What follows is a mini-debate by e-mail during the last 3 weeks between myself and Andy Dessler over the question of whether cloud feedbacks in the climate system are positive or negative.

Last night, Andy Revkin suggested that I post it. I believe this e-mail exchange is rather unusual during a time when scientists arguing over global warming more often spar with sound bites in the popular press rather than personally between themselves.

This was partly the result of my somewhat scathing post on December 9, 2010 regarding Science recently publishing Andy’s paper claiming positive cloud feedback. (I was not asked to peer review Andy’s paper even though I have published the most recent and directly comparable paper on the subject.)

The e-mail debate, which is still in progress, has been cc’d to a variety of people, the more recognizable addresses being: mann@meteo.psu.edu; gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov; trenbert@ucar.edu; jgillis@nytimes.com; rkerr@aaas.org; santer1@llnl.gov; revkin@optonline.net; rlindzen@mit.edu; olivermorton@economist.com; ekintisch@aaas.org; p.campbell@nature.com; john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu; mlemonick@climatecentral.org; eric.berger@chron.com; jhalpern@howard.edu.

The exchange of e-mails is listed in chronological order, following an initial e-mail alert from Scott Mandia of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team of my blog post on Andy’s paper. I am not posting Scott’s e-mail in respect of his privacy.

I entered the e-mail discussion after Scott criticized my my blog post implying that Andy’s paper being published by Science on the last day of the Cancun climate conference was motivated by more than just science. I have italicized where one of us quotes from an earlier e-mail.

SPENCER (11 December, 2010, #1 of 2):
In retrospect, my questioning of the timing has distracted from the central science issues, and was a bad move on my part. My apologies to Andy.
-Roy

SPENCER (11 December, 2010, #2 of 2):
…but I stand by my assertion that Andy’s paper is a step backwards for science. I would debate him or anyone else on this issue in a public or professional forum at any time.

I would be happy to submit a response to Science if I thought it had “a snowball’s chance”, but many of us have learned over the years that the editorial process there is quite biased on the subject of anthropogenic global warming.

BTW, I have stopped corresponding with Andy after he made public our e-mail exchange without asking me.
-Roy Spencer

DESSLER (11 December, 2010):
Roy-

I certainly accept your apology.

…but I stand by my assertion that Andy’s paper is a step backwards for science. I would debate him or anyone else on this issue in a public or professional forum at any time.

I ACCEPT! Let’s start immediately. Since you’re willing to do this essentially anywhere and anytime, I say we do this via e-mail. And since you want this to be public, I pledge to post the entirety of all of our e-mail correspondence on a blog that everyone can read (and since you also have copies of our correspondence, you’ll also be free to post it).

If you accept (and I don’t see how you can refuse given your statement above), then you can begin by answering this e-mail I sent to you yesterday:

Hi Roy-
I wanted to follow up on our interesting discussion. My main question involves your theory of cause-and-effect for an ENSO. During our first e-mails it seemed you were saying it was caused by clouds, but then things seemed to change. Could you send me a short summary of what’s driving the temperature changes during those cycles?
Thanks!

I look forward to a renewed and energetic discussion of these issues. After all, this is how science is supposed to operate.

And to the reporters on this e-mail, I hope you all see that the mainstream science community is pushing to engage the skeptics. I hope Roy shows that skeptics are similarly willing to engage.

Regards,
Andy Dessler

SPENCER (13 December, 2010):
Andy:

Sorry about the late reply…I wanted to get to the office to look at some IPCC model output that might help shed light on this.

So, since you want to talk about ENSO, let’s do that.

Of all the IPCC AR4 climate models, the one that has the best match to observed sea surface temperatures (SST) related to ENSO is CNRM-CM3 (see Fig. 8.13 from the IPCC AR4 Report).

The first attached plot shows 20 years (1980-2000) of monthly anomalies in global radiative flux and surface temperature from that model’s 20th Century runs:

[PLOT OF CNRM-CM3 TIME SERIES}

A scatter plot of the data is next:

[CNRM-CM3 SCATTER PLOT]

See the spirals? Thats due to radiative forcing of SSTs. How do we know? Because there are only two possibilities: radiative changes (directly or indirectly) causing temperature changes, or temperature changes (directly or indirectly) causing radiative changes (by definition, feedback). The reason the spirals appear is that the radiative forcing is proportional to the CHANGE of temperature with time…not the temperature directly. Feedback is essentially instantaneous with the current radiative state of the armosphere and surface.

