by John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer
University of Alabama in Huntsville
A new paper by Stephen Po-Chedley and Quang Fu (2012) (hereafter PCF) was sent to us at the end of April 2012 in page-proof form as an article to appear soon in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. The topic of the paper is an analysis of a single satellite’s impact on the rarely-used, multi-satellite deep-layer global temperature of the mid-troposphere or TMT. Some of you have been waiting for our response, but this was delayed by the fact that one of us (J. Christy) was out of the country when the UW press release was issued and just returned on Tuesday the 8th.
There are numerous incorrect and misleading assumptions in this paper. Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself. In some cases this might be a normal activity, but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved, it is clear that PCF did not have a sufficient understanding of the construction methodology.
By way of summary, here are our main conclusions regarding the new PCF paper:
1) the authors’ methodology is qualitative and irreproducible
2) the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm
3) the authors use the RSS (Remotes Sensing Systems) satellite dataset as “verification” for their proposed UAH NOAA-9 calibration target adjustment for TMT, but barely mention that their TLT (lower tropospheric) results are insignificant and that trends are essentially identical between UAH and RSS without any adjustment in the NOAA-9 calibration coefficient
4) the authors neglected the main TMT differences among the datasets – and instead try to explain the UAH v. RSS trend difference by only two years of NOAA-9 data, while missing all of the publications which document other issues such as RSS problems with applying the diurnal correction.
The paper specifically claims to show that a calibration target coefficient of one satellite, NOAA-9, should be a value different than that calculated directly from empirical data in UAH’s version of the dataset. With an adjustment to the time series guesstimated by PCF, this increases the UAH overall global trend by +0.042 °C/decade. Their new UAH trend, being +0.042 warmer, then becomes the same as the TMT trend from RSS. This, they conclude, indicates a verification of their exercise.
More importantly, with regard to the most publicized UAH dataset, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), there was no similar analysis done by PCF – an indication that their re-calculations would not support their desired outcome for this dataset, as we shall demonstrate below.
All of this will soon be moot, anyway. Since last year we have been working on v6.0 of the UAH datasets which should be ready with the tropospheric temperature datasets before summer is out. These will include (1) a new, more defensible objective empirical calculation to correct for the drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and (2) a new hot calibration target effective emissivity adjustment which results in better agreement between simultaneously operating satellites at the calibration step, making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary. So, since our new v6.0 dataset is close to completion and submission for publication, we have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset. However, to show that version 5.4 of our datasets was credible, we discuss these issues below.
The Lower Tropospheric Temperatures (TLT)
We shall return to TMT below, but most of the research and popular use of the UAH datasets have focused on the lower tropospheric temperature, or TLT (surface to about 300 hPa, i.e. without stratospheric impact). Thus, we shall begin our discussion with TLT because it is rightly seen as a more useful variable because it documents the bulk heat content of the troposphere with very little influence from the stratosphere. And [this is important in the TMT discussion] the same hot-target coefficients for NOAA-9 were used in TLT as in TMT.
PCF focused on the deep layer TMT, i.e. temperature of the surface to about 75 hPa, which includes quite a bit of signal above 300 hPa. As such, TMT includes a good portion of the lower stratosphere – a key weakness when utilizing radiosondes which went through significant changes and adjustments during this time. [This was a period when many stations converted to the Vaisala 80 radiosonde which introduced temperature shifts throughout the atmosphere (Christy and Norris 2004).]
As indicated in their paper, it seems PCF’s goal was to explain the differences in trend between RSS and UAH, but the history of this effort has always been to find error with UAH’s products rather than in other products (as we shall see below). With us shut out of the peer-review cycle it is easy to assume an underlying bias of the authors.
Lord Kelvin told us that “All science is numbers”, so here are some numbers. First, let’s look at the “global” trends of UAH and RSS for TLT (70S to 82.5N) for Jan 1979 to Apr 2012:
+0.137 °C/decade UAH LT (70S-82.5N)
+0.134 °C/decade RSS LT (70S-82.5N)
These trends are, for all practical purposes, identical. This, however, hides the fact that there are indeed differences between the two time series that, for one reason or another, are balanced out when calculating the linear trend over the entire 30+ year period. As several papers have documented (see Christy et al. 2011, or C11, for the list – by the way, C11 was not cited by PCF) the evidence indicates RSS contains a spurious warming in the 1990’s then a spurious cooling from around 2002 onward (note that the RSS temperature anomaly for last month, April, 2012, was 0.08°C cooler than our UAH anomaly).
This behavior arises, we believe, from an over-correction of the drift of the satellites by RSS (in the 1990’s the satellites drifted to cooler times of day, so the correction must add warming, and in the 2000’s the satellites drifted to warmer times of day so a correction is needed to cool things down.) These corrections are needed (except for the Aqua satellite operating since 2002, which has no diurnal drift and which we use as an anchor in the UAH dataset) but if not of the right magnitude they will easily affect the trend.
In a single paragraph, PCF admit that the UAH TLT time series has no significant hot-target relationship with radiosonde comparisons (which for TLT are more robust) over the NOAA-9 period. However, they then utilize circular reasoning to claim that since RSS and UAH have a bit of disagreement in that 2-year period, and RSS must be correct, that then means UAH has a problem. So, this type of logic, as stated by PCF, points to their bias – assume that RSS is correct which then implies UAH is the problem. This requires one to ignore the many publications that show the opposite.
Note too that in their press release, PCF claim that observations and models now are closer together for this key parameter (temperature of the bulk troposphere) if one artificially increases the trend in UAH data. This is a questionable claim as evidence shows TLT for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models averages about +0.26 °C/decade (beginning in 1979) whereas UAH *and* RSS datasets are slightly below +0.14 °C/decade, about a factor of 2 difference between models and observations. We shall let the reader decide if the PCF press-release claim is accurate.
The key point for the discussion here (and below) is that TLT uses the same hot-target coefficients as TMT, yet we see no problem related to it for the many evaluation studies we have published. Indeed this was the specific result found in Christy and Norris 2004 – again, work not cited by PCF.
The Mid-Tropospheric Temperature (TMT)
About 12 years ago we discovered that even though two different satellites were looking at the same globe at the same time, there were differences in their measurements beyond a simple bias (time-invariant offset). We learned that these were related to the variations in the temperature of the instrument itself. If the instrument warmed or cooled (differing solar angles as it orbited or drifted), so did the calculated temperature. We used the thermistors embedded in the hot-target plate to track the instrument temperature, hence the metric is often called the “hot target temperature coefficient.”
To compensate for this error, we devised a method to calculate a coefficient that when multiplied by the hot target temperature would remove this variation for each satellite. Note that the coefficients were calculated from the satellite data, they were not estimated in an ad hoc fashion.
