by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.
Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.
For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”
Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.
Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.
Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:
“I cannot believe it got published”
Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”
Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.
COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR
I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?
Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.
The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.
About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)
But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?
I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.
For example….
…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.
Well, they can’t have it both ways.
If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?
That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.
I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not sure if this is a repost from Dr. Spencer’s site, but:
“…ancient events which we have virtually do data on…”
is probably supposed to be:
“…ancient events which we have virtually no data on…”
Dessler’s comment struck me much in the same manner. Isn’t tweaking a model the purpose of modeling? And wasn’t there just a paper published tweaking the aerosols in the model and then claiming the aerosols caused the post-98 slowdown?
If this exchange of comments is regarded as a game of chess, the empire is checkmate in two moves.
I recommend we collect all silly retorts by the “usual suspects” and use them against their future works
The truth will out…
I just love watching another card from the pillars of the AGW house get pulled out. The tide has definitely turned in favour of REAL SCIENCE.
Dissed by that bunch of bozos should be proudly worn as a badge of honor!
Thank you, Dr. Spencer, et al
On my first dive into the AGW debate I noted that Steve McIntyre made his points with math while the people at RealClimate stuck to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Now everything is different but nothing has changed.
Using the argument that “My model is better than your model.” is a transparent attempt to ignore that the data falsifies their model. Of course saying“I can’t believe that this ever got published” is just back to the tried and true ad hominem.
I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.
Sounds like Bellarmine talking about Galileo.
Keep plugging away Roy, you’ve got them making incoherent statements now. The end is in sight.
Trenberth and Fasullo also responded in a guest post at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
The second sentence includes the obligatory: “News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites…”
A note to Trenberth and Fasullo : That’s as far as I read. Your post began with nonsensical name calling, so I assumed the rest was nonsense.
“Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. ”
This would be a spokesman for the same community of experts who failed to notice that Mann et.al’s hockey stick had dispensed with the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period? Paleoclimate indeed. Is there any evidence that Schmidt et. al. have any particular familiarity with the Paleoclimate record?
And why wouldn’t one expect the paleoclimate record when interpreted by folks who know what they are doing to tell pretty much the same story told by current satellite data? Does Dr Spencer see any fundamental conflict between the two?
Kevin Trenberth should be glad somebody has finally discovered where the missing heat went.
“the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”
Masterful irony! Does this remark presage a flurry of (harrassing) FOI requests from Trenberth et al?
For a science that is “settled”, and the outcome/processes, “certain” it is significant that Schmidt et al respond so vigourously and quickly to disagreements with their findings. A strong offence is the best defence and all that, but the lady’s protests make one wonder why she is so touchy. If the technical work is so solid, you’d think they would dismiss, disregard, yawn about Spencer thoughts, not set about dismembering it (with sarcastic bewilderment at its foolishness).
Touche, Monsieur Spencer.
How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?
One of the most important laws in climatology is the reciprocal relationship between the time lag for Gavin’s riposte and the seriousness of the blow to the team. The nearly instant and vociferous attack here indicates that a) the team are very worried, and b) the team had possession of the paper prior to publication
By the way – inviting the team to ‘become a little more creative’ is probably not wise. These are the people who think nothing of deleting incriminating emails, faking their graphs, and redefining peer review and the scientific method.
You’d think that if the science was so settled their bile would be a little more contained, wouldn’t you?
The “Bad Astronomer” is flustered as well, including himself with the usual suspects:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
It’s not clear whether he read the entire article either.
Wait a minute…….
I thought the science was settled
/snarc
Keep going after them Dr. Roy, you’re my hero
lol, Doc, yeh, you’ve sent them over the deep end on this one. Discover magazine did an exceptional job of including the most logical fallacies in one little article than I ever remember seeing in so few words.
Apparently, J. Taylor also authors for the Heartland institute and they once got money from Exxon, so, we should ignore your science. I once have a cousin, twice removed, married to a guy that inherited land with an oil well on it, so….. I guess, I can never publish. I’m immediately disqualified because of my obvious bias.
And, yes, they did quote the Kev in the article, too. And apparently you are an advocate of ID….. so, there you go. Apparently your are part of the “far right”. Which, btw, hates the Big Bang…… I never knew we didn’t like comedic piano bars, ……..
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Someone should tell that mental giant, Phil Plait, that the Big Bang theory was introduced by Monsignor Georges Lemaître.
Dr. Spencer, the greater the indignation, the closer you must be to the truth.
“Usual suspects”, is right, ‘tweaking models’ – who patented that ‘technique’?
And then we could start on the T record and get into tree ring proxy data sets……………couldn’t we KEN?
May I suggest lads, that you put your own house in order, not that there is much of value therein.
Here are two more rebuttals that Roy Spencer is pretending don’t exist.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Tallbloke I think Roys response would best go along these lines
Take gavin’s words
“The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.”
Forget Dressler and Trenberth, forget their incoherency. Take gavin’s statement and draw the logical conclusion. Gavin has given 3 possibilities. I think Roys approach of showing a simple model that is consistent with the observations, doesnt address the uncertainty. It hints that the error may be in the models, it doesnt prove it. To prove it one needs to eliminate gavins objections one by one
1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.
3. Errors in the models: need to get specific here.
I think Gavin is making a very coherent statement. he doesnt deny the mismatch. He tells you clearly what issues need to be addressed. Knock those issues down one by one and your left with a conclusion that he cant deny. The models are too warm. Time to figure out why, exactly. But first, steps one and 2
If there are serious disagreements and there are plausible proofs of these disagreements, they should put it in the journal as a rebuttal letter. Off the cuff pithy comments not followed by such serious published debate are decidedly unprofessional.
Maurice Garoutte says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:08 am
I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.
===============================================================
Nope, nothing has changed, ……. “He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.”
Of course, Heartland doesn’t receive funding from Exxon, but we shouldn’t let little facts like that get in the way of a good smear attempt. Why bother with the truth when lies can further an agenda?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
“Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:
Were Kevin talking about the missing heat, perhaps it is his missing heat that we don’t believe now.
On the whole, it looks like The Team is fearful of becoming irrelevant. Oh, did I say “becoming”, because this has not been a good month for CAGW acolytes. (It kind of reminds me of the Debt Ceiling crisis–whether spending yourself to death or circumventing the truth, it eventually catches up with you and no amount of groveling, grousing, or griping will reverse the inevitable.)
The other side are shaped by group-think. That’s why “scientific consensus” has traction. It’s done for political reasons, since AGW has a political basis. For one thing, it’s funded by government to justify the regulations they want to impose on us.
Consequently, since there are more of them, they can get away with holding skeptics to a higher standard. There is power in the group. Group thinkers are afraid of unrestrained individuals. Power in the hands of persons disconnected from a group association are considered dangerous to members of herds. Those working supposedly for the good of the group are protected, even after making serious errors, because they meant well.
Herds form as a means of protection from a perceived threat. Freedom is traded for a sense of safety. I don’t think anyone is surprised by the reaction to the paper. I’m afraid the only way to break the hold of the herd masters is to demonstrate that the real threat is AGW itself. We get it. Unfortunately, we lack a strong majority who realize the cost of AGW policies in lost jobs, lower standard of living, higher prices, invasion of privacy, wasted tax revenue, growing police state, etc.