose radiative energy earlier in a warming cycle when in is ISR increase because that very increase in incoming energy will be released upon transaction at the surface...and there is equilibrium to take into account as well, but it is the same application. For CO2, we're talking trapped LW radiation, a supposed imbalance...in this case how much energy can escape due to atmospheric processes at the tropopause/stratosphere is very important, the same process occurs, but the logorithmic effect will be much more dramatic. If these satellite measurements are correct, it would be near 15-fold, maybe 20-fold ormore at the largest zone of discrepancy.

This type of analysis is new. The model used is simply a comparison of satellite data to IPCC models with the realm of applied physics & the coinciding result.

I didn't say the paper is bogus, I said your interpretation of it is. The study and paper seem perfectly well conducted, researched and written. The conclusion as written in the paper reflects the work appropriately. Post commentary by Spencer himself does not, and neither do the 3rd party write ups. It's as if Dr. Spencer wore his scientific hat while producing the study and paper, and then his skeptic hat when discussing the study with the media.

[WeatherRusty]

Nevertheless, when the OLR data is not matching up with what climate models show, I don't think that is easily dismissable. That's a very important component to the temperature outcomes the climate models produce.

Yes, you are correct. The uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity remains and model results reflect said uncertainty.

Climate models are not exact duplicates of the actual, real world condition. It is hoped that they reasonably approximate the real world, and they hind cast reasonably well, but they will never be 100% accurate. There are inevitable flaws.

[Mencken_Fan]

http://news.yahoo.co...-192334971.html

http://pielkeclimate...-braswell-2011/

http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

This story has spread across the internet like wildfire. It's a great example the power of lobbying in a society where critical thinking is near non-existent.

I don't define my science reality on articles from business lobbyists, I define it from the science community. If and when there's a significant change in climatology, mainstream science won't hesitate to let us know.

When only 28% of a nation's population believes in evolution, you know it's a scientifically illiterate nation; one awash with lemmings who will believe whatever their ideological leaders tell them. What the Imams are to Saudi Arabia et. al., the corporations are to Americans.

Anytime I start to question my paradigm that we are a dumb as dirt nation, reading the replies to news items on Yahoo quickly restores my faith.

[Amped]

Doesn't mean the worlds cooling. Outgoing radiation is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power, so it probably means the earths warming.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't say the paper is bogus, I said your interpretation of it is. The study and paper seem perfectly well conducted, researched and written. The conclusion as written in the paper reflects the work appropriately. Post commentary by Spencer himself does not, and neither do the 3rd party write ups. It's as if Dr. Spencer wore his scientific hat while producing the study and paper, and then his skeptic hat when discussing the study with the media.

Spencer states the same exact thing within the paper...IPCC modeling vs observations. Should I link that? Basically the paper reflects what has been going through my mind.

[BethesdaWX]

Doesn't mean the worlds cooling. Outgoing radiation is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power, so it probably means the earths warming.

Yes exactly, it is just a different mechanism to have created the warming rather than just CO2, OLR has increased dramatically coinciding with the step-change in the late 1990's.

This story has spread across the internet like wildfire. It's a great example the power of lobbying in a society where critical thinking is near non-existent.

I don't define my science reality on articles from business lobbyists, I define it from the science community. If and when there's a significant change in climatology, mainstream science won't hesitate to let us know.

When only 28% of a nation's population believes in evolution, you know it's a scientifically illiterate nation; one awash with lemmings who will believe whatever their ideological leaders tell them. What the Imams are to Saudi Arabia et. al., the corporations are to Americans.

Anytime I start to question my paradigm that we are a dumb as dirt nation, reading the replies to news items on Yahoo quickly restores my faith.

This study is based on real-world observations, published in a peer reviewed journal by PHD scientists. Why do you think you can just spread lies around and get away with it?

The definition of consensus is fabricated...basically 95%+ percent of the worlds climate scientists agree that CO2 has a warming impact on the climate...that is what it is...in this case I am part of the "consensus". Its not that the catastrophic, or even moderate values are correct, it is just that our activities are having a warming impact on the planet. The consensus dies at the issue of climate sensitivity, and it dies quickly.

