Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spencer: strong negative feedback found in radiation budget
Watts Up With That? ^ | May 7, 2010 | Anthony Watts

Posted on 05/07/2010 7:11:45 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans

Arguably the single most important scientific issue – and unresolved question – in the global warming debate is climate sensitivity. Will increasing carbon dioxide cause warming that is so small that it can be safely ignored (low climate sensitivity)? Or will it cause a global warming Armageddon (high climate sensitivity)?

The answer depends upon the net radiative feedback: the rate at which the Earth loses extra radiant energy with warming. Climate sensitivity is mostly determined by changes in clouds and water vapor in response to the small, direct warming influence from (for instance) increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.

This can be estimated from global, satellite-based measurements of natural climate variations in (1) Earth’s radiation budget, and (2) tropospheric temperatures.

These estimates are mostly constrained by the availability of the first measurement: the best calibrated radiation budget data comes from the NASA CERES instruments, with data available for 9.5 years from the Terra satellite, and 7 years from the Aqua satellite. Both datasets now extend through September of 2009.

I’ve been slicing and dicing the data different ways, and here I will present 7 years of results for the global (60N to 60S) oceans from NASA’s Aqua satellite. The following plot shows 7 years of monthly variations in the Earth’s net radiation (reflected solar shortwave [SW] plus emitted infrared longwave [LW]) compared to similarly averaged tropospheric temperature from AMSU channel 5.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; climatechange; globalwarminghoax
This does get technical...
1 posted on 05/07/2010 7:11:45 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
This from the comments a nice net of what this is about:


GregO says:

May 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Everybody. Read Dr Spencer’s book because he lays it on the line. I am relatively new to this climate catastrophe thing known as “Man-Made Global Warming” and “Settled Science”. Only got interested after Climategate; but since then I have been searching for a magic bullet indicator to tell if there is anything at all of value in the CO2 thermal forcing claims. Hmmmmm Arctic Ice? Just fine thank you. Antarctic? Same. Ocean temperatures? Dropping according to Argos; sea level rise ditto. Localized awful, awful droughts/floods/famines/four horsemen/you-name-it – either easily explained by natural phenomenon; accidents or lame leadership.

Warming? To me Dr Spencer’s explanation tells all: global warming as measured is a fraction of the modelers predictions and the entire Man-Made Global Warming meme as presented by Hansen/Gore/Mann/Jones/Briffa/Trenbeth et al is nothing but Piltdown Man writ large.

2 posted on 05/07/2010 7:13:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; NormsRevenge; Fred Nerks; blam; SunkenCiv; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; BOBTHENAILER; ..


3 posted on 05/07/2010 7:14:46 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From Dr Spencer himself:

****************************************************EXCERPT from Comments Section*********************************

Roy Spencer says:

May 7, 2010 at 3:59 pm

a few answers:

Ice near the poles won’t melt if most of the global atmosphere at lower latitudes does not warm. Atmospheric feedbacks kick in faster than ice-albedo feedbacks. And, has been mentioned, the satellite data are not as good at the high latitudes, anyway.

If I give more of the technical details to support my conclusions, people complain they don’t understand. If I don’t include the details to keep it simple, they complain that I’m not justifying my claims. Look, my articles are not peer-reviewed science, people. I’m just keeping people abreast of progress in research they are paying me to do. :)

The global cloud cover data are not good enough to do long-term trends with. Until the Terra MODIS data started in 2000, we could not be confident of any long-term cloud changes people think they see in the satellite data. Only a 2% change is needed to cause global warming or cooling. Long-term cloud changes on a regional basis can fool you because an increase in cloudiness in one region is usually compensated for by a decrease in an adjacent region.

Yes, it’s only 7 years of data. But the fact that none of the climate models show the negative feedbacks the satellites show when those are computed the same way — on the same time scale — from climate model output strongly suggests something might be wrong with those models’ feedbacks….

…does this all sound like “the science is settled”?



4 posted on 05/07/2010 7:29:49 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; ...
Thanks Ernest!
net radiative feedback: the rate at which the Earth loses extra radiant energy with warming
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

5 posted on 05/07/2010 7:51:55 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The thing that nailed AGW for me was a paper by Miklós Zágoni revealing a flaw in the underlying assumptions for the math models that gave us “Settled Science”. (See Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong") The paper correctly predicts the negative feedback now showing up in the physical data - before Climategate started all the double-takes.

I deal with models based on differential equations every day and it pays to know that sometimes the engineering assumptions built in to the equations might lead back generations - hidden from you unless you follow their build-up from first principles.

If only I were smart enough to explain it to learned people like Lindsey Graham.

6 posted on 05/07/2010 9:25:39 PM PDT by LTCJ (The Constitution; first, last, always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Both sides of the Congress must be educated on what is really at stake. Will they stay ignorant. Will they be willing to let their staffs and others that perhaps are willing to think, understand that the whole global warming issue is what many of us to derived patiently, BULL SHIT.

7 posted on 05/07/2010 10:01:57 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Normandy; TenthAmendmentChampion; FrPR; ...
Thanx !


Beam me to Planet Gore !

8 posted on 05/08/2010 4:45:40 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Let his days be few; and let another take his office. " - Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson