Clouds don't cause climate change

The physics of the CO2 direct radiative forcing is relatively straight forward, so this can and is calculated. What is unclear right now is the feedback, and most models have positive feedback, as does the historic correlation. The cosmic rays driving the current changes are unlikely IMHO but better models of variation, or time to collect more temperature data is needed. Better models of climate variation should also help long term weather prediction, so this is a good avenue for research.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought. There is no agreed-to correction beyond what I cited just above (noted at RealClimate).


Instead, Roy "I spent ten years telling you the earth was not warming while refusing to fix the calculation errors in my satellite data" Spencer now refuses to admit he was wrong about this one. I am shocked, shocked to see that.

I just read Spencer's comments. The conclusion, at the top, is exactly what I pointed to earlier. Per Spencer, the change in the paper will be:

"“I’m happy to change the introductory paragraph of my paper when I get the galley proofs to better represent your views. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Also, I’ll be changing the sentence “over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming” to make it clear that I’m talking about cloud feedbacks doing the action here, not cloud forcing.”"

That's it. That's apparently the extent of the changes.

So, when you say "I gather Dessler is correcting it before the paper is finally published.", that seems to imply that there might be some sort of substantive correction in the works. Whereas you could simply have quoted what Spencer said, so that everyone could see what the sum total extent of the correction would be. And that it's not substantive.

On the editor resigning, you might bother to read what he actually said before both invoking a vast scientific conspiracy and impugning the guy's intellectual independence.

OK, at this point, I've clearly wasted enough time on this one. If you think Spencer has convincingly demonstrated major problems in this new work, mazel tov. I think he has a well-established track record as a screw-up, and this last episode is just another in a long line.

 

"But, I believe I can already demonstrate some of The Bad, for example, showing Dessler is off by about a factor of 10 in one of his central calculations."

"Dr. Spencer writes: I have been contacted by Andy Dessler, who is now examining my calculations, and we are working to resolve a remaining difference there."

"(It looks like Andy will be revising this downward, although it’s not clear by how much because his paper is ambiguous about how he computed and then combined the radiative terms in the equation, below.)"
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study | Watts Up With That?

 

.

 

Good. Don't you think it should start with an explanation of what that black line represents? It can then go on to explain how any averaging can extend to the limits of the data.

In other words, anthropogenic CO2 is even worse than is claimed. Since we know have both a source and a reduction of a sink caused by humans.

 

I just reject most of these plots as misleading. There is no reason to do yearly connect the dots lines if you are looking at climate change. This leads to the false - its hot this proves climate change, and its cold climate change is a hoax. The dot plot with an averaging line of at least 11 years should be used. This only gets us to 2005 on a plot, if it goes beyond modeling should be used to get the figures with a clear break telling what model is used.

IMHO anthropogenic climate change needs to be modeled based on the real changes and should not just focus on the burning of fossil fuels. One of the negative feedbacks of co2 warming is more sequestration through higher plant growth. Mitigation that ignores this as a major change may be counter productive. If we burn corn ethanol instead of gasoline the net effect may to wreck the environment faster not slower.

 

I think black line should be ignored as it is not predictive. Not sure why it is in there. But to use your words, a straight line is also deceptive since it does not explain the late 1990s step change and lack of fit / correlation over many timespans...even some of significant length if you go back to 1940-late '70s. Also a straight line is not predictive either.