This is shown in the following lag correlation plot for the entire 20th Century:

[LAG CORRELATION PLOT]

That atmsopheric circulation changes alone can cause ENSO-typ behavior was also demonstrated by this paper in GRL, The Slab Ocean El Nino.

AGAIN I want to emphasize…the evidence for the direction of causation is whether a lag exists or not.

The NEXT question is to what extent this de-correlated behavior affects the regression slope…this was a subject of our 2010 JGR paper. All I know so far is that, on average, it biases the regression slope toward zero (which could be misinterpreted as a borderline unstable climate system).

-Roy

DESSLER (14 December 2010):
Roy-

Thanks for your message … I knew you couldn’t stay mad at me 😉

Before I get into the details of the correlation, I’d like to get one thing straight: you’re arguing that the warming during an El Nino is caused by radiative heating by clouds. Right?

Once you confirm that, we can move on with the discussion. If you’re not saying that, then I’m confused by your message — in that case, I’d appreciate it if you could please explain the role of clouds in driving surface temperatures variations during ENSO.

Thanks!

SPENCER (15 December 2010):
Andy:

Feedbacks and forcings involve *temperature* changes, not abstract concepts like “El Nino”. Thus, your question is a bit of a red herring.

What I *AM* saying is that the time-evolving nature of the temperature and radiative flux anomalies is consistent with a significant, non-feedback cloud-induced temperature change. That is what the phase space analysis reveals.

Now, what all of this might mean for how El Nino & La Nina evolve over time is an interesting question, I agree,…I’m just trying to make sure we don’t lose sight of the quantitative evidence. Whether the evidence I am talking about necessarily implies a non-feedback role for clouds in how El Nino and La Nina evolve over time, that is a separate question.

-Roy

DESSLER (18 December 2010):
Roy-

Thanks for your response. I would have gotten back sooner, but I was at the AGU meeting.

What I *AM* saying is that the time-evolving nature of the temperature and radiative flux anomalies is consistent with a significant, non-feedback cloud-induced temperature change. That is what the phase space analysis reveals.

The problem here is that correlation is not causality: if I beat a drum during an eclipse, the Sun will return 100% of the time. You could claim that the time-evolving nature of the drum beating and return of the sun is consistent with a causal mechanism, and you’d be right. It is indeed consistent. But it’s also wrong — we both know that the drum does not make the Sun return.

The existence of a correlation does not mean that there is a causal link — so we cannot conclude that the correlation you’ve identified tells us anything about the role of clouds in generating ENSO surface temperature changes.

Rather, we have to look at the energy budget of an ENSO event. Those data contradict the idea that clouds are important in ENSO: analyses of the heat budget of ENSO (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314 and references therein) don’t show a role for clouds.

In fact, the original Cane and Zebiak model of ENSO does not really even have clouds in it

So my question to you is whether there exists any physical evidence (beyond just the correlation) that clouds play any role at all in generating ENSO temperature variations?

Thanks!

SPENCER (20 December 2010):
Andy:

OK, I think now you are raising the possibility that what I am calling a “non-feedback radiative forcing” was at some previous time itself a feedback upon temperature. If that were the case, then there would be a lagged correlation, and you would then need to do your feedback parameter diagnosis at some time lag between the radiative flux and temperature data…not simultaneously. This is what Lindzen has been trying to get published, and is another way of getting a feedback estimate.

But it is not what you did in your Science paper. When I do it with the same 10-year CERES dataset you used, I get a very different result…outside the range of most if not all climate models.

-Roy

DESSLER (21 December 2010):

Roy-

Let me be clear: I am not “raising any possibilities” here. What I am trying to do is get you to articulate YOUR THEORY of ENSO causality. I’ve been trying to do this since our initial e-mail and trying to get a straight answer is beginning to feel like eating jello with chopsticks.

So let’s get back to the issue at hand: Do you have any physical evidence that clouds are playing a significant role in causing temperature variations during ENSO (besides the correlation, which (I think) we agree does not prove causality)? If so, what is it? If not, do you concede that I have the correct direction of causality in my paper?

After we resolve this, we can start talking about lags, etc.

Thanks again for your willingness to engage in discussions on this issue!