The calculation of this coefficient depends on a number of things, (a) the magnitude of the already-removed satellite drift correction (i.e. diurnal correction), (b) the way the inter-satellite differences are smoothed, and (c) the sequence in which the satellites are merged.
Since UAH and RSS perform these processes differently, the coefficients so calculated will be different. Again recall that the UAH (and RSS) coefficients are calculated from a system of equations, they are not invented. The coefficients are calculated to produce the largest decrease in inter-satellite error characteristics in each dataset.
To make a long story short, PCF focused on the 26-month period of NOAA-9 operation, basically 1985-86. They then used radiosondes over this period to estimate the hot-target coefficient as +0.048 rather than UAH’s calculated value of +0.0986. [Note, the language in PCF is confusing, as we cannot tell if they conclude our coefficient is too high by 0.051 or should actually be 0.051. We shall assume they believe our coefficient is too high by 0.051 to give them the benefit of the doubt.]
Recall, radiosondes were having significant shifts with the levels monitored by TMT primarily with the switch to Vaisala 80 sondes, and so over small, 26-month periods, just about any result might be expected. [We reproduced PCF’s Fig. 2 using only US VIZ sondes (which had no instrument changes in the 26-month period and span the globe from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska to the Caribbean Sea) and found an explained variance of less than 4% – an insignificant value.]
Another problematic aspect of PCF’s methodology is that when looking at the merged time series, one does not see just NOAA-9’s influence, but the impact of all of the other satellites which provided data during 1985-86, i.e. NOAA-6, -7 and -8 as well. So, it is improper to assume one may pick out NOAA-9’s impact individually from the merged satellite series.
That PCF had little understanding of the UAH algorithm is demonstrated by the following simple test. We substituted the PCF value of +0.048 directly into our code. The increase in trend over our v5.4 TMT dataset was only +0.022 °C/decade for 1979-2009 (not 0.042), and +0.019 °C/decade for 1979-2012.
To put it another way, PCF overestimated the impact of the NOAA-9 coefficient by a factor of about 2 when they artificially reconstructed our dataset using 0.048 as the NOAA-9 coefficient. In fact, if we use an implausible target coefficient of zero, we still can’t return a trend difference greater than +0.037 °C/decade. Thus PCF have incorrectly assumed something about the construction methodology of our time series that gave them a result which is demonstrated here to be faulty.
In addition, by changing the coefficient to +0.048 in an ad hoc fashion, they create greater errors in NOAA-9’s comparisons to other satellites. Had they contacted us at any point about this, we would have helped them to understand the techniques. [There were 4 emails from Po-Chedley in Aug and Sep 2011, but this dealt with very basic facts about the dataset, not the construction methodology. Incidently, these emails were exchanged well after C11 was published.]
PCF brought in a third dataset, STAR, but this one uses the same diurnal corrections and sequential merging methodology as RSS, so it is not a truly independent test. As shown in C11, STAR is clearly the outlier for overall trend values due to a different method of debiasing the various satellite data and a differing treatment of the fundamental brightness temperature calibration.
We have additional information regarding UAH’s relatively low error statistics. Using radiosondes to evaluate microwave temperatures requires great care. In our tests, we concentrated on sondes which had documented characteristics and a high degree of consistency such as the US VIZ and Australian sondes. These comparisons have been published a number of times, but most recently updated in C11.
Here are the comparisons for the US VIZ radiosonde network (stretching from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska down across the conterminous US and to the Caribbean.) As you can see, UAH MT provides the lowest error magnitudes and highest reproducibility of the three data sets. Similar results were found for the Australian comparisons.
For data through April 2012 we have the following global TMT trends: UAH +0.045, RSS +0.079 and STAR +0.124 °C/decade. So, RSS, in the middle, is closer to UAH than STAR, yet PCF chose to examine UAH as the “problem” dataset. Had PCF wanted to pick some low-hanging fruit regarding the differences between UAH, RSS and STAR, they would have (a) looked at the diurnal differences between UAH and RSS (see publications) or (b) looked at a simple time series of differences between the three datasets (below). One thing that pops out is a spurious upward shift in STAR TMT relative to UAH and RSS of about +0.06 °C on precisely 1 Jan 2001 – an obvious beginning-of-year glitch. Why not look there?
The Bottom Line
In conclusion, we believe that the result in PCF was a rather uninformed attempt to find fault with the UAH global temperature dataset, using an ad hoc adjustment to a single, short-lived satellite while overlooking the greater problems which have been documented (published or as demonstrated in the figure above) regarding the other datasets.
And think about this. If PCF is correct that we should be using a revised NOAA-9 coefficient, and since we use the same coefficient in both TMT and TLT, then the near perfect agreement currently between RSS and UAH for TLT will disappear; our TLT trend will become warmer, and then RSS will have the lowest warming trend of all the satellite datasets. The authors of the new study cannot have it both ways, claiming their new adjustment brings RSS and UAH closer together for TMT (a seldom used temperature index), but then driving the UAH and RSS trends for TLT farther apart, leaving RSS with essentially the same warming trend that UAH had before.
Since it is now within 3 months of the publication cutoff for research to be included in the IPCC AR5, one is tempted to conclude that PCF will be well-received by the Lead Authors (some of whom are closely associated with the RSS dataset) without critical evaluation such as briefly performed here. However, we cannot predict what the AR5 outcome will be or, for that matter, what waning influence the IPCC might still exert.
That PCF brushed aside the fact that the UAH and RSS trends for the LOWER troposphere are essentially identical (for which the UAH NOAA-9 coefficient is the same) seems to us to be a diversionary tactic we have seen before: create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence. We hope that rationality instead prevails.
References
Christy, J.R. and W. B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, No. 6.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and W.B Norris (deceased), 2011: The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 671-685, DOI:10.1080/01431161.2010.517803.
Po-Chedley, S. and Q. Fu, 2012: A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1.
“create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence. “
My thoughts exactly when I first saw their paper.
An excellent rebuttal.
Let it not escape the readership that Christy and Spencer “have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset.”
IMHO that says a lot.
The question has been and will continue to b……how in the world does the junk science keep getting published??????????????
This is getting sooooooooo very old anymore.
Disgusting to say the least.
So in lobbing a criticism that “the authors’ methodology is qualitative and irreproducible” doesn’t that invalidate nearly all of his own pronouncements?
Christy and Spencer say “but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved…”
Wait – I thought the constant claim here was all the data should be open and transparent for all to see, why should anyone need a secret handshake from Christy and Spencer to understand their math or adjustments?
So PCF can be described aptly as drive-by agenda pseudo-science by press release….
