And now, the rest of the story. 18


Dr Roy Spencer, has weighted in on Dessler et al 2008. Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008,

Whereas Dessler closes his paper firmly in the climate liberal camp.

[23] The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere
in our climate system.

Climate conservative Spencer continues where he left off:

The Rest of the Story: Shortwave Feedback

The other half of the feedback story which Dessler et al did not address is the reflected solar component. This feedback is mostly controlled by changes in low cloud cover with warming. The IPCC admits that feedbacks associated with low clouds are the most uncertain of all feedbacks, with positive or negative feedback possible…although most, if not all, IPCC models currently have positive SW feedbacks.

But I found from the CERES data a strongly negative SW feedback during 2002-2007. When added to the LW feedback, this resulted in a total (SW+LW) feedback that is strongly negative.

Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m-2 K-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence.

In contrast, Dessler et al.’s finding of positive LW feedback inferred indirectly from the AIRS instrument, even though it is only 1.3 W m-2 K-1 (3.3 Planck response minus their reported 2.0 for the LW feedback parameter) is not only admissible, but the reviewers even let the authors call it “strongly positive” feedback. Sheesh.

The last calculations regarding the Planck response seem to suggest that the null value — no feedback response — should be 0.7. Is this right? This would impact on the determination of the significance of the result considerably.

  • jae

    Well, Spencer seems to want feedback, but I don’t see where he makes it possible?? No comments on his blog; no email. WTF?

  • jae

    Well, Spencer seems to want feedback, but I don’t see where he makes it possible?? No comments on his blog; no email. WTF?

  • Anonymous

    Email him directly. I did about the question of the null value for feedback, questioning his little calculation using Planks value. He sent me an email acknowledging it was wrong, and posted a correction at the top of the post.

    I was thinking of doing a post on it but WFT, I don’t do posts about how fair I am. I am finishing off the comment to GRL about Dessler. I wish I could post on it, its devastating IMHO. If you want a private copy email me with the contact form above.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Email him directly. I did about the question of the null value for feedback, questioning his little calculation using Planks value. He sent me an email acknowledging it was wrong, and posted a correction at the top of the post.

    I was thinking of doing a post on it but WFT, I don’t do posts about how fair I am. I am finishing off the comment to GRL about Dessler. I wish I could post on it, its devastating IMHO. If you want a private copy email me with the contact form above.

  • Andrew

    David, with respect to the recent paper on balloon observed trends in water vapor which contradict Dessler’s claims, I have created a short summary of the discrepancy between observed humidity trends by radiosondes reanalyses and model results. It appears that you would need ~massive~ errors in the humidity data for the model results to be correct:
    http://timetochooseagain.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/modelshumiditydata.docx

  • Andrew

    David, with respect to the recent paper on balloon observed trends in water vapor which contradict Dessler’s claims, I have created a short summary of the discrepancy between observed humidity trends by radiosondes reanalyses and model results. It appears that you would need ~massive~ errors in the humidity data for the model results to be correct:
    http://timetochooseagain.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/modelshumiditydata.docx

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Hi Andrew

    I’d really like to read your summary but I think it is MS Word 2007 format (.docx). Would you mind posting it in Word 2003 format (.doc) please?

    Thanks.

    David – may be of interest:

    http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Hi Andrew

    I’d really like to read your summary but I think it is MS Word 2007 format (.docx). Would you mind posting it in Word 2003 format (.doc) please?

    Thanks.

    David – may be of interest:

    http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html

  • Andrew

    Steve Short-Here you go:
    http://timetochooseagain.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/modelshumiditydata.doc
    I just saw that I actually could upload in that format! How embarrassing!

  • Andrew

    Steve Short-Here you go:
    http://timetochooseagain.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/modelshumiditydata.doc
    I just saw that I actually could upload in that format! How embarrassing!

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodow dostawczych()

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia busów()

  • Pingback: link do strony()

  • Pingback: tutaj()

  • Pingback: link()

  • Pingback: zobacz tutaj()

  • Pingback: link()

  • Pingback: zobacz tutaj()