SPENCER (22 December 2010):
Andy:

How can you insist I answer a question, the answer to which would not refute (or prove) what we demonstrated in Spencer & Braswell (2010 JGR) anyway?

You can ask me, “Do you still beat your wife?”, and I’m not going to answer yes or no to that one either.

Remember, it is not me, but YOU who is claiming our results necessarily imply that clouds are part of the forcing of ENSO-related temperature changes…and you might well be right. If so, congratulations on your finding.

And I would say this interpretation IS entirely reasonable: that a change in the trade winds associated with the initiation of El Nino causes a change in cloud cover, which then is part of the forcing of El Nino-related temperature changes. THAT sounds entirely reasonable to me, and is consistent with the evidence we presented.

But that does NOT mean “clouds cause El Nino”.

Don’t confuse qualitative statements like these with what we showed QUANTITATIVELY in Spencer & Braswell, which was a simple statement of the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY:

The satellite data show radiative imbalances causing temperature changes with time.

That’s just a statement of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Are you claiming the 1st Law didn’t apply during 2000-2010?

Maybe YOU should answer THAT question before we continue the discussion.

But if you continue to insist on me answering “yes or no” to a question that is not relevant to what we are debating, I suggest we end this now.

-Roy

DESSLER (26 December 2010):
For those not following closely, let me recap the argument that Roy and I are having. In my research paper, I showed that the energy trapped by clouds increases as the surface temperature increases, and concluded that there is a positive cloud feedback acting. Roy objected to this saying that clouds are actually causing the surface temperature change, so I have cause and effect backwards. My response to this is that the temperature variations over the last 10 years are primarily driven by ENSO, and we know that ENSO is not caused by clouds.

This is the crux of our disagreement. In his last e-mail to me, Roy said, “The satellite data show radiative imbalances causing temperature changes with time” and “Our analysis shows that non-feedback cloud variations do cause large amounts of temperature variability during the satellite data period in question.”

But neither of Roy’s claims seem correct to me. I do not think he’s actually demonstrated that clouds are causing temperature changes.

To resolve this, I pose the following question to Roy: can you summarize for everyone on this list the evidence that clouds are affecting surface temperature over the last ten years. And can we quantify how much are clouds affecting the surface temperature? Are they responsible for 1% of the variance, or 99% of the variance, etc.?

And to show you that I am willing to answer your questions, I will answer the question you posed to me in your last e-mail: “Are you claiming the 1st Law didn’t apply during 2000-2010? Maybe YOU should answer THAT question before we continue the discussion.” The answer is that I do not dispute that the first law applies. I agree that energy is always conserved.

Happy holidays.

Thanks!

SPENCER (30 December 2010):
OK, let me see if I can briefly summarize my side of this…

The evidence that clouds cause a substantial portion of the temperature changes during the ten-year period in question is twofold:

(1) the temperature changes tend to lag the radiative flux changes, something that is revealed by “connecting the dots” in the scatterplots of radiative flux-vs-temperature, and

(2) this lagged behavior strongly decorrelates the temperature-versus-radiative flux variations (as is seen in Andy’s, and virtually all previously published, scatter plots of this type).

This poorly-correlated behavior is consistent with the short-term behavior of most if not all of the AR4 climate models, and was mimicked by our simple forcing-feedback model, both of which we published in JGR earlier this year.

In contrast, feedback (temperature causing cloud changes, which is what Andy believes is going on) is much closer to simultaneous, which would lead to strongly correlated data (which is seldom observed…except on month-to-month time scales).

Our JGR paper also demonstrated that this decorrelation was not simply due to noisy data…”connecting the dots” (phase space plots) shows looping and spiral patterns, rather than the zig-zag patterns one gets with random noise.

In the big picture, what the satellite data suggest is a sort of meandering of the climate system through varying states of radiative IMbalance, with the temperature changes always trying to play catch-up with the radiative flux changes, …but then the atmospheric circulation causes another change in cloudiness, and the temperature then has to slowly respond to that, too, …etc. Radiative equilibrium is never actually reached.

Regarding Andy’s question of just what percentage of all of the variability is due to “forcing” versus “feedback” is still an open question. All I know is that the “forcing” so strongly decorrelates that data that doing linear regression to get a feedback estimate is going to result in a regression slope approaching zero, which is then commonly misinterpreted as strongly positive feedback.

