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 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:25:12 -0800, 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/


The problem with positive feedback is that it means that climate is
unstable. If there were positive feedback to temperature increases, then
our climate would have risen in temperature to a new equilibrium point
ages ago, when it was warmer.

All the papers I've seen on positive feedback put their blinders on and
don't look at past warming/cooling trends.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:25:12 -0800, 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/

The problem with positive feedback is that it means that climate is
unstable. If there were positive feedback to temperature increases, then
our climate would have risen in temperature to a new equilibrium point
ages ago, when it was warmer.

All the papers I've seen on positive feedback put their blinders on and
don't look at past warming/cooling trends.


http://maps.grida.no/library/files/s...-radiative.jpg


http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/cont...-gas-emissions

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.

3. Disengage from managing public perceptions of climate and stick to
science.

5c. Stop loosing numbers and making up numbers.

6. I can count, so I'm never going to trust climate science ever again or
their numbers. All climate papers will be viewed with skepticism until its
backed up by dozens of other reports produced independently by independent
teams that are not in contact with each other.

69. Obey the law and service ALL FOI requests.





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 Dec 6, 6:22*pm, 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.

3. Disengage from managing public perceptions of climate and stick to
science.

5c. Stop loosing numbers and making up numbers.

6. I can count, so I'm never going to trust climate science ever again or
their numbers. All climate papers will be viewed with skepticism until its
backed up by dozens of other reports produced independently by independent
teams that are not in contact with each other.

69. Obey the law and service ALL FOI requests.



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

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Science has done precistly that, and to the frustration of the global
warming enthiuasts, no evidence has been found to support their
conjectures. The oceans appear to be warming, so...

Harry C.

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?

Isaac

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.

--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous

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 ,
"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 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.