Tom,
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Write to Drs Spencer and Christy. Ask for their algorithms. If, like the Mannian soundrels, they say, “No. It’s a secret”, then you have a complaint. But not until then.
You don’t seem to understand, but the problem is that PCF did not ask Spencer and Christy for input. They pulled a fast one; typical of climate charlatans.
The proper response is a rebuttal in JAOT, not “So, since our new v6.0 dataset is close to completion and submission for publication, we have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset.” TOTAL BS! No scientist would refuse to submit a rebuttal (which only has to be a few pages) if they truly thought their work had been misrepresented.
So in other words, a paper that never should have been written.
There must be an agenda somewhere. Oh, wait!
So just what on earth becomes junk in your eyes – Camburn?
When we get this line dropped in the article with an “anti pansy stance “, “I’m out of the country so they seek to undermine our work and pick on me?”
Oh you poor egotistical baby.
Ever wrong – if hotter. Ever right if cooler – Am I correct?
Cooler Data – good science.
Hotter Data – junk science.
Good debate though. Days will tell. It aren’t over for both sides.
Stay out of it Anthony – you’ll “spoil” a fighting chance for Christy and Spencer.
Your web site occasionally can be infested with wing nuts degrading Christy and Spencer’s reputation. Glad to see your keeping Slay Dragon junk science out of here.
REPLY: On the Slayers, we agree, it IS junk – Anthony
RB
“However, we cannot predict what the AR5 outcome will be or, for that matter, what waning influence the IPCC might still exert.”
If I had too much time on my hands, I’d be tempted to watch the (inflated) reference counts for IPCC AR5.
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Christy and Spencer say “but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved…”
Wait – I thought the constant claim here was all the data should be open and transparent for all to see, why should anyone need a secret handshake from Christy and Spencer to understand their math or adjustments?
==========================================================================
Ask Mann about “secret handshakes”.
But this was not written in or for a journal. It was written for here, a “blog”. If they did include the complicated algorithims, could you follow them? (No need to answer.) I know I couldn’t. But if someone who could follow them asked, I’m sure it wouldn’t take a FOIA ruling after years of court battles to get them.
Jerky says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:43 pm
According to http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/atot the May 2012 issue has not been published (I assume that’s where it will be).
Just assume this rebuttal refers to the press release, and you’ll do fine. That, and by posting it here, guaranteeing that it will be read by a wide audience. And, well, the influence of journals is kinda going the way of the IPCC….
Nutshell! Perfect example of everything that is logically wrong with the entire ACO2 causation of GW. I can only sympathize. How frustrating and distracting such things must be when they appear out of nowhere. The headlines have all been written, and the clergy satisfied. What the climate is actually doing is secondary. GK
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Christy and Spencer say “but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved…”
Wait – I thought the constant claim here was all the data should be open and transparent for all to see, why should anyone need a secret handshake from Christy and Spencer to understand their math or adjustments?
===========================================
“Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself.”
“[There were 4 emails from Po-Chedley in Aug and Sep 2011, but this dealt with very basic facts about the dataset, not the construction methodology. Incidently, these emails were exchanged well after C11 was published.]”
No secret handshake you moron…just a simple phone call or email would do
As many people counseled, waiting for Spencer and Christy has resulted in a detailed response which shows their reasoning. Drs Spencer and Christy have accepted criticism in the past and made adjustments/improvements to their record when the criticism has been found to be valid, but I think this case their rebuttal is strong.
This always seemed to be a case of trying to pick holes in inconvenient data (addressing the UAH data set even though the NOAA data was much further from the “models”, but warmer, not cooler), and this is borne out in the rebuttal. The fact that the paper was trumpeted in a press release (and the tone of the press release) also gives pause in considering the authors purpose. I know that such press releases are often done without the involvement of authors, but I find it hard to believe that this was the case here, given that it came from the university (as opposed to the journal).
Jerky, by not bothering to ask Dr. Christy or Dr. Spencer for any input on a paper which attacks their work, before printing it, JAOT has shown that they are just as big of charlatans as the uninformed AGW pushers who wrote the paper. The peer review process is a mess and climate scientists are to blame. I, for one, will never trust another of these “scientists” again. I hope C&S publish a rebuttal somewhere, but not JAOT.
“Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself.”
This just floors me!! Nobody thought to contact Christy and Spencer! Amazing!! This is one of the reasons that most of what purports to be climate “science” just disgusts me…
I find it unconscionable that a journal would not give Christy and Spencer an opportunity to respond to a draft of this paper before publication. But I am not shocked. That is the state that “peer reviewed science” has sunk to in too many instances…
I agree that it would be a good idea to submit a formal rebuttal but remember you can always do it like they like to and submit it as a new paper to different journal.
Regardless it was good to get a web based rebuttal up as quick as you did.
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark (on Po-Chedley, S. and Q. Fu and the man behind the curtain, Dr. Trenberth)!
Thank You!
I’ve never had any doubt that the IPCC-aligned climatology establishment would eventually come after Christy and Spencer and the UAH dataset since it remains the only untortured raw data in independent hands. My thesis doesn’t require physics, just politics and economics. There’s a lot of money riding on the PCF paper.
I’ve never had any doubt that the IPCC-aligned climatology establishment would eventually come after Christy and Spencer and the UAH dataset since it remains the only untortured raw data in independent hands. My thesis doesn’t require physics, just politics and economics. There’s a lot of money riding on the PCF paper. That a journal has behaved unethically just reinforces the point.
@ Latutide – nice personal attacks…
If the claim is that everything should be documented and open then why the need make contact them at all? Have Christy and Spencer contacted everyone they reviewed or claim to be in “error”?
Seems to be a bit of a double standard here.
At the very least write it up and put it on Arxiv.
Anything published on Arxiv that cites their paper will show up in Google Scholar so people can easily find your rebuttal.
If there was no prior timely communications with Christy and Spencer then Trenberth, Po-Chedley, Fu need lessons in manners. The Journal editors in not soliciting timely comment also need lessons in manners and good practice. If their paper had merit, surely it would have been made stronger by communicating directly with Spencer and Christy. This is all pretty sad.
I finished reading and changed my mind,
This is exactly what they are going to do with it. In this case do not bother submitting a reply to Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology but instead submit a paper to another journal with a review and publishing time that fits within that time frame.
It is my understanding that S&C algorithms are documented in their papers.
So basically, they knew UAH were upgrading the dataset and submitted a “critical” paper so that they could muddy the political waters and declare that, UAH woz wrong and that the Champions of Climate Truth and Justice woz right, and have caused the Skeptics to correct their “evil” datasets etc…..
Sigh… It’s like dealing with children when it comes to these ecofascists.