(We also showed in our JGR paper that short satellite periods of record can even lead to a bias in the direction of NEGATIVE feedback…but this is much less likely than a bias in the direction of positive feedback.)

-Roy

How clouds respond to warming – the ‘cloud feedback’ problem – will likely determine whether manmade global warming becomes either the defining environmental event of the 21st Century, or is merely lost in the noise of natural climate variability.

Unfortunately, diagnosing cloud feedback from our global satellite observations has been surprisingly difficult. The problem isn’t the quality of the data, though. The problem is figuring out what the cloud and temperature behaviors we observe in the data mean in terms of cause and effect.

So, Andy Dessler’s (a Texas A&M climate researcher) new paper appearing in Science this week is potentially significant, for it claims to have greatly closed the gap in our understanding of cloud feedback.

Dessler’s paper claims to show that cloud feedback is indeed positive, and generally supportive of the cloud feedbacks exhibited by the IPCC computerized climate models. This would in turn support the IPCC’s claim that anthropogenic global warming will become an increasingly serious problem in the future.

Unfortunately, the central evidence contained in the paper is weak at best, and seriously misleading at worst. It uses flawed logic to ignore recent advancements we have made in identifying cloud feedback.

In fact, the new paper is like going back to using only X-rays for medical imaging when we already have MRI technology available to us.

What the New Study Shows

So what is this new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it is not new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback.

But how can this be? How can two climate researchers, using the same dataset, come to opposite conclusions?

The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect.

Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature changes, and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other.

In their interpretation, if one observes a warmer year being accompanied by fewer clouds, then that is evidence of positive cloud feedback. Why? Because if warming causes fewer clouds, it lets in more sunlight, which then amplifies the warming. That is positive cloud feedback in a nutshell.

But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedback?

A Step Backwards for Climate Science

What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!

I can not overemphasize the importance of that last statement.

We used essentially the same satellite dataset Dessler uses, but we analyzed those data with something called ‘phase space analysis’. Phase space analysis allows us to “see” behaviors in the climate system that would not be apparent with traditional methods of data analysis. It is like using an MRI to see a type of tumor that X-rays cannot reveal.

What we showed was basically a new diagnostic capability that can, to some extent, separate cause from effect. This is a fundamental advancement – and one that the news media largely refused to report on.

The Dessler paper is like someone publishing a medical research paper that claims those tumors do not exist, because they still do not show up on our latest X-ray equipment…even though the new MRI technology shows they DO exist!

Sound strange? Welcome to my world.

We even replicated that behavior see in the satellite data analyzed with phase space analysis — our ‘MRI for the climate system’ – by using a simple forcing-feedback climate model containing negative cloud feedback. It showed that, indeed, when clouds cause temperature changes, the illusion of positive cloud feedback is created…even when strongly negative cloud feedback really exists.

Why Dessler Assumed We Are Wrong

To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data.

Why?

Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds.

This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published.

But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct. El Nino and La Nina represent a temporary change in the way the coupled atmospheric-ocean circulation system operates. And any change in the atmospheric circulation can cause a change in cloud cover, which can in turn cause a change in ocean temperatures. We even showed this behavior for the major La Nina cooling event of 2007-08 in our paper!

It doesn’t mean that “clouds cause El Nino”, as Dessler suggests we are claiming, which would be too simplistic and misleading of a statement. Clouds are complicated beasts, and climate researchers ignore that complexity at their peril.

Very Curious Timing

Dessler’s paper is being announced on probably THE best day for it to support the IPCC’s COP-16 meeting here in Cancun, and whatever agreement is announced tomorrow in the way of international climate policy.

I suspect – but have no proof of it – that Dessler was under pressure to get this paper published to blunt the negative impact our work has had on the IPCC’s efforts.

But if this is the best they can do, the scientists aligning themselves with the IPCC really are running out of ideas to help shore up their climate models, and their claims that our climate system is very sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions.

The weak reasoning the paper employs – and the evidence we published which it purposely ignores! – combined with the great deal of media attention it will garner at a time when the IPCC needs to regain scientific respectability (especially after Climategate), makes this new Science paper just one more reason why the public is increasingly distrustful of the scientific community when it comes to research having enormous policy implications.

Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, dry, cool Canadian breeze.

It was 54 deg. F in Cancun this morning — a record low for the date. (BTW, Cancun is nowhere near Canada).

Al Gore is not supposed to be here…but it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival. We will check into this.

The following pic I took pretty much sums up what some are trying to accomplish here:

You might recognize this organization:

Does this photo say something about the future of wind power in Europe?

Even the ghost of John Lennon is here — Give Peas A Chance:

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476
2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420
2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364
2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285
2010 10 0.426 0.370 0.482 0.156
2010 11 0.381 0.513 0.249 -0.071

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

For comparison, here are the monthly anomalies for 1998:

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
1998 1 0.582 0.612 0.552 1.097
1998 2 0.753 0.857 0.649 1.291
1998 3 0.528 0.655 0.401 1.025
1998 4 0.770 1.014 0.525 1.059
1998 5 0.645 0.685 0.606 0.885
1998 6 0.562 0.635 0.490 0.536
1998 7 0.510 0.659 0.362 0.442
1998 8 0.518 0.544 0.492 0.447
1998 9 0.458 0.571 0.345 0.312
1998 10 0.416 0.519 0.312 0.339
1998 11 0.192 0.272 0.113 0.130
1998 12 0.277 0.416 0.138 0.073

FOR THOSE TRACKING OUR DAILY TEMPERATURES: Since I’m getting many e-mails about quirks in the daily channel 5 temperature updates at the Discover website, here are a few tips to keep in mind:

1: The Discover website is an automated process and there is little quality control.

2. A few of the orbit files end up coming in several days late, in which case some day’s averages can be missing for several days. We fix it manually as time permits.

3: If a daily temperature difference between this year and last year is 100’s of degrees, it’s because one of the days has missing data. It’s not because we’ve been hacked by Earth First! Check out the text data…you’ll figure it out.

4. During spring there can be strong warming trends, and (as has happened in the last couple of weeks) in the fall there can be strong cooling trends. This is partly because the seasonal cycle has not been removed from the data. Click the “Average” box and “Redraw” to see how what’s happening compares to what’s normal for that time of year.

[note: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

I just returned from Vancouver (the one in Canada), where the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has been holding their annual meeting at the Vancouver Convention Center.

I was asked to present one of their keynote talks, so on Tuesday evening I spent about 45 minutes outlining some of the global warming science that the engineers might not heard about from global warming experts like Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio.

It was a treat for me to be able to assume the audience actually knew something about thermodynamics, which all mechanical engineers are taught, and which many of them use in their work.

Other than one lady in the audience who interpreted my message as part of a right-wing conspiracy to thwart saving the Earth from evil corporations bent on destroying it (OK, so I’m exaggerating), the audience was largely sympathetic to the outrageous minority view that climate might be able to (gasp!) change all by itself.

Many of these engineers are now working in various aspects of alternative energy research. I was amazed at how much of this kind of work is being done. Even large petroleum companies like Exxon Mobil are heavily invested in this research.

And why shouldn’t they be? Whoever comes up with cost-effective alternative energy sources will make lots of money.

One particularly interesting talk examined various ways of using solar energy. Growing corn for biofuels turns out to be particularly wasteful of both energy and land resources. (And thwarting market forces by subsidizing it ends up killing poor people around the world by creating fictitious demand, which sends world corn prices soaring. Gotta love the good intentions of politicians and environmentalists.)

Growing algae, in contrast, is very efficient. But getting substantial amounts of fuel from algae still has many practical problems to overcome. The speaker said he believed algae-based fuel will end up being a secondary product to algae-based plastics, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, sewage treatment, etc.

How much water is required for various energy generation technologies is also a major practical concern, especially in the western U.S. I was amazed to learn that it takes about 150 gallons of water to produce a single Sunday newspaper!

I wonder how many Sunday newspapers have carried op-eds about the need to conserve water?

I continue to believe that alternative energy technologies will germinate and grow without any governmental interference. Humans need energy for everything we do, and the market will never go away. Let free market forces work.

Fossil fuels will slowly become more expensive as they become scarcer and more difficult to extract, and this is the only mechanism needed to ensure that new energy sources will be developed to take their place.

“The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.”

A new article in the LA Times says that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is enlisting the help of 700 scientists to fight back against a new congress that is viewed as a bunch of backwoods global warming deniers who are standing in the way of greenhouse gas regulations and laws required to same humanity from itself.

Scientific truth, after all, must prevail. And these scientists apparently believe they have been endowed with the truth of what has caused recent warming.

The message just hasn’t gotten across.

We skeptics are not smart enough to understand the science. We and the citizens of America, and the representatives we have just elected to go to Washington, just need to listen to them and let them tell us how we should be allowed to live.

OK, so, let me see if I understand this.

After 20 years, billions of dollars in scientific research and advertising campaigns, cooperation from the public schools, TV specials and concerts by a gaggle of entertainers, end-of-the-world movies, our ‘best’ politicians, heads of state, presidents, the United Nations, and complicity by most of the news media, it has been decided that the American public is not getting the message on global warming!?

Are they serious!?

Americans — hell, most of humanity — have already heard the 20 different ways we will all die miserable deaths from our emissions of that life giving — er, I mean poisonous –gas, carbon dioxide, that we are adding to the atmosphere every day.

So, NOW it no more mister nice guy? Give me a break.

Finally Time for a REAL Debate?

Actually, this announcement is a good thing. There has been a persistent refusal on the part of the elitist, group-think, left-leaning class of climate scientists to even debate the global warming issue in public. Maybe they have considered it beneath themselves to debate those of us who are clearly wrong on the global warming issue.

A complaint many of us skeptics have had for years is that those who constitute the “scientific consensus” (whatever that means) will not engage in public debates on global warming. Al Gore won’t even answer questions from the press.

This is why you will mostly hear only politicians and U.N. bureaucrats give pronouncements on the science. They are already adept at weaving a good story with carefully selected facts and figures.

Why has the global warming message been presented mostly by politicians and bureaucrats up until now? Probably because it is too dangerous to put their scientists out there.

Scientists might admit to something counterproductive — like uncertainty — which would jeopardize what the politicians have been trying to accomplish for decades — control over energy, which is necessary for everything that humans do.

Scientists Ready to Enter the Lion’s Den

The LA Times articles goes on to explain how there will be “scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.”

Gee, how brave of them.

Kind of like when I went up against Henry Waxman? Or Barbara Boxer?

I can sympathize with Republican’s desire to have hearings to investigate how your tax dollars have been spent on this issue. But I will guarantee that if such hearings are held, the news media will make it sound like Galileo is being tried all over again.

As if climate scientists are objective seekers of the truth. I hate to break it to you, but scientists are human. Well..most of us are, anyway.

Most have strong personal, quasi-religious views of the role of humans in the natural world, and this inevitably guides how they interpret measurements of the climate system. Especially the young ones who have been indoctrinated on the subject.

Those few of us who are publishing climate researchers and who are willing to take the risk of speaking out on the biased science on this issue are now late in our careers, and we have seen the climate research field be transformed from one where “climate change” used to necessarily imply natural climate change, to one where nature does not have the power to cause its own change — only mankind does.

I have repeatedly pointed out how virtually all global warming research funds either (1) build the case for humanity as the primary cause of recent warming, or (2) simply assume humans are the cause.

Virtually NO funding has supported research into the possibility that warming might be mostly part of a natural climate cycle. And if you give scientists enough money to find something, they will do their best to find it.

Politicians have orchestrated and guided this effort from the outset, and scientists like to believe they are helping to Save the Earth when they participate in global warming research.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hypothesis, Nothing More

What the big-government funded climate science community has come up with is a plausible hypothesis which is being passed off as a proven explanation.

Science advances primarily by searching for new and better explanations (hypotheses) for how nature works. Unfortunately, this basic task of science has been abandoned when it comes to explaining climate change.

About the only alternative explanation they have mostly ruled out is an increase in the total output of the sun.

The possibility that small changes in ocean circulation have caused clouds to let in more sunlight is just one of many alternative explanations which are being ignored.

Not only have natural, internal climate cycles been ignored as a potential explanation, some researchers have done their best to revise climate history to do away with events such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. This is how the ‘hockey stick’ controversy got started.

If you can get rid of all evidence for natural climate change in Earth’s history, you can make it look like no climate changes happened until humans (and cows) came on the scene.

Bring It On

I look forward to the opportunity to debate a scientist from the other side who actually knows what they are talking about. I’ve gone one-on-one with some speakers who so mangled the consensus explanation of global warming that I had to use up half my speaking time cleaning up the mess they made.

Those few I have debated in a public forum who know what they are talking about are actually much more reserved in their judgment on the subject than those who the pop culture presents to us.

But for those newbie’s who want to enter the fray, I have a couple of pieces of advice on preparation.

