The eminent Dr Roy Spencer has launched a new Blog Site http://www.drroyspencer.com/

He has also pubished two new excellent papers. The 1st as follows:

"Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”)"

ABSTRACT

"Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The models’ high sensitivity is probably the result of a confusion between forcing and feedback (cause and effect) when researchers have interpreted cloud and temperature variations in the real climate system. (What follows is a brief summary of research we will be submitting to Journal of Climate in January 2009 for publication. I challenge any climate researcher to come up with an alternative explanation for the evidence presented below…I would love to hear it…my e-mail address is at the bottom of the page.)"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

The 2nd Paper:

Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

ABSTRACT

A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century - including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC’s climate models simulate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

I just read the second article. Interesting stuff. I didn't understand the latter half in which the cloud variations were related to PDO but this link between PDO & cloudiness could explain the cooling of the 1960s & 1970s - the claim of the IPCC that anthro sulphate aersols caused this cooling is obviously nonsense as I have argued countless times.

I like Spencer's style too, he attempts to explain his reasoning instead of the IPPC aprroach of "we ran a model and only anthro co2 can explain x, y, & z".

As always, it is what the climate does in the future but it is crystal clear that the global climate is no longer warming and this is not what the IPCC expects. I have long argued that the PDO is a major factor in 20th century global temp changes and if Spencer  is right that PDO is correlated with cloudiness, then this is a very satisfactory explanation for this link.

Roy Spencer certainly is a bit of a character. Have you seen his work advocating the teaching of intelligent design in schools?

Ulric:

Roy Spencer certainly is a bit of a character. Have you seen his work advocating the teaching of intelligent design in schools?

A very unsubtle attempt at discrediting Spencer. But standard behaviour from you Ulric when you don't like what an author of an article has written, you attack the author.

Can we discuss the science please. The PDO does explain a major part of NH temp variations by providing a very good fit for temp changes across the Pacific and much of North America and Spencer is suggesting the PDO does this by influencing cloud amounts. A very intersting theory and very current as it appears we are currently in a new negative PDO phase and we have seen some dramatic changes in globe temp recently.

We have been here before with Roy, these are not scientific papers they just do not contain the level of detail required for proper peer review. I look forward to full papers in scientific journals then it will be possible to comment in detail. Maybe I will get one to review.

Iceman:

Ulric:

Roy Spencer certainly is a bit of a character. Have you seen his work advocating the teaching of intelligent design in schools?

A very unsubtle attempt at discrediting Spencer. But standard behaviour from you Ulric when you don't like what an author of an article has written, you attack the author.

Can we discuss the science please. The PDO does explain a major part of NH temp variations by providing a very good fit for temp changes across the Pacific and much of North America and Spencer is suggesting the PDO does this by influencing cloud amounts. A very intersting theory and very current as it appears we are currently in a new negative PDO phase and we have seen some dramatic changes in globe temp recently.

Oh, I think Ulric has learned from the way eminent Professor James Hansen is treated here, or likewise the IPCC, or the Hadley Centre, or the Met Office, or NOAA, or the CRU...., I certainly have. What's sauce and all that...

Anyway, the science.  Humm, I couldn't help notice his approach to CO2 where he draws it's conc in relation to a scale of 100% and (wow) it doesn't register! This is a bit like saying of you scale the Earth to a billiard ball it would be smother than that ball - and that therefore mountains are irrelevant! That is the misleading impression you can get when you play fast an loose with scales...

Devonian:

Iceman:

Ulric:

Roy Spencer certainly is a bit of a character. Have you seen his work advocating the teaching of intelligent design in schools?

A very unsubtle attempt at discrediting Spencer. But standard behaviour from you Ulric when you don't like what an author of an article has written, you attack the author.

Can we discuss the science please. The PDO does explain a major part of NH temp variations by providing a very good fit for temp changes across the Pacific and much of North America and Spencer is suggesting the PDO does this by influencing cloud amounts. A very intersting theory and very current as it appears we are currently in a new negative PDO phase and we have seen some dramatic changes in globe temp recently.

 

Oh, I think Ulric has learned from the way eminent Professor James Hansen is treated here, or likewise the IPCC, or the Hadley Centre, or the Met Office, or NOAA, or the CRU...., I certainly have. What's sauce and all that...

Anyway, the science.  Humm, I couldn't help notice his approach to CO2 where he draws it's conc in relation to a scale of 100% and (wow) it doesn't register! This is a bit like saying of you scale the Earth to a billiard ball it would be smother than that ball - and that therefore mountains are irrelevant! That is the misleading impression you can get when you play fast an loose with scales...

In fact I recall we were exactly at this stage a year ago where a similar article appeared, a proper paper was promised and still hasn't. Obviously the point about CO2 graph would be picked up by a reviewer, if you are trying to show using propoer science that a change in a quantity only has a small effect then you have to explicitly show what change and choose axes appriopriately.

Iceman:

A very unsubtle attempt at discrediting Spencer. But standard behaviour from you Ulric when you don't like what an author of an article has written, you attack the author.