Interesting, Dr. Steig was allowed to not only see Donnely’s paper, but was invited to be one of the reviewers…..
This is ridiculous. Dr. Steig gets to review O’Donnell et al, but they don’t ask Drs. Spencer and Christy to review a paper directly related to their work? As a PhD myself, I would submit a rebuttal to the journal and submit a formal complaint to the editor regarding the peer review process. As the experts on this data set, one of you should have been selected as a peer reviewer.
Gentlemen, you are to be commended for such an appropriate response.
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would like to thank you for your uninhibited approach to handling the subject matter at hand. Well done!
I would ask that you all consider a video, perhaps streaming TV on WUWTTV “Live Interactive”, to convey the same?
I think it would be fun, and set a difficult precedent to manage for the unwiling, to to force some to step out by imposed demand from their supporters. I think it time for an enhanced approach in communication through easy to use tools.
I have to assume, based on the recent polls, that there are many eager to learn more from those who can assist with such..
…..
Just a thought …..
Opportunity knocks folks, and it simply waits for someone to find it !
@ Bernie – can you show where Christy and Spencer have reached out for review before reviewing and comments on others work?
Does not appear to be done here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/21/ben-santers-damage-control-on-uah-global-temperature-data/
Or here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/christy-on-sierra-snowfall-over-the-last-130-years-no-trend-no-effect-from-co2/
bernie1815 says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:05 pm
If there was no prior timely communications with Christy and Spencer then Trenberth, Po-Chedley, Fu need lessons in manners. The Journal editors in not soliciting timely comment also need lessons in manners and good practice. If their paper had merit, surely it would have been made stronger by communicating directly with Spencer and Christy. This is all pretty sad.
====================================================================
It’s not about merit or manners anymore. It’s politics.
Camburn says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:24 pm
This is getting sooooooooo very old anymore.
Welcome to the boat I’ve been in for about 3 years.
Tom
You appear to not have been thinking much before typing.
When I first read the article here about the Po Fu paper my initial thought was that apparently Drs. Christy and Spencer have gained too much credibility and influence and therefore need to be taken down a notch or two. Besides the UAH data set refuses to cooperate.
Now, after reading this fine rebuttal, it appears my initial reaction to Po Fu was correct.
When I read in the PCF paper that they had just made up the adjustment to agree with RSS, I knew it was garbage. Can’t do dat …
Drs. Roy and John, a very neat evisceration. My congratulations.
w.
You do not need to be a scientist to spot the difference in approach between the AGW ‘team’ and people like Drs Spencer and Christy. I am saddened that a lot of people, particularly our political class, cannot differentiate between the closed, aggressive behaviour of the AGW side who refuse to enter debate and show their working and the totally open approach typified by this article. We badly need the child to spot that the emperor has no clothes.
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
If the claim is that everything should be documented and open then why the need make contact them at all?
You do realize, of course, that you just negated your own point.
Lost in all of this is the awfull truth. NONE of the datasets show ANY warming for the last 12 years or so. THAT is what they are trying to distract attention from. (and yes, the truth is awfull. climate is cyclical, and the downside of the cycle is NOT nice)
The money shot:
“Note that the coefficients were calculated from the satellite data, they were not estimated in an ad hoc fashion.”
Bingo.
….and for those calling for a rebuttal in a journal, you may wish to recall that the last devastating paper published in a journal by Dr Spencer so discomfitted Trenberth that he forced the journal editor to resign, extracted an apology for allowing Dr Spencer’s paper to be published (despite it passing peer review and the editor himself admitting that it was sound).
Journals have turned into a place where the sun don’t shine and which serve as a place to stick pro CAGW papers.
They needed to “re-dfine the peer review process”, that is all.
In fact, if the Heartland Institute wants to fund billboards, why don’t they just put up billboards showing the last 15 years of temperature data from all four data sets? No need to even label them other than UAH, RSS, GISS and CRU. No comments, no captions, nothing. It is inevitable that the uninfirmed will ask “what’s that all about anyway?” and when told what the graphs are…. will respond…. “but I thought the earth was warming”
I think the skeptics get dragged into too many battles about details, and this tiff about a couple of years of data from a couple of decades ago is a fine example. The average person doesn’t understand either side of the argument, they just tune out. Show them the simple graphs and prompt them to ask what they are. When they find out…. epiphany.
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
@ Latutide – nice personal attacks…
Nice diversion. I think Latutide may be correct in his assessment of your mental faculties. It was clearly stated that they never made more than cursory inquiries and did not request clarification about how the calculations were made.
And yet you bleat on…
Honestly, it really is difficult these days to see the truth from the misinformation. Mhowever, in this case it is evident that the original article set out to discredit an inconvenient dataset and didn’t make even a passing nod to good scientific method.
@ Bill and GeoLurking – I think you are missing the point here.
Christy and Spencer are demanding something they don’t practice (see above)
it is common for commenters here to claim that unless everything is totally open and documented then it is bunk, but Christy and Spencer say “the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm”. Not sure how that is possible if everything is total open and documented…
No one should have to contact them if it is all open and documented and stands up to review. It appears that it doesn’t.
Oh, and didn’t Anthony observe that personal attacks/smears isn’t doing anyone any good?
@ David – “I think the skeptics get dragged into too many battles about details”
Isn’t actual science all about the details?
Tom says May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm:
Baaaah..
No point to be missed. The attempts to determine how the data made a hockey stick, and what specific data was used, so that it could be examined on it’s own merit, were blocked/obfuscated and summarily denied at virtually every turn.
Contrary to your “Open Source” straw man, Christy and Spencer did not deny anyone access (as far as I know), THEY WERE NEVER ASKED.
Their published papers make no allusions to hidden magical proprietary procedure call. They present it in a logical and clear fashion. They explain it. Anyone with the technical know how, can implement it. If they are unclear on something, I am pretty sure all they have to do is ask… which was not done.
Goldie says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm
it is evident that the original article set out to discredit an inconvenient dataset
That is the huge irony here! It is RSS that is inconvenient and not UAH! Check it out for yourself. RSS has a straight line since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months. UAH has a straight line since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months. And from where RSS is straight, UAH shows a rise. And from where UAH is straight, RSS shows a drop. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.75/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1996.83/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
Tom, I can only assume that you are being willfully obtuse.
The intent of David’s statement was that the average Joe on the street doesn’t care about the details. The BIG PICTURE is that reality and models are not matching. That is the important point to get across.
And yes, Science is all about the details… which is why “Climate Science” is a misnomer.
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm
@ David – “I think the skeptics get dragged into too many battles about details”
Isn’t actual science all about the details?
>>>>>>>>
Yes it is. What we have here is a fine example of smear tactics using inconsequential details that are nearly completely irrelevant to distract attention from the facts. Science is about FACTUAL details, not detailed smear tactics.