So I hold the "mainstream" view that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Still am skeptical of the overblown IPCC scenarios, most scientists that I've met are also skeptical. It is intentional deception based on stupid ideological views.

Those with hard nosed political ideology will never think with a clear head...this goes for all sides. When political ideology gets involved you might as well throw the science out and burn it, draw a pentigram over it, and then **** it.

[chris87]

Yes exactly, it is just a different mechanism to have created the warming rather than just CO2, OLR has increased dramatically coinciding with the step-change in the late 1990's.

This study is based on real-world observations, published in a peer reviewed journal by PHD scientists. Why do you think you can just spread lies around and get away with it?

The definition of consensus is fabricated...basically 95%+ percent of the worlds climate scientists agree that CO2 has a warming impact on the climate...that is what it is...in this case I am part of the "consensus". Its not that the catastrophic, or even moderate values are correct, it is just that our activities are having a warming impact on the planet. The consensus dies at the issue of climate sensitivity, and it dies quickly.

So I hold the "mainstream" view that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Still am skeptical of the overblown IPCC scenarios, most scientists that I've met are also skeptical. It is intentional deception based on stupid ideological views.

Those with hard nosed political ideology will never think with a clear head...this goes for all sides. When political ideology gets involved you might as well throw the science out and burn it, draw a pentigram over it, and then **** it.

As one of those "PHD scientists" who regularly reviews journal articles, especially those in the field of remote sensing, I can assure you that the journal that this was published in is not a well-received journal and this article did not likely receive an adequate peer review. Usually a red flag when someone has to go journal shopping to ensure publication...just food for thought.

[BethesdaWX]

As one of those "PHD scientists" who regularly reviews journal articles, especially those in the field of remote sensing, I can assure you that the journal that this was published in is not a well-received journal and this article did not likely receive an adequate peer review. Usually a red flag when someone has to go journal shopping to ensure publication...just food for thought.

Can you elaborate? I happen to know a scientist who has published here (will not give the name), and I'm fairly sure you may have the wrong journal in mind. And who says Roy Spencer went "Journal Shopping"? If you are going to make big claims against a Journal and the Author of a paper, you need to provide evidence, or at least first do your research, which I am fairly sure you did not do. I have a hard time responding to crap such as "the journal is bad, it is denialist science, etc"...it is a major turn-off to objective scientists with rational heads. At least explain.

http://www.mdpi.com/

• publish exclusively peer-reviewed journals — all articles are thoroughly peer-reviewed
• maintain a quick publication procedure — manuscripts are peer-reviewed and published within 4-8 weeks from submission, provided that no major revisions are required
• publish full open access journals — readers can access all articles published on this platform for free, including state-of-the-art review articles
• publish citation-tracked journals — MDPI is working towards a quick coverage and citation-tracking of all of its journals by the Science Citation Index Expanded (see a list of covered journals) and Scopus (see a list of covered journals)
• publish highly visible journals — journals are indexed by leading indexing and abstracting databases

For Authors and Readers Open Access Means:

• free availability of the literature on the Internet without any subscription or price barriers
• immediate open access once an article is released (no embargo period)
• authors retain all copyrights - authors will not be forced to sign any copyright transfer agreement
• permission of re-use of the published material, given proper accreditation (Creative Commons Attribution License)

Read the full open access information here.

General Peer-Review Procedure

All manuscripts sent for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed (research and review articles, spontaneous submissions as well as invited papers). The Editorial Offices will organize peer-review and collect at least two review reports per manuscript, ask the authors for adequate revision (peer-review again whenever necessary), before requesting the decision of an external editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief of a journal or the Guest Editor of a special issue).

Long-Term Archiving

• MDPI deposits all articles published in life-science related journals into PubMed Central. This has been realized for Marine Drugs (2008), IJMS (2009) and IJERPH (2009).
• MDPI deposits a full archival copy of all publications in electronic format into e-Helvetica, the digital archive of the Swiss National Library.
• Recently MDPI undersigned an agreement with Informatics India Ldt. to have all its journals included in Open J-Gate, a full-text repository for open access journal literature.
• Finally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final version of their published articles into institutional repositories (such as those listed in the Directory of Open Access Repositories). For this purpose authors may use the final PDF version published by MDPI.

