And now, the rest of the story.

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.

About these ads

0 thoughts on “And now, the rest of the story.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Pingback: link do strony
  4. Pingback: tutaj
  5. Pingback: link
  6. Pingback: zobacz tutaj
  7. Pingback: link
  8. Pingback: zobacz tutaj
  9. Pingback: sex ogloszenia
  10. Pingback: sell your bitcoin
  11. Pingback: tutaj

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s