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm
it is common for commenters here to claim that unless everything is totally open and documented then it is bunk, but Christy and Spencer say “the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm”. Not sure how that is possible if everything is total open and documented…
===================================================================
Not sure how that’s possible? Simple. They didn’t ask because they didn’t really want to know.
**************************************************************
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm
@ David – “I think the skeptics get dragged into too many battles about details”
Isn’t actual science all about the details?
————————————————————————————————–
Did Mann give you his “secret handshake” yet?
When he does, let us know.
The world wants to know the details.
….and Tom,
You nicely side stepped my main point. According to UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut, the earth has been cooling since 1998. Why do you avoid discussing THOSE details?
Tom, science IS about the details but politics is all about generalities.
This is just another case of: If the data does not match the models, then:
In ‘climate science’: the data must be wrong and needs to be fixed, while
In real science: the model must be wrong and needs to be fixed.
It is also another case of Mannian style mathematics.
It is also another classic case of pal review, where no one competent who understands the UAH methodology was allowed to comment.
So we can assume Stephen Po-Chedley and Quang Fu’s report will be included as gospel fact in the next IPCC report, along with the other fantasies of: i) hockey sticks, ii) dying polar bears, iii) increasing polar (both poles) icecap melt, iv) accelerating sea level rise, v) increasingly violent global weather, vi) new improved climate datasets, which always show the past being cooler and the present being warmer, vii) accelerating glacier melting etc., etc.
davidmhoffer says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:32 pm
In fact, if the Heartland Institute wants to fund billboards, why don’t they just put up billboards showing the last 15 years of temperature data from all four data sets? No need to even label them other than UAH, RSS, GISS and CRU. No comments, no captions, nothing. It is inevitable that the uninfirmed will ask “what’s that all about anyway?” and when told what the graphs are…. will respond…. “but I thought the earth was warming”
Excellent idea.
Peer review has become a money making industry for publishers, certain academics and certain academic institutions. We need to pull back and to reconsider what the peer review and academic journal process is for and how it should operate.
The lack of communication from Po-Chedley and Quang Fu with Christy and Spencer speaks volumes about their intent.
CodeTech — “The intent of David’s statement was that the average Joe on the street doesn’t care about the details.”
But this is a specialist science blog, right?
Betapug says: (May 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm)
They needed to “re-dfine the peer review process”, that is all.
And in the mean time they turned it into sneak review.
Anthony, can you crosslink this article and the WUWT article about what they’re responding to, so readers of one can easily find the other? Particularly so readers of the strange one can find this one.
The peer review process is supposed to be for improving the quality scientific papers, and it is supposed to operate by bringing as many diverse minds together as possible, so that any potential weaknesses or errors can be found, debated, evaluated, and hopefully addressed before the paper is published. That is how it is supposed to operate.
In climate science, the peer review processed is used as a gatekeeping mechanism to keep opposing papers out and supporting papers in. It operates by making sure the “right” group is selected as peer reviewers. And by not communicating with the “enemy” about the paper, to make sure the right opinions are reflected in the paper.
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
Abraham Lincoln
J Bowers says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:42 am
CodeTech — “The intent of David’s statement was that the average Joe on the street doesn’t care about the details.”
But this is a specialist science blog, right?
Nope. It’s a generalist blog about “interesting things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.”
If I interpret this all correctly:
1. The mafia have asked the hoods in their family to review the accounts of the crime family for submission of tax returns to the IRS, who have been suitably quick to issue a ‘satisfactory tax return’ status for reasons best known to themselves.
2. They have submitted this paper strategically at just such a time that its rebuttal and potential retraction is prevented prior to the completion of the 5th revision of the Green Tree Huggers Bible.
3. The gospels submitted by those not tied to the Green Tree Huggers creed have been suitably ignored at the Conference of Nice Warm Holidays.
4. The alternative explanations for the Virgin Birth have been marked down as ‘heresy’ rather than logic and cogent science……..
Clearly, this may touch a few uncomfortable nerves for US Republicans who are both climate skeptics and born-again Christians, but there we are………
I think we are all taking “Tom” too seriously!
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Christy and Spencer say “but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved…”
Wait – I thought the constant claim here was all the data should be open and transparent for all to see, why should anyone need a secret handshake from Christy and Spencer to understand their math or adjustments?
____________________________
You did not read what they said or actually understand what open data means.
Several peer reviewed papers, C-11 among them, went into depth about what Christy and Spencer were doing but were completely ignored by Stephen Po-Chedley and Quang Fu. As noted by Christy and Spencer reference to e-mails, they were willing to talk to Po-Chedley and Fu. This is completely unlike Phil Jones, Briffa, Mike Mann and others who continually dodged requests for data and methods even going to court or “misplacing” the data sets rather than making it available. However even with the ease in which they could have gotten information, unlike McIntyre’s six year battle for data, these idiots* never even bothered to get clarification about the UAH satellite merging algorithm. Not only that no one gave Christy and Spencer the simple courtesy of running a draft of the paper by them for comment where the errors could be pointed out.
The fact it is now within 3 months of the publication cutoff for research to be included in the IPCC AR5 and too late for Christy and Spencer to get a rebuttal paper written and through peer review, coupled with the newly released global HadCRUT4 makes it pretty darn obvious the game plan is to get rid of the 12 years of non-warming that caused Phil jones to say in an Climategate e-mail “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
After Hansen et al have continually “Adjusted” the data to fit their blasted models I consider the entire bunch completely untrustworthy with loyalty to “The CAUSE” and not to science.
* Anyone who is writing a paper for a peer reviewed journal without gathering all the relevant and easily available data is not a scientist he is an idiot.
davidmhoffer says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Lost in all of this is the awfull truth. NONE of the datasets show ANY warming for the last 12 years or so. THAT is what they are trying to distract attention from. (and yes, the truth is awfull. climate is cyclical, and the downside of the cycle is NOT nice)
____________________________
You are correct we are headed for the downside of the temperature cycle and while “They” are pushing CAGW with all their clout and money, “They” are at the same time buying up farmland as fast as they can. All you have to do is search Soros, Rothschild, Harvard and Vanderbilt (Universities), with the words land grab.
The economy crumbling isn’t helping either.
Barton Biggs: Stock A Safe Haven With Food And Firearms To Protect Against Doomsday Pillagers – BUSINESS INSIDER 2010
It would seem that Soros and Rothschild as well as others have taken Biggs advice to heart. Not surprising since Biggs was named by Institutional Investor magazine to its “All-America Research Team” 10 times, and he was voted the top global strategist…
“We hope that rationality instead prevails.”