[AtticaFanatica]

I have not heard of this journal and am active in the peer review process. I don't work in climate science though, so maybe it's commonly used for that subject area, not sure.

Doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with the paper, of course.

[chris87]

Can you elaborate? I happen to know a scientist who has published here (will not give the name), and I'm fairly sure you may have the wrong journal in mind. And who says Roy Spencer went "Journal Shopping"? If you are going to make big claims against a Journal and the Author of a paper, you need to provide evidence, or at least first do your research, which I am fairly sure you did not do. I have a hard time responding to crap such as "the journal is bad, it is denialist science, etc"...it is a major turn-off to objective scientists with rational heads. At least explain.

http://www.mdpi.com/

Fair enough, I should had made it a bit more clear. This journal, "Remote Sensing', is a fine journal with a rigorous peer review process, yet it is not a clearinghouse for climate change research. Therefore, it doesn't (see its editorial board) have the breadth of expertise in this type of research to provide an adequate review process. If a scientist wanted to present an influential study in the field of climate change they would not consider a journal such as this, unless you are Roy Spencer, whom is on record saying he's been "blackballed" by major climate change-related publications. A statement which probably does have some truth, I know scientists who are just as hard-headed and ignorant as Dr. Spencer on the other side of the debate. Yet, I have no respect for a scientist who rather than find an obscure journal (at least in the field of climate change) than take the fight to his peers with transparent facts and/or findings. But in fairness "Journal Shopping" may not have been the right word (but on the other hand, we don't really know where else this may have been submitted and rejected).

full disclaimer, not trying to be mean or anything,

but what field/expertise do you possess that warrants referring to yourself as an objective scientist with a rational head?

[chris87]

A rebuttal of the Spencer paper by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo....a good read regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

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

[BethesdaWX]

A rebuttal of the Spencer paper by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo....a good read regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

http://www.realclima...ature-feedback/

Realclimate Blog..... Hey listen I'm all for healthy debate, but this is just like me linking WUWT to refute a Mann paper. Are you saying it is OK for me to do that? Because there are many WUWT posts I could link here right now.

Or maybe this was a Joke? [was going to read through the Realclimate Bog Post, but first wanted to check if Spencer had responded. I then read through the realclimate Article and what caught my eye was the section describing the ability of a model to predict ENSO and why this would supposedly matter, in contradiction to another study earlier on that I forget the name of.

Edit: Spencer's comment:

While our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models. Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.

Exactly what I had suspected, I read through the Realclimate Blog Post and was a bit surprised to see such blowhard hypocricy regarding exactly what can be used to validate a model, a feedback, climate sensitivity readings within short timescales & response times of radiative release, etc, based on reasonings that had earlier been used to argue for the IPCC modeling.

This is the exact same problem that ties into Hansen's prediction of Strong El Ninos every 3rd year, it is the handling of the energy budget, IPCC models have been calibrated to conitnue to feature the ENSO oscillations within assumed relativity to the heat budget, but this is a cover-up rather than a physical calibration and needs to be fixed.

So tell me again why this is a "good read"? It was a funny read, I'll give it that.

Feel free to address the rebuttal.... Its the whole point of science.

U never mentioned your credentials? I assume you taken graduate level radiative transfer, general circulation and climate dynamics?

I am currently studying for the BS in atmospheric Science, but am working towards it. I am also a particle physics student, again, I'm a beginner as of now. But this is somewhat basic. Albeit there are a few aspects that are not "basic" in regards to particle physics that are present in the field. I hope to aquire a PHD sometime.

[chris87]

Feel free to address the rebuttal.... Its the whole point of science.

U never mentioned your credentials? I assume you taken graduate level radiative transfer, general circulation and climate dynamics?

[chris87]

Realclimate Blog..... Hey listen I'm all for healthy debate, but this is just like me linking WUWT to refute a Mann paper. Are you saying it is OK for me to do that? Because there are many WUWT posts I could link here right now.

