Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in
a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether
anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks
being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants, oscillations
and dampening characteristics all of which are self evident and
measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and fruitcake.
You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully more
publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question.

Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.

/BAH

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud
feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to
suit their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and
wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question.

Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to increase
surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person who's had
high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd make the best,
most honest case I could, showing and explaining the evidence both
supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the public
disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:15:05 -0600, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud
feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to
suit their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and
wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question.

Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to increase
surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person who's had
high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd make the best,
most honest case I could, showing and explaining the evidence both
supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the public
disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.

The last 15 years or so I have experienced in production and
elsewhere too the reduction of inhouse Q-design, -control
and -inspection and shifting the burden onto the receiving
end/customer. It looks a conscious strategy under the
disguise of costsreduction. Next the inhouse maintenance job
will be neglected. As I understood BAH is pointing to
neglect in preparation and maintenance before export.

Way to convoluted to me. It is really simple. The theory says that
greenhouses gases are accumulating in the atmosphere. So, the proof of the
pudding is to determine if the theory is correct, i.e. are greenhouses gases
accumulating in the atmosphere? The way to do that is to measure the area
in the atmostphere that the gases are suppose to be accumulating in.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
behind it is questionable.
Note how the alarmists cannot respond to this important issue, other than
with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...limate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a special session devoted to
feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global
warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain
of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as many
scientists as possible the
futility of previous attempts to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate
system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating
in computerized climate
models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

To review, the main feedback issue is this: In response to the small
direct warming effect of more
CO2 in the atmosphere, will clouds change in ways that amplify the warming
(e.g. a cloud reduction
letting more sunlight in, which would be a positive feedback), or decrease
the warming (e.g. a
cloud increase causing less sunlight to be absorbed by the Earth, which
would be a negative
feedback)?

In the former case, we could be heading for a global warming catastrophe.
In the latter case,
manmade global warming might be barely measurable (and previous warming
would be mostly the result
of some natural cause). All climate models tracked by the IPCC now have
positive cloud feedbacks,
by varying amounts, which partly explains why the IPCC expects
anthropogenic global warming to be
so strong.

Obviously, we need to know what feedbacks operate in the climate system.

ESTIMATING FEEDBACKS: AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM

I am now quite convinced that most, if not all, previous estimates of
feedback from our satellite
observations of natural climate variability are in error. Furthermore,
this error is usually in the
direction of positive feedback, which will then give the illusion of a
'sensitive' climate system.
More on that later.

The goal seems simple enough: to measure cloud feedbacks, we need to
determine how much clouds
change in response to a temperature change. But most researchers do not
realize that this is not
possible without accounting for causation in the opposite direction, i.e.,
the extent to which
temperature changes are a response to cloud changes.

As I will demonstrate in my AGU talk on December 16, for all practical
purposes it is not possible
(at least not yet) to measure cloud feedbacks because the two directions
of causation are
intermingled in nature. As a result, it is not possible with current
methods to measure feedbacks
in response to a radiative forcing event such as a change in cloud cover,
or even a major volcanic
eruption, such as that from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

The reason is that the size of the radiative forcing of a temperature
change overwhelms the size of
the radiative feedback upon that temperature change, and our satellite
measurements can not tell
the difference. There are only two special situations where it can be
done: (1) the theoretical
case of an instantaneously imposed, and then constant amount of radiative
forcing.which never
happens in the real world; and (2) the real world case where temperature
changes are caused
non-radiatively. While I will not go into the evidence here, satellite
observations suggest that
cloud feedbacks in the latter case are strongly negative.

Now, if you have an accurate estimate of the radiative forcing of
temperature change, accurate
estimates of radiative feedback can be made. But we do not have good
estimates of this forcing
during natural climate variations. Only in climate model simulations where
a known amount of
radiative forcing is imposed upon the model can this be done. (In another
method, if you try to
estimate feedback by measuring how fast the ocean responds, you also run
into problems because your
answer depends upon how fast and how deep in the ocean you assume the
temperature change will
extend.)