I wouldn’t hold my breath, Doc…
Tom
You state: “If the claim is that everything should be documented and open then why the need make contact them at all? Have Christy and Spencer contacted everyone they reviewed or claim to be in “error”?
I’m not sure if you’re a scientist or not but I am sure that you are an unpleasantly rude and arrogant poster. Not only that, you show a total lack of scientific etiquette as well.
Christy and Spencer should have been contacted by Po-Chedley and Fu as a matter of courtesy to inform that they intended to re-evaluate their data. You ask if Christy and Spencer contacted every one they reviewed. This is why I think you’re not a scientist. If, as I suspect, you are referring to peer review most journals have a policy that reviewers of a paper are anonymous. Claiming someone to be in error is all part of the scientific process and one might not write prior to publication. However that does not mean that one would not ask permission to use the data of others. Unfortunately it is posters like you that do the most damage to the AGW cause as the arrogance of you and your ilk has caused many to just ignore the proponents of AGW. And to give an example of this arrogance you may recall Dr Pachauri dismissing as “voodoo science” reports that the IPCC claims that the Himalaya glaciers would vanish by 2035 were baseless. As you and everyone else now knows the IPCC itself admitted these claims were baseless. Did Dr Pauchauri ever apologise? Of course not. Are you absolutely certain the claims by Po-Chedley and Fu are correct? If so why? Are you sure the assessment of their study by Drs Christy and Spencer is incorrect? Again, if so why?
Rhoda R says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm
“Tom, science IS about the details but politics is all about generalities.”
Actually, Rhoda, CLIMATE “science” is all about MONEY – that is, scientists enriching themselves and their groups at the taxpayer’s expense, while providing very little in the way of any credible research that has impact on our lives. Did you know that climate scientists were receiving millions of dollars in stimulus funds while the rest of the American economy was crumbling in 2009? It is therefore not surprising that, in this election year, the climate elites and their sycophants/supporters in the media and academia are pulling out all the stops to scare the public into funding them into perpetuity. We, one the other hand, can fight them at the ballot box – so PLEASE vote appropriately in November!
@ Peter Miller “This is just another case of: If the data does not match the models, ”
How can you say that without reading the full paper? If science is about the details then making a sweeping dismissal based on an unsupported generality is inherently invalid.
@ Ian – “I’m not sure if you’re a scientist or not but I am sure that you are an unpleasantly rude and arrogant poster.”
I thought Anthony observed that personal attacks/smears isn’t doing anyone any good?
“Christy and Spencer should have been contacted by Po-Chedley and Fu as a matter of courtesy to inform that they intended to re-evaluate their data” – then they should be held to the same standard,
I fail to see how observing that Christy and Spencer are taking issue with their own behavior, as demonstrated with their own words here, makes anyone rude. Unless of course there is an issue with reviewing the behavior of people that have a specific POV.
Ian says “Claiming someone to be in error is all part of the scientific process and one might not write prior to publication. ” Right, so where is the issue here again?
Ian says” However that does not mean that one would not ask permission to use the data of others”, No, if the premises is that everything is open and documented and available for use then you are arguing against yourself here.
@ Bill Tuttle “Nope. It’s a generalist blog about “interesting things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.”
Interesting, so that suggests that what is expressed here are simply opinions untethered to any valid science?
Bob Mount says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:38 am
“I think we are all taking Tom too seriously!”
Agreed. I actually find his behavior rather humorous…
Tom says:
“…so that suggests that what is expressed here are simply opinions untethered to any valid science?”
Speaking for yourself. Got it.
@ Smokey – you cannot have it both ways. When the topic is science either the details matter or it is simply opinion.
So I ask again, do the details matter here or is what is expressed here are simply opinions untethered to any valid science?
If it is indeed science then you are back to the inherent contradiction of the Christy and Spencer protesting their own behavior, and in doing so invalidating their criticism.
@Tom:
“…is what is expressed here are simply opinions untethered to any valid science?”
Speak for yourself. The criticism of C&S is valid. They should have been in the loop, instead of PCF making an end run around them.
You are being an apologist for bad behavior. Why?
@ Smokey et al – so you and the vast majority here are saying that any review of existing Science require active participation of the original author to be valid?
Yes or no?
A simple yes or no, absent personal attacks/smears, please
.
@Tom,
You demand ‘yes/no’ answers, after you ignore my own questions??
I understand that you don’t get the problem here, even after it’s been repeatedly explained to you. Try thinking for a change, you might eventually understand PCF’s ethics problem in this situation.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 7:23 am
“A simple yes or no, absent personal attacks/smears, please…”
Could you forward this memo to your climate “science” colleagues? Thanks.
Grammar edit:
the author’s should be “the authors” — no possession.
@Gail and several others
From the article above
” a diversionary tactic we have seen before: create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence.”
I am not so sure that the main value of the paper is to the IPCC. The ‘Team’ uses a lookup list of such junk science as a copy-paste source for responding to the rising tide of genuine enquirers. People with little knowledge of scientific papers or legimitate review process might be looking into the ‘AGW thing’ and I find the same sets of references pasted into emails on blogs responding to questions raised here or elsewhere. It appears coordinated and I can name a couple of Team members based on the evidences of what must be workshopped training of some kind.
A list of papers is maintained by the Team and provided to give volunteers (useful idiots) diversionary ammunition far beyond their actual knowledge base. Whenever someone pitches up the comment – ‘the temperature is not rising the way we were told it would’ they are given in reply a set of references to papers of the quality PCF as obfuscation then directed to SkS or RC ‘to meet the experts’.
You can rest assured that PCF will be pasted into any robo-response to questions about data set reliability with a view to undermining the reputation of anything said about UAH, but because PCF is robust, but because it is diversionary. The point is not ‘understanding’. This ‘capturing of souls to save them from their poor ignorant selves’ is the core of anything coming out of RC and they not only know it, they plan for and supply the means for it. Gavin and the team have long ago given up any interest in treating the subject scientifically – pretense will suffice.
I do not think of it as ‘political’ as many blog here that it is. It is, rather, intensely personal because the utter humiliation that is already hounding the Team will be complete once the closets are fully aired and the truth spelled out. Desperation is everywhere evident as the Berlin Walls of obfuscation and secrecy crumble. Mann and Briffa are in deep trouble and they all know it.
Christy and Spencer collect and analyse data and do real science. Hansen, Schmidt and Mann have always had bigger plans. Hansen and the air conditioning is a perfect example. Suppose the AR5 is full of PCF quality work and contains as well a few grand pronouncements that more research is needed to understand more fully the workings of the atmosphere. It is just a funding exercise with a few plays to, “Give us more time and money to incorporate into the models the interesting tweaks that some skeptics have legitimately located. We are after all, scientists and expect this sort of thing.” It will be a play to fudge as much of the contrary data as possible and delay by all means the inevitable and ignomious end of their policy advising careers.