Or maybe this was a Joke? [was going to read through the Realclimate Bog Post, but first wanted to check if Spencer had responded. I then read through the realclimate Article and what caught my eye was the section describing the ability of a model to predict ENSO and why this would supposedly matter, in contradiction to another study earlier on that I forget the name of.

Edit: Spencer's comment:

Exactly what I had suspected, I read through the Realclimate Blog Post and was a bit surprised to see such blowhard hypocricy regarding exactly what can be used to validate a model, a feedback, climate sensitivity readings within short timescales & response times of radiative release, etc, based on reasonings that had earlier been used to argue for the IPCC modeling.

This is the exact same problem that ties into Hansen's prediction of Strong El Ninos every 3rd year, it is the handling of the energy budget, IPCC models have been calibrated to conitnue to feature the ENSO oscillations within assumed relativity to the heat budget, but this is a cover-up rather than a physical calibration and needs to be fixed.

So tell me again why this is a "good read"? It was a funny read, I'll give it that.

I am currently studying for the BS in atmospheric Science, but am working towards it. I am also a particle physics student, again, I'm a beginner as of now. But this is somewhat basic. Albeit there are a few aspects that are not "basic" in regards to particle physics that are present in the field. I hope to aquire a PHD sometime.

Good luck in your studies. I had a feeling you were a read this read that hobbyist so keep reading but keep an open mind. You sound like a bright kid one day you'll hopefully earn the right to have a say in this field.

[BethesdaWX]

Good luck in your studies. I had a feeling you were a read this read that hobbyist so keep reading but keep an open mind. You sound like a bright kid one day you'll hopefully earn the right to have a say in this field.

Thankyou for the good wishes (And slight patronization ), But you still linked a blog post to rebut a paper, you just don't do that...reagrdless of whether or not I "have the right to have a say" in your eyes. Spencer rebutted the double standardized critisisms within his own "blog post"...which I would not have linked to if you hadn't linked a silly blog post yourself. Is this turning into a battle of the blogs? I thought were going to debate scientifically the causative mechanisms for the excess radiative release and why the IPCC modeling itself in short response time could not replicate the releases even with ENSO calibration..(?). Instead you decided to talk down to me somewhat disrespectfully, link a blog post to attempt a rebuttal to a paper, accuse a journal of not understanding climate science with no basis whatsoever. I don't mean to come off as nasty, but it appears you googled "rebuttal to spencer", found the realclimate blog, and posted it saying "good read", when in fact it was a double standardized accusation, you probably just skimmed through it, am I right?

Are you maybe having a bad day? I've had some emberassing intervals here via not reading through things carefully.

Since you posted a Realclimate Article, I'll post a WUWT text by Roy Spencer:

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those WERE Observations that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations?

Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.

[Hambone]

This story has spread across the internet like wildfire. It's a great example the power of lobbying in a society where critical thinking is near non-existent.

I don't define my science reality on articles from business lobbyists, I define it from the science community. If and when there's a significant change in climatology, mainstream science won't hesitate to let us know.

When only 28% of a nation's population believes in evolution, you know it's a scientifically illiterate nation; one awash with lemmings who will believe whatever their ideological leaders tell them. What the Imams are to Saudi Arabia et. al., the corporations are to Americans.

Anytime I start to question my paradigm that we are a dumb as dirt nation, reading the replies to news items on Yahoo quickly restores my faith.

If I can get past your Strawman and political bias I discern that you believe that it is ok for liberal foundations to fund AGW scientists who begin their work with the end already in mind and manipulate/suppress data to support their foregone conclusions, but it's not alright for anti AGW groups to produce thier own peer reviewed studies that refute the trumped upAGW studies?