EXAMPLE 1: FEEDBACKS FROM THE CHANGE IN SEASONS

Once one realizes that clouds causing a temperature change (forcing)
corrupts our estimates of
temperature causing a cloud change (feedback), it becomes apparent that
many of the previous
attempts to estimate feedback will not work.

For instance, many researchers think that you can estimate feedbacks from
the seasonal cycle in
average solar illumination of the Earth and the resulting temperature
response. There is about a 7%
peak-to-peak variation in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth
during the year, with a
maximum occurring in March and September, and the minimum in June. So, one
would think we could
measure by how much this change in solar heating causes a change in
temperature.

The trouble is that global circulation patterns also change dramatically
with the seasons, mostly
due to the large difference in land masses between the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres. Since
cloud formation is affected by a variety of circulation induced effects
(fronts, temperature
inversions, etc.), the cloud cover and thus the natural shading of the
Earth by clouds also changes
with the seasons, through these seasonal circulation changes.

These non-temperature effects on cloud cover will confound the estimation
of feedbacks, because
their magnitude is considerably larger than the magnitude of the
feedbacks. If the Earth was 100%
covered by ocean that had a constant depth everywhere, then it might be
possible to estimate
feedbacks in this way.but not in the real world.

EXAMPLE 2: FEEDBACKS FROM EL NINO & LA NINA

Researchers have also made feedback estimates from the anomalously warm
conditions that exist
during El Nino, and the cool conditions during La Nina. But this runs into
a similar problem as
estimating feedbacks from the change in seasons: there are substantial
variations in global
circulation patterns between El Nino and La Nina, especially in the
tropics. These circulation
changes can induce cloud changes - wholly apart from temperature-induced
changes - and there is no
known way to separate the circulation-induced cloud changes (forcing) from
the feedback-induced
changes.

THE ERRORS WHICH RESULT FROM PREVIOUS FEEDBACK ESTIMATES

So, how do these problems impact our estimates of feedback? Except under
certain circumstances,
they will always cause a bias toward positive feedback. The reason is that
radiative forcing and
radiative feedback always work in opposition to each other. (Here I am
speaking of the net feedback
parameter, which also contains the increase in loss of infrared radiation
by the Earth in direct
response to warming).

Since our satellites measure the two effects combined, if you assume only
feedback is being
measured when both feedback and forcing are occurring, then you will
underestimate the feedback
parameter, which is a bias in the direction of positive feedback.

THE IMPACT ON CLIMATE MODEL VALIDATION

I can predict that the climate modelers will claim that we really do not
need to know the direction
of causation.we can just measure the temperature/cloud relationships in
nature, and then adjust the
models until they produce the same temperature/cloud relationships.

While this might sound reasonable, it turns out that the radiative
signature of forcing is much
larger than that of feedback. As a result, one can get pretty good
agreement between models and
observations even when the model feedbacks are greatly in error. Another
way of saying this is that
you can get good agreement between the model behavior and observations
whether the cloud feedbacks
are positive OR negative. This is another fact I will be demonstrating on
December 16.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

My first task is to convince both observationalists and modelers that much
of what they previously
believed about atmospheric feedbacks operating in the real world can be
tossed out the window.
Obviously, this will be no small task when so many climate experts assume
that nothing important
could have been overlooked after 20 years and billions of dollars of
climate research.

But even if I can get a number of mainstream climate scientists to
understand that we still do not
know whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative, it is not obvious
how to fix the problem. As
I suggested a couple of blog postings ago, maybe we should quit trying to
test whether a climate
model that produces 3 deg. C of warming in response to a doubling of
carbon dioxide is "true", and
instead test to see if we can falsify a climate model which only produces
0.5 deg. C of warming. As
someone recently pointed out in an email to me, a climate model IS a
hypothesis, and in science a
hypothesis can only be falsified - not proved true.

From what I have seen from my analysis of output from 18 of the IPCC's
climate models, I'll bet
that we can not falsify such a model with our current observations of the
climate system. I suspect
that the climate modeling groups have only publicized models that produce
the amount of warming
they believe "looks about right", or "looks reasonable". Through
group-think (or maybe the
political leanings of, and pressure from, the IPCC leadership?), they
might well have tossed out
any model experiments which produced very little warming.

In any event, I believe that the scientific community's confidence that
climate change is now
mostly human-caused is seriously misplaced. It is time for an independent
review of climate
modeling, with experts from other physical (and even engineering)
disciplines where computer models
are widely used. The importance of the issue demands nothing less.

Furthermore, the computer codes for the climate models now being used by
the IPCC should be made
available to other researchers for independent testing and
experimentation. The Data Quality Act
for U.S.-supported models already requires this, but this law is being
largely ignored.

As a (simple) modeler and computer programmer myself, I know that the
modeling groups will protest
that the models are far too complex and finely tuned to let amateurs play
with them. But that's
part of the problem. If the models are that complex and fragile, should we
be basing multi-trillion
dollar policy decisions on them?

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:11:48 -0600, TUKA
wrote:

On 2009-12-07, isw wrote:
In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to this
important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...redictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a
special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you don't
already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic
global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most
uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as many
scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to estimate cloud
feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can measure cloud feedbacks
in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized climate
models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers
and bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be peer
reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.

You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.

Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.

ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.

The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.

In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in
a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether
anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks
being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants, oscillations
and dampening characteristics all of which are self evident and
measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and fruitcake.
You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully more
publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
with scare tactics.

Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?

Isaac

In article ,
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:11:48 -0600, TUKA
wrote:

On 2009-12-07, isw wrote:
In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to
this
important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...redictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a
special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't
already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic
global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most
uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many
scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to estimate
cloud
feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can measure cloud
feedbacks
in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized
climate
models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers
and bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer
reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.

You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.

Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.

ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.

The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.

Those who confuse "local weather" with "global climate" are never going
to understand. Tree ring data is another source of data, probably at
least as accurate as your average meteorologist, and over a far longer
time span too -- *if you know how to interpret it*.

Isaac

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:31:42 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:11:48 -0600, TUKA
wrote:

On 2009-12-07, isw wrote:
In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to
this
important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...redictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a
special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't
already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic
global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most
uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many
scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to estimate
cloud
feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can measure cloud
feedbacks
in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized
climate
models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers
and bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer
reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.

You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.

Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.

ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.

The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.

Those who confuse "local weather" with "global climate" are never going
to understand. Tree ring data is another source of data, probably at
least as accurate as your average meteorologist, and over a far longer
time span too -- *if you know how to interpret it*.

Isaac

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical
temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant
implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's
assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the
British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In
every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or
dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the
ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature
anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of
temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record
humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.

Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and
a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In
dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of
creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a
choice open to a scientist's biases.

Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold
claims using tree ring data.

In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate
papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in
Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and
larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated
pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement
data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill
procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other
scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer
reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to
demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical
Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery
is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a
larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were
cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no
dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten
were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the
mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were
cherry-picked. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

isw wrote:
In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in
a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether
anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks
being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants, oscillations
and dampening characteristics all of which are self evident and
measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and fruitcake.
You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully more
publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
with scare tactics.

Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?

Isaac

That's typical Bill Ward talk, lying and cheating about AGW with a
authoritative thin foiled hat.

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:31:42 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:11:48 -0600, TUKA
wrote:

On 2009-12-07, isw wrote:
In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to
this
important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...redictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a
special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't
already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic
global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most
uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many
scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to estimate
cloud
feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can measure cloud
feedbacks
in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized
climate
models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers
and bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer
reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.

You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.

Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.

ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.

The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.

Those who confuse "local weather" with "global climate" are never going
to understand. Tree ring data is another source of data, probably at
least as accurate as your average meteorologist, and over a far longer
time span too -- *if you know how to interpret it*.

Isaac

Fine, show it, but don't mix it in with the
plots of other data sources.


Convince me that CO2 can cause warmer
temperatures, but don't be surprised to learn
that I want warmer temperatures locally.