Academia always wanted to rule the world. That is why we keep them
lockedtenured in ivory towers.Tom,
Are you capable of presenting a cogent argument germaine to the topic? All I see is out of context remarks twisted by clever wording to imply facts not in evidence, cast doubt without presenting any factual rebuttal, distract attention from the main points of the issue at hand, and scatter the discussion to the point that it becomes meaningless.
I hope you are getting paid for your time, because for anyone with actual science background and any serious level of experience with this topic, you have extablished zero credibility and richly deserve the title of “troll” based on the commonly accepted meaning of that term in the blogosphere. You’re just a troll, not a very good one, and obviously so.
1. It was two years of data from two decades ago from one of many satellites. The difference calculated is nearly meaningless.
2. The difference was calculated by assuming RSS was right, and applying a fudge factor to UAH based on RSS. Without rigorous prood that RSS was right in the first place, this is a meaningless exercize.
3. The eart has not warmed for the last 15 years according to UAH, RSS, GASS and HadCrut, and appears to have entered a cooling trend which is backed up be declining ocean heat content from the Argo buoys. All this despite CO2 being at the highest levels ever.
Troll away Tommy, keep looking foolish along with all the other propogandists trying to line their pockets with the profits of hysteria while the climate continues to do whatever it wants in opposition to the failed predictions (by the thousands) of the climate models and the hysterical CAGW fear mongers. What you offer in support of their cause makes no sense, add nothing of value to the discussion, and makes you appear to be either a fool or a paid sycophant.
You are wrong, you need to publish the rebuttal.
Peer review is still the coin of the realm.
Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:14 am
the newly released global HadCRUT4 makes it pretty darn obvious the game plan is to get rid of the 12 years of non-warming that caused Phil jones to say in an Climategate e-mail “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
By the way, that quote was by Trenberth.
But as far as HadCrut4 is concerned, if that was their goal, they did not succeed.
Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0055 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 4 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with GISS gives the same conclusion.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend
I agree whole heartedly with you Willis!
The timing of the trash PCF paper and the hidden from UAH experts CAGW team pal review the PCF paper went through strikes me as altogether too convenient; both in timing and purpose. From my perspective of the team’s nefarious planning, the real purpose of this review is to cast aspersion on the UAH satellite data just prior to the final date for papers for AR5. They distract Drs. Roy and John while they finalize their V6.0 and cost them valuable time. Whatever happens with V6.0 dataset the CAGW team gets to claim it should be discounted as it did not address their pal reviewed spurious adjustments.
The pal review approach also worries me that they’ve got any paper submissions from Drs. Roy and John sandbagged at the team’s pal review level. Publish it here (with Anthony’s permission, of course) if you run into obstacles Drs. Roy!
An outrageous example of team collusion, which if true, strikes me as highly illegal. I wonder what the emails behind the scenes look like.
@davidm – why so angry? I think Anthony make an important observation that the personal attacks and smears you just engaged in are not worthwhile or advancing the actual science?
This matters as it shows that the data supports the models and it shows the warming has been understated. That is highly relevant.
It seems odd that there is a double standard being imposed here by nearly all of the commentators – clearly that cannot be good practice when publishing.
Tom,
Here is an assist in reading comprehension.
Dr’s Christy and Spencer are saying that with complicated algorithems involved, the authors of the paper would have been well advised to contact the people who developed and use them. Didn’t say anything about them not being available or any sort of special hidden code being needed.
Tom,
RE “but Christy and Spencer say “the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm”. Not sure how that is possible if everything is total open and documented”
Lesson 2 in reading comprehension. The fact that information is documented and available does not equate to it being understandable to everyone. When I have to review material that is outside my area of expertise I commonly check with the person providing it or someone I know to be a subject expert, to ensure I have a correct understanding.
@timg – Greetings. We are talking about math, not some dark art, agreed? If the math is correct and open and documented it does not need any special conversation. What you are arguing is for a double standard, which correct me here, would be anti-good science as we have defined it.
If you are suggesting that Christy and Spencer needed to be contacted first as a matter of good protocol then they behave counter to the protocol they are invoking.
Is this not the sort of thing that is a common complaint here? Maybe someone could explain where the apparent double standard?
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 10:56 am
@davidm – why so angry? I think Anthony make an important observation that the personal attacks and smears you just engaged in are not worthwhile or advancing the actual science? >>>>
You didn’t respond to a single point I made. You look ridiculous, you sound ridiculous, and the more you whine about personal attacks and such without responding to the matters of fact presented by myself and variouus other commenters, the more pathetic you appear. Step up to the facts of the matter, and you won’t have that problem anymore.
Tom says;
This matters as it shows that the data supports the models and it shows the warming has been understated. That is highly relevant.>>>>>>>
No. What is shows is the desperation to torture the data into showing a pre-determined result. It shows a deperate attempt to focus on two years of data from two decades ago in order to distract everyone’s attention from the fact that there has been no warming for the last dozen years or more despite record high levels of CO2.
Tom;
It seems odd that there is a double standard being imposed here by nearly all of the commentators – clearly that cannot be good practice when publishing.>>>>>>>
Nothing odd at all. Engage on matters of fact instead of twisting and turning to cloud the issue, obfuscate the facts and misdirect attention, and you will get a different reaction. Act like a troll, get treated like a troll. Grow up, stop whining, discuss the science honestly and fairly…. if you are capable. If not, then STFU.
@Crispin – as Christy and Spencer are academics does that not make them part of the problem per your statement?
Or are they somehow special and exempted? If so it would be most enlightening to understand that process.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:23 am
Hmmmmn. More (irrelevent, inconsequential, distracting) questions from Tom.
No answers yet to any questions about science, facts, or policies resulting from the CAGW-“dogmatists” who are paying their so-called scientists to producing government-favorable results.
Folks – Tom is apparently putting his fingers in his ears and go “la la la la” to himself as ignores very simple questions put to him. Just don’t bother. He is part of the (tedious and boring) climate apologists, and is just annoyed that his side is losing BIG…he his appearance here.
@davidm – My goodness, even more angry and personal attacks and smears.
Perhaps in your apparently emotive state it has slipped your memory that we are discussing if the double standard invoked by Christy and Spencer is defensible. Some would conclude by your vitriolic efforts not to stay on that topic they may not be.
May I perhaps suggest that we please return to the topic at hand as there are some important issues it raises..such as if double standards and the authors need to be contacted prior to corrections being issued. That would be the science part of the discussion.