First, we skeptics already know your arguments …it would do you well to study up a little on ours.

And second, those of us who have been at this a long time actually knew Galileo. Galileo was a good friend of ours. And you are no Galileo.

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.565 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.315 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.139 0.161 0.118 -0.059
2009 6 0.041 -0.021 0.103 0.105
2009 7 0.429 0.190 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.236 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476
2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420
2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364
2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285
2010 10 0.419 0.365 0.473 0.152

As the tropical tropospheric temperatures continue to cool, the global average is finally beginning to follow suit:+0.42 deg. C for October, 2010. This is the lowest monthly temperature anomaly we’ve seen in what has been a very warm year.

For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is still within striking distance of the record warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for January 1st through October 31:

1998 +0.57
2010 +0.54

Note that the difference between the two is not statistically significant…just symbolically.

[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.

This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes.

There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.

Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.

Manmade Global Warming as the Justification

Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.

But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.

Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.

Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.

I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”

No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.

The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publically on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr.

These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?

Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.

Or will they?

The Times They Are A-Changin’

How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the manmade global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?

The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.

Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.

Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.

And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.

The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom

Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.
Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable.

I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book —Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.

One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.

In fact, it already has.

The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.

Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.

If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.

Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.

Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?
Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.

But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.

Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.

What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.

Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.

But What About Equality?

Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves.

A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.

If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.

And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.

Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.

Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.

A New Fight Begins Tomorrow

The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.

Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.

There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change.

And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.

But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.

So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.

Having just returned from another New Orleans meeting – this time, a NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium — I thought I would check the latest sea surface temperatures from our AMSR-E instrument.

The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling. (Click on image for the full-size version).

Since these SST measurements are mostly unaffected by cloud cover like the traditional infrared measurements are, I consider this to be the most accurate high-time resolution SST record available…albeit only since mid-2002, when the Aqua satellite was launched.

I won’t make any predictions about whether SSTs will go as low as the 2007-08 La Nina event. I’ll leave that to others.

(edited for clarity at 2:45 p.m.)

There was a very clever paper published in Science this past week by Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, and Ruedy that uses the GISS climate model (ModelE) in an attempt to prove that carbon dioxide is the main driver of the climate system.

This paper admits that its goal is to counter the oft-quoted claim that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. (They provide a 1991 Lindzen reference as an example of that claim).

Through a series of computations and arguments, the authors claim that is actually the CO2, not water vapor, that sustains the warmth of our climate system.

I suspect this paper will result in as many opinions in the skeptic community as there are skeptics giving opinions. But unless one is very careful in reading this paper and knows exactly what the authors are talking about, it is easy to get distracted by superfluous details and miss the main point.

For instance, their table comparing the atmospheres of the Earth, Venus, and Mars does nothing to refute the importance of water vapor to the Earth’s average temperature. While they show that the atmosphere of Mars is very thin, they fail to point out the Martian atmosphere actually has more CO2 than our atmosphere does.

I do not have a problem with the authors’ calculations or their climate model experiment per se. There is not much new here, and their model run produces about what I would expect. It is an interesting exercise that has value by itself.

It is instead their line of reasoning I object to — what they claim their model results mean in terms of causation– in their obvious attempt to relegate the role of water vapor in the atmosphere to that of a passive component that merely responds to the warming effect of CO2…the real driver (they claim) of the climate system.

OUR ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINE OUR CONCLUSIONS

From what I can tell reading the paper, their claim is that, since our primary greenhouse gas water vapor (and clouds, which constitute a portion of the greenhouse effect) respond quickly to temperature change, vapor and clouds should only be considered “feedbacks” upon temperature change — not “forcings” that cause the average surface temperature of the atmosphere to be what it is in the first place.

Though not obvious, this claim is central to the tenet of the paper, and is an example of the cause-versus-effect issue I repeatedly refer to in the past when discussing some of the most fundamental errors made in the scientific ‘consensus’ on climate change.

It is a subtle attempt to remove water vapor from the discussion of “control” over the climate system — by definition. Only those of us who know enough of the details of forcing-feedback theory within the context of climate change theory will likely realize this, through.

Just because water vapor responds quickly to temperature change does not mean that there are no long-term water vapor changes (or cloud changes) — not due to temperature — that cause climate change. Asserting so is a non sequitur, and just leads to circular reasoning.

