Dr. Roy W. Spencer replies to “Tamino”‘s latest angry missive. As one commenter in my email list put it:
It is absolutely hilarious that Tamino’s lengthy, time-consuming, chest-puffing critique can be so comprehensively dismissed in a mere two sentences.
Here is what Dr. Spencer posted on his web page:
October 8, 2008: A Brief Comment on “Spencer’s Folly”
For anyone who has stumbled across a rather condescending critique of our latest research on feedback by someone who calls himself “Tamino”, I can only say that Tamino could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he would have noticed that all of my feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing (as occurs during natural climate variability), not CONSTANT radiative forcing (as is approximately the case with global warming). Tamino’s analytical solution does not exist in the time-varying case, and so his holier-than-thou critique is irrelevant to what I have presented.
Here is the original Spencer essay in PDF form, hosted on Roger Pielke’s website.
On the other hand, here is a recently published paper on climate sensitivity (PDF) that says the opposite. I’ll let the reader decide how well it defines the climate sensitivity, but I would note that since it uses GISTEMP data, which has a number of data problems that we’ve uncovered, for example here and here, the sensitivity may be overrated due to inflated trends in the GISTEMP database.
In the meantime, if you feel like supporting Dr. Spencer’s work, head on down to Barnes and Noble and get his latest book:
Spencer’s new book “Climate Confusion” is
now available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
(See book covers, and first page of each chapter.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How wonderful. After the disgusting treatment handed out to him in Washington earlier in the year he deserves a break as much as tamino thoroughly deserves the opposite.
I rarely get angry but whenever someone dismisses Roy’s work is one of those times. To be told “well he would say that, he has a book out dontcha know” when I offer his scientific opinion to warmers is second only to being told that someone has been “bought by big oil” in my book.
Is there a list anywhere of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC’s agenda? Not physicists, economists, literature majors etc or anyone associated with known partisan publications or societies, but at least chemists and preferably directly related to earth sciences such as meteorologists and paleoclimatologists.
Hansen’s Bulldog gums another biscuit and proclaims he’s eviscerated a Lion of Skepticism!
Scurry about in fear, Denialists!
Tamino made the same mistake on his Don’t be fooled again post. I don’t think he likes me very much. His open mind blog is anything but.
He is having a bad couple of months after Ian Jolliffe stepped in and basically smacked him right in the middle of his demonstration of why McIntyre was wrong in his statistics, check open thread #5 and 6 on his blog for Jolliffe comments. Too bad for him.
I have to add a bit more news to the link which relates to hockey stick temp graphs. I am working toward publishing on this subject but I am letting everyone read it on line as it progresses. Every day I am more confident this work will eventually debunk nearly every hockey stick temp curve.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/id-goes-mythbuster-on-hockey-sticks-cps/
The “opposite view” (Foster, et al 2008) was co-authored by Michael Mann and referenced James Hansen in critical areas. Those associations alone should raise concerns of accuracy and integrity. It seems there is too much effort in support a political position rather than enlighten as to the truth.
So, not only is the anonymous and pleonastic “Tamino” [snip] ?
I am not surprised, what else would one expect from someone who calls their blog “Open Mind”?
Anthony, some of the best comedy is entirely unintentional. Thanks for the laugh!
Not sure why you linked to the comment_on_schwartz. Schwartz himself has revised his sensitivity upwards since then and the first author of that paper is Tamino anyway, so we know just how good the stats are.
“To be told “well he would say that, he has a book out dontcha know”…
This ALWAYS makes me chuckle, and my reply is always “Yes…as opposed to a movie.”, which some people I’m having that discussion with get, and some don’t.
It’s the ultimate in hypocracy…Gore does everything he can to make money…but someone who disputes the science (or lack there of) in a book is automatically discounted?
You just can’t make this up…
JimB
Where are the Global Temp. numbers for September?
Henry Galt (11:10:40) :
Here is a list of deniers that do not agree with the IPCC agenda.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
December 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
Continue reading at http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html
Independent scientists, engineers and economists active in research of climate-related areas who signed the open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html
Other professional persons knowledgeable about climate change who expressed support for the open letter to the UN Secretary-General
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-other%20professionals.html
I object in principle to references to “GISS data” and the “GISS database”.
It appears to me that GISS “data” is, in fact, a modified number set which is alleged to represent what the GISS data shoulda/coulda/woulda looked like if it had been taken timely from properly sited and calibrated instruments.
To my way of thinking, “data” ceases to be data once it has been “massaged”, “adjusted”, “corrected”, “backfilled”, etc. Retrospective revisions don’t magically make the number set “data” again.
I would have been fired for manipulating data before presenting it to my management. I would not have had the opportunity to go back and re-revise it.
Lucia has a graph up already.
GISS is Hansen’s playbook… full of data from out of specification surface stations and manipulations by him and totally useless.
Henry Galt (11:10:40) :
Here are the authors and reviewers for the IPCC report. The number is less than the 2,500 previously advertised.
IPCC Technical Paper VI
Climate Change and Water
List of Authors: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/appendix4.pdf
List of Reviewers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/appendix5.pdf
Ed Reid,
Well if it isn’t data, perhaps we can think of a few better short words to use instead, maybe GISS stuff, or GISS things, or simply GISS numbers… I like the last one. Anyone else have suggestions? Try to keep ’em clean.
Mike
http://lucia// not found.
I don’t really see how Spencer’s response “evaporates” Tamino’s critique. It gives a possible criticism which shows that Tamino’s analog is imperfect and shows why Tamino’s approach to get the correct feedback parameter might be difficult from the actual data in question (i.e., due to radiative forcings that vary on shorter timescales)…but it does not necessarily show that he is wrong on the basic point that he made. In other words, it is the start of an argument…but hardly the end.
It will be interesting to see either or both Spencer or Tamino flesh this out further.
Well, there is a God after all. 🙂
What do the following have in common?
Open Mind
Real Climate
Fair and Balanced
Also, this very interesting piece http://climatesci.org/2008/10/02/an-essay-the-ipcc-report-what-the-lead-authors-really-think/ doesn’t seem to have caught the attention that it deserves yet.
“Also, this very interesting piece …. doesn’t seem to have caught the attention that it deserves yet.”
The piece is most interesting for what it doesn’t say. The hockey-stick maths passed through the IPCC process unchallenged, and later turned out to be deeply flawed. Steve has already said that if he were a senior IPCC functionary, he would be pressing for an audit and checking process, so that no more bad science got through and embarrassed him. But this major elephant in the room is studiously ignored. You would think it deserved some mention….
Mike Bryant (13:51:18) :
A misspelling of GUESS?
You go Dr. Spencer!! I’ll be purchasing the book for sure…
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
Open Mind, Insert Foot.
trevor,
Interesting indeed when you separate the bafflegab from the nuggets. Bafflegab is what I expect from someone who is clearly a “political” “scientist” whose job clearly depends on maintaining the con.
Re: “It will be interesting to see either or both Spencer or Tamino flesh this out further.”
What more flesh is required? Spencer makes a reasonable argument about dynamic (time-varying) forcing and modeling. “Tamino” attacks it with an irrelevant static analysis. This is akin Tamino to saying Spencer is wrong because John Fogerty wrote “Born On The Bayou”.
In any case, I find it fairly difficult to take seriously anything some completely anonymous blogger writes. If Tamino lacks the professionalism (or courage) to put his name and identity to his words, why bother reading them? With the exception of Tamino’s three “Spencer’s Folly” posts, which I have already read, I won’t bother.