[chris87]

Thankyou for the good wishes (And slight patronization ), But you still linked a blog post to rebut a paper, you just don't do that...reagrdless of whether or not I "have the right to have a say" in your eyes. Spencer rebutted the double standardized critisisms within his own "blog post"...which I would not have linked to if you hadn't linked a silly blog post yourself. Is this turning into a battle of the blogs? I thought were going to debate scientifically the causative mechanisms for the excess radiative release and why the IPCC modeling itself in short response time could not replicate the releases even with ENSO calibration..(?). Instead you decided to talk down to me somewhat disrespectfully, link a blog post to attempt a rebuttal to a paper, accuse a journal of not understanding climate science with no basis whatsoever. I don't mean to come off as nasty, but it appears you googled "rebuttal to spencer", found the realclimate blog, and posted it saying "good read", when in fact it was a double standardized accusation, you probably just skimmed through it, am I right?

Are you maybe having a bad day? I've had some emberassing intervals here via not reading through things carefully.

Since you posted a Realclimate Article, I'll post a WUWT text by Roy Spencer:

Nope, not a bad day....I tend to trust certain scientists more than Roy Spencer, and claiming Spencer stuck up for his own work as some kind of proof doesn't really build your case very good.

Point 1: my problem with the Spencer paper.

The Spencer paper found a problem, that I will concede and an important problem with the IPCC models.

Observations A did not agree with Observations B

So, Spencer brought back out his little toy model of the climate system, which has no coupled ocean, no ENSO, no hydrologic cycle, in other words, something you could code up in Excel.

The real science of this paper is the showing the disagreement between Observations A and Observations B, the bad science of this paper is using an overly simplistic model which can be tuned to the liking of the user to bolster his case.

Spencer would have had no trouble publishing this work if he had just focused on the mismatch, he degraded his own analysis by the use of the simple toy model.

Rebuttal on the toy model? Do you feel the model is an accurate representation of the climate system?

I imagine you're familiar with the issue of satellite data right? Spencer may present it as "ground truth", but it's not that simple, something you'll learn as you embark on your journey through atmospheric science coursework. I'm not as familiar with this dataset, but I work daily with satellite data and it can be just an unreliable as model data.

Point 2: the basis of the journal of "Remote Sensing" being a clearing house for climate change research...

I pointed you to the editorial board and showed that no scientist there is a "so-called" expert in climate change, I've looked through the years of publications of this journal and couldn't find one influential climate change-related paper, what more proof do you want? You seem to have no understanding how the peer review process works and that's understandable.

There are several publications Spencer should have attempted to publish in, he chose to publish in an obscure (in the realm of climate change research) journal and then get his buddy at the Heartland Institute to write an op-ed about the paper. Spencer is also listed as a member of the Heartland Institute, a good ol' conservative think tank run by oil money.

Rebuttal on the decision to submit to this journal, as someone who follows climate change closely, I assume this journal must be read monthly by you?

[WeatherRusty]

If I can get past your Strawman and political bias I discern that you believe that it is ok for liberal foundations to fund AGW scientists who begin their work with the end already in mind and manipulate/suppress data to support their foregone conclusions, but it's not alright for anti AGW groups to produce thier own peer reviewed studies that refute the trumped upAGW studies?

Apparently you equate mainstream science with liberal science. In science there are no "anti" or "pro". The data and the evidence is supposed to speak for itself. You politicize science with your attitude. You're correct, it is not alright for a group with an agenda to politicize science and fund science with the intention of creating a specific outcome. Why then do you support that type of activity?

[skierinvermont]

The comparison between WUWT and RealClimate is laughable. WUWT is written by a weatherman with no formal education or published work in most of the relevant areas upon which he is commenting. RealClimate is written by experts in the field with a high level of formal education and publication of well-respected articles in the relevant subject areas.

It's like using a blog written by me to rebut a blog written by Steven Hawkings on astrophysics.

[BethesdaWX]

Nope, not a bad day....I tend to trust certain scientists more than Roy Spencer, and claiming Spencer stuck up for his own work as some kind of proof doesn't really build your case very good.

Point is you linked a Blog Post to attempt to refute a peer reviewed study, you just don't do that, and you know it too. The blog post you referenced was not only a massive double standard in this case, but also mis-interpreted the data/message spencer displayed, as Spencer Explained in hos own blog post.

So, Spencer brought back out his little toy model of the climate system, which has no coupled ocean, no ENSO, no hydrologic cycle, in other words, something you could code up in Excel.

His "model" is not trying to analyze what is going on within the oceans, simply measuring the forcing and how much radiative energy is escaping into space from the climate system as a whole in an applied dataset. If there is something wrong with the IPCC's models within the oceans/ENSO cycle, it will show up in Spencer's model whether or not the Oceans are taken into account. So it is a strawman argument. Radiative release is determined by mechanisms within the climate system, so if there is a Disconnect within the IPCC models it is detectable, it is detectbale in satellite data,and the deviations are plotted in Spencer's model through the applied dataset.

The real science of this paper is the showing the disagreement between Observations A and Observations B, the bad science of this paper is using an overly simplistic model which can be tuned to the liking of the user to bolster his case.

See point above, the model was "tuned" to the TERRA satellite data, hardly a problem unless you feel the TERRA satellite is off it's rocker.

I imagine you're familiar with the issue of satellite data right? Spencer may present it as "ground truth", but it's not that simple, something you'll learn as you embark on your journey through atmospheric science coursework. I'm not as familiar with this dataset, but I work daily with satellite data and it can be just an unreliable as model data.

Obviously satellite data is never perfect, there are atmospheric factors that need to be calibrated for, orbital issues (This is not on the NOAA15 network FYI), etc. In this case drift is not a major issue, and while there will are error bars on the TERRA satellite, they are not large enough to affect the conclusion of the analysis.

The basis of the journal of "Remote Sensing" being a clearing house for climate change research...

I pointed you to the editorial board and showed that no scientist there is a "so-called" expert in climate change, I've looked through the years of publications of this journal and couldn't find one influential climate change-related paper, what more proof do you want? You seem to have no understanding how the peer review process works and that's understandable.

I'm sure you know that reviewers are chosen by journals based on their qualifications...right?

There are several publications Spencer should have attempted to publish in, he chose to publish in an obscure (in the realm of climate change research) journal and then get his buddy at the Heartland Institute to write an op-ed about the paper. Spencer is also listed as a member of the Heartland Institute, a good ol' conservative think tank run by oil money.

And for one we're getting off track, but I'll say that likely Avoiding politically biased Journals like "Nature" was one issue.

And I can read your mind and know that you are a liberal/democrat with heavy ideology by the way you mention "oil funding", as if it were really an issue. It isn't. That is like me telling you that science funded from russia is a problem because of that.

Rebuttal on the decision to submit to this journal, as someone who follows climate change closely, I assume this journal must be read monthly by you?

No actually I don't, but I know enough to tell a good analysis from a bad one.

From you I get

- This Blog Post says...

- The Journal is Not Good

- Spencer is Oil funded

Yeah that is not science. We debate science by reading the paper, analyzing the paper, and then debating it. I have enough education to where I can understand the paper, methods, and mathematics involved.

And I'll say that the main point of the paper is deciphering feedback mechanisms through changes within the climate system, rather than trying to disprove the IPCC models long term.

Skierinvermont

The comparison between WUWT and RealClimate is laughable. WUWT is written by a weatherman with no formal education or published work in most of the relevant areas upon which he is commenting. RealClimate is written by experts in the field with a high level of formal education and publication of well-respected articles in the relevant subject areas.

It's like using a blog written by me to rebut a blog written by Steven Hawkings on astrophysics.

Well this is a surprisingly stupid post.

1) An atmospheric science degree is just that, whether it be climate, weather, etc, just to clear that up whether or not it applies in this circumstance. There is no "climate degree" sepcifically, and you don't need a "PHD" in a certain area to understand the science at hand here.

2) Realclimate is a Blog...and As is usually the case with blog rebuttals, there were blatant errors invloved that Roy Spencer Addressed.

3) If you are going to play the Education game, I'll say that I have more"education" in climate science than you happen to have, as I am currently a Particle Physics and Atmspheric Science student.

See the nonsense involved? I don't care who runs Realclimate, and frankly I've read enough misconception and scientific mis-analysis within that blog to know it is for the most part superficial.