Notice that Spencer never talks about paleoclimate records. He commences his reasoning from a creationist/ID position and his position is that man is insignificant in the context of Gods creation and therefore has no effect on climate. This does not bode well for future arguments founded on the starting assumption.

It is typical behaviour from you to advocate any argument that supports your position regardless of its veracity or provenance and then react with self righteous indignation when it is challenged.

Spencers credentials are: Heartland Institute, George C Marshall Institute and well known capaigner for the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Looking at his website, we can see a lot of attacks on Al Gore and other political wingnuttery which similarly do not indicate the work of someone who is evaluating the science in an impartial way.

Bearing in mind the provenance of this work and the likely bias, I wouldn't even waste the energy to read the abstract of one of his papers in this subject area.

Iceman:

Spencer's paper acknowledges the major role of PDO in explaining variations in NH temp and shows a link with varying cloud amounts which provides a mechanism for this influence of PDO on NH temps. Of course, anyone who has a vested interest in AGW funding will not like this paper and you are showing your colours Tom.

Then he should write a peer reviewed paper on this .  I am reasonably sure Spencer is wrong but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until he produces a detailed paper for comment. As to whether he is a bigger name in science than myself I will leave my peers to decide that.

Ulric:

Iceman:

A very unsubtle attempt at discrediting Spencer. But standard behaviour from you Ulric when you don't like what an author of an article has written, you attack the author.

Notice that Spencer never talks about paleoclimate records. He commences his reasoning from a creationist/ID position and his position is that man is insignificant in the context of Gods creation and therefore has no effect on climate. This does not bode well for future arguments founded on the starting assumption.

 

This is a plus in my book as paleoclimate records have very large uncertainties association with them which invalidates their use for detectioin and attribution studies: some of the papers on this subject are ridiculous as they take these paleo recons far too seriously!

As to the other stuff on which you write Ulric, I don't care. Scientific work should be considered on its own merits, it should not be accepted/rejected on the basis of the age/colour/gender/religious beliefs/shoe size/affiliation etc of the author.

Spencer has shown a link between PDO and cloud amount. Let us see if others can replicate or reject this. It may be an important deiscovery in climate science or he could be wrong. I could not understand the data he presented to support his case I admit but I do know that PDO accounts for changes in temp over large parts of the NH and Spencer has provided a possible explanation for this. This is intersting and worthy of discussion.

Therefore can we discuss this rather than attacking the author please?

Iceman:

Therefore can we discuss this rather than attacking the author please?

 

Well it would be a good start if you don't launch personal attacks on me, either concerning my scientific reputation or how I am spending my time today or indeed who is paying my salary. I have not made any personal attacks on Spencer I have pointe dout that he has not presented enough information to judge his work properly, although from what he has said I think he is wrong and I am an expert in this field. He says this himself when he points out that these are summaries of full papers he intends to submit for peer review. We need the full papers.

Iceman:

This is a plus in my book as paleoclimate records have very large uncertainties association with them which invalidates their use for detectioin and attribution studies: some of the papers on this subject are ridiculous as they take these paleo recons far too seriously!

Perhaps because you think they were created fully formed in 4004BC on the whim of some capricious deity? (as Roy Spencer does)

TomC:

Iceman:

Therefore can we discuss this rather than attacking the author please?

 

Well it would be a good start if you don't launch personal attacks on me, either concerning my scientific reputation or how I am spending my time today or indeed who is paying my salary. I have not made any personal attacks on Spencer I have pointe dout that he has not presented enough information to judge his work properly, although from what he has said I think he is wrong and I am an expert in this field. He says this himself when he points out that these are summaries of full papers he intends to submit for peer review. We need the full papers.

Quite.

I had in fact deleted that particular post. Can I remind all to stay within the C of C, thank you.

TomC:

Iceman:

Therefore can we discuss this rather than attacking the author please?

 

Well it would be a good start if you don't launch personal attacks on me, either concerning my scientific reputation or how I am spending my time today or indeed who is paying my salary. I have not made any personal attacks on Spencer I have pointe dout that he has not presented enough information to judge his work properly, although from what he has said I think he is wrong and I am an expert in this field. He says this himself when he points out that these are summaries of full papers he intends to submit for peer review. We need the full papers.

Can we see your work on PDO variations and how it determines temperature changes in the Pacific and North America and in particular your work showing "no link" between PDO and cloud amounts?

To aid the discussion, here are a couple of graphs I produced years ago showing the VERY  impressive correllation between PDO and regional temp in western North America (no correlation in eastern North America where NAO more imp)

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/globalclimate/annual_pdo_western_usa_anomaly.htm  Western USA

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/globalclimate/west_canada_anomaly_pdo.htm  Western Canada

If you get a feeling of deja vu looking at these graphs, it is because the global temp graph for the 20th century looks very similar:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/   Hadley global temp

Iceman:

To aid the discussion, here are a couple of graphs I produced years ago showing the VERY  impressive correllation between PDO and regional temp in western North America (no correlation in eastern North America where NAO more imp)

So do you have anything that relates PDO to Global temperature or PDO to planetary albedo?