I am not claiming the authors are being deceptive. I think I understand why so many scientists go down this path of reasoning. They view the climate system as a self-contained, self-controlled complex of physically intertwined processes that would forever remain unchanged until some “external” influence (forcing) enters the picture and alters the rules by which the climate system operates.

Of course, increasing CO2 is the currently fashionable forcing in this climatological worldview.

But I cannot overemphasize the central important of this paradigm (or construct) of climate change theory to the eventual conclusions the climate researcher will inevitably make.

If one assumes from the outset that the climate system can only vary through changes imposed external to the normal operation of the climate system, one then removes natural, internal climate cycles from the list of potential causes of global warming. And natural changes in water vapor (or more likely, clouds) are one potential source of internally-driven change. There are influences on cloud and water vapor other than temperature which in turn help to determine the average temperature state of the climate system.

After assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature, the Lacis et al. paper then uses a climate model experiment to ‘prove’ their paradigm that CO2 drives climate — by forcing the model with a CO2 change, resulting in a large temperature response!

Well, DUH. If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing. Or a cloud change. But they had already assumed water vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers.

Specifically, they ran a climate model experiment in which they instantaneously removed all of the atmospheric greenhouse gases except water vapor, and they got rapid cooling “plunging the climate into an icebound Earth state”. The result after 7 years of model integration time is shown in the next image.

Such a result is not unexpected for the GISS model. But while this is indeed an interesting theoretical exercise, we must be very careful about what we deduce from it about the central question we are ultimately interested in: “How much will the climate system warm from humanity adding carbon dioxide to it?” We can’t lose sight of why we are discussing all of this in the first place.

As I have already pointed out, the authors have predetermined what they would find. They assert water vapor (as well as cloud cover) is a passive follower of a climate system driven by CO2. They run a model experiment that then “proves” what they already assumed at the outset.

But we also need to recognize that their experiment is misleading in other ways, too.

First, the instantaneous removal of 100% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere except for water vapor causes about 8 times the radiative forcing (over 30 Watts per sq. meter) as does a 100% increase in CO2 (2XCO2, causing less than 4 Watts per sq. meter), something that will not occur until late this century — if ever.

This is the so-called ‘logarithmic effect’…adding more and more CO2 has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response.

Currently, we are about 40% of the way to that doubling. Thus, their experiment involves 20 times (!) the radiative forcing we are now experiencing (theoretically, at least) from over a century of carbon dioxide emissions.

So are we to assume that this dramatic theoretical example should influence our views of the causes and future path of global warming, when their no-CO2 experiment involves ~20 times the radiative forcing of what has occurred to date from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere?

Furthermore, the cloud feedbacks in their climate model are positive, which further amplifies the model’s temperature response to forcing. As readers here are aware, our research suggests that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system might be so strongly negative that they could more than negate any positive water vapor feedback.

In fact, this is where the authors have made a logical stumble. Everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average. But the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of CO2 to our current climate system will be just the opposite, with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming.

What the authors didn’t realize is that when they decided to relegate the role of clouds in the average state of the climate system to one of “feedback”, their model’s positive cloud feedback actually contradicts the known negative “feedback” effect of clouds on the climate’s normal state.

Oops.

(In retrospect, I suppose they could claim that cloud feedbacks switched from negative at the low temperatures of an icebound Earth, to being positive at the higher temperatures of the real climate system. But that might mess up Jim Hansen’s claim of strongly positive feedbacks during the Ice Ages).

CONCLUSION
Taken together, the series of computations and claims made by Lacis et al. might lead the casual reader to think, “Wow, carbon dioxide really does have a strong effect on the Earth’s climate system!” And, in my view, it does. But the paper really tells us nothing new about (1) how much warming we can expect from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, or (2) how much of recent warming was caused by CO2.

The paper implies that it presents new understanding, but all it does is get more explicit about the conceptual hoops one must jump through in order to claim that CO2 is the main driver of the climate system. From that standpoint alone, I find the paper quite revealing.

Unfortunately, what I present here is just a blog posting. It would take another peer-reviewed paper that follows an alternative path, to effectively counter the Lacis paper, and show that it merely concludes what it assumes at the outset. I am only outlining here what I see as the main issues.

Of course, the chance of editors at Science allowing such a response paper to get published is virtually zero. The editors at Science choose which scientists will be asked to provide peer review, and they already know who they can count on to reject a skeptic’s paper.

Many of us have already been there, done that.