@frank – maybe you could kindly explain how refusing to engage on the specific question on the Christy and Spencer double standard and author contact issue that they themselves raise is off topic?
It is after all a matter of science and validity of results, that is what is discussed here, yes?
The only double standards are between the internet’s “Best Science” site, and all the thinly trafficked alarmist blogs like RealClimate, which have a Policy of censoring skeptics’ comments. If “Tom” doesn’t try to rectify that, then he is a world class hypocrite.
The “topic at hand” is the unarguable fact that PCF dispensed with established past practice, and made an end run around Drs Spencer and Christy. They are the pre-eminent experts on the subject, and PCF’s dubious shenanigans are typical of the current crop of climate alarmist charlatans, who are following Chief Charlatan Michael Mann’s lead, and trying to game the pal review/journal system to their own advantage. That is not science; that is advocacy.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am
“@frank – maybe you could kindly explain how refusing to engage on the specific question on the Christy and Spencer double standard and author contact issue that they themselves raise is off topic? ”
The author contact issue is not important. PCF didn’t know the algorithms and made no attempt at finding out about them. They were obviously not interested in the algorithms. Which is a funny detail indeed. WHY did they invest their work but didn’t bother to do it RIGHT?
Well, obviously they were not interested in even pretending they were doing it right – they had a deadline to meet, publish SOME criticism in time for RIO+20 and IPCC AR5 to try to discredit UAH.
It’s the usual rushed job we expect from IPCC guys, like in this case
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest? Since clearly this happens in each and every case don’t by shy about showing, oh, say 5 years worth of that interactions. That would be most interesting and consistent with the requests made of Mann.
Eagerly awaiting that documentation – nice to be making progress on this. So very exciting.
By chance the dog ate the material, by all means get the dog looked at post haste.
Tom babbles on;
May I perhaps suggest that we please return to the topic at hand as there are some important issues it raises..such as if double standards and the authors need to be contacted prior to corrections being issued. That would be the science part of the discussion.>>>>>>>>
That wasn’t the discussion at all until YOU introduced it as a distraction from the science being discussed. The science being discussed is the criticisms levelled by PCF against UAH, and the response from Christy and Spencer to those criticisms. All you’ve done is whine about where you think the response should appear instead of here, complained about data and methods not being available when they were, and avoiding every single question or point put to you regarding the science itself.
In other words, you are just a troll and obviously so, defending the indefensible with nonsense distractions from the facts. Again, if you don’t want to be treated with all the scorn and derision that a troll deserves, then stop behaving like one.
And another (distracting) question from Sir Tom of the Church of CAGW. 8<)
Have you read the 14 year history of Mann's and CRU's flat-out refusals between 1998 printing and today's continuing denial as refusing to follow their countries' laws and simply reveal the data behind their so-called "science"? See, THEY are the ones breaking the FOIA laws, and THEY are the ones who have deliberately refused to even reveal the raw data of their policy-forming so-called "scientific research" … Now, what relation does a 5 year "history" of all of Dr Spencer's emails have to do with a 14 year refusal to release original data.
You asked before, in an earlier distracting question that you similarly refused to follow up on, who has falsified Mann's original 1998 paper. How can that question be answered, how can that paper be checked, criticized or analyzed – other than by carefully-cherry-picked writers who used Mann's same source papers! – and reviewers who remain carefully anonymous and hidden behind dutiful CAGW-promoted editors, if the orginal data is hidden in Mann's file folders.
@ RAC – is this not a thread on Christy and Spencer? Am I reading the “Christy and Spencer” bit in the title wrong?
Seems a bit odd that no one other than me is trying to actually help resolve the specific issue on this specific thread.
I wonder why anyone would want to go off this topic rather than dealing with the actual double standard and prior-contact requirement that they ask for but appear to violate?
Why would anyone be so very insistent on changing the topic when we are dealing with a specific matter of the science practices at hand here?
Perhaps the person who can explain that can also explain why simply trying to get clarity on this one specific matter justifies a most uncivil reaction. I thought we agreed that personal attacks/smears are not helping anything, right?
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
“@ Latutide – nice personal attacks…
If the claim is that everything should be documented and open then why the need make contact them at all? Have Christy and Spencer contacted everyone they reviewed or claim to be in “error”?
Seems to be a bit of a double standard here.”
Double standards yes.
Skeptics invite to be contacted to ask for data or information to make proper analysis – read how many time alarmists have been contacted and how did they answer:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html
So, how dare you put that comment there with a straight face?
What kind of twisted glasses do you have in front of your eyes?
@Tom: With all due respect to the owners of this site, you are a confused waste of bandwidth. You point to past blog entries by Christy/Spencer, and than claim its a double standard if they don’t behave the same way in which a scientific journal is supposed to behave during the peer review process.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest?>>>>
Yes because obviously Smokey has copies of all of Christy and Spencer’s correspondence. TROLL!
Tom continues to whine;
Since clearly this happens in each and every case don’t by shy about showing, oh, say 5 years worth of that interactions. That would be most interesting and consistent with the requests made of Mann.>>>>>
How about instead, YOU post something much easier to do, which would be a claim by any researcher that they approached Christy and Spencer for access to their data and methods and were delcined. I won’t even hold you to the 5 year standard you insist on above. Show us one. TROLL.
T for TROLL Tom continues on;l
Eagerly awaiting that documentation – nice to be making progress on this. So very exciting.
By chance the dog ate the material, by all means get the dog looked at post haste.>>>>
Yes, in true TROLL fashion, you demand information from someone you know very well doesn’t have it and couldn’t possibly have it and then smugly declare victory. Why? Because you are nothing but a TROLL and look increasingly foolish for your efforts.
Not to mention that you STILL have not answered a single point regarding the science. Why? Could it be because you are just a TROLL?
When you have shot off both feet, aim for the knees. Keep going, please keep going. This type of obfuscation and misdirection becomes painfully obvious even to neophytes in the AGW debate. You are discrediting your side by continuing.
Tom, if you really believe what you are shoveling, you have a reality distortion field more powerful than the one made famous by the late lamented Steve Jobs. Either that or you are an agent provocateur. In either case, I have seen enough by the end of this thread to conclude it is a waste of time engaging with you, and I hope everyone will get back to the topic give you exactly the attention you deserve (none).
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest?”
Tom, you dope, that is exactly what Christy and Spencer are doing here. Wake up!
Tom clearly isn’t responding anything other than the sound of his own voice – and his brain is apparently on autopilot. I’m done…
Friends:
You have been had.
The odious troll posting under the name of Tom has successfully distracted discussion on this thread from its subject, He/she/they/it has posted nothing except irrelevancies and untrue assertions while ignoring every point and question put to him/her/them/it. And people have nibbled at his/her/their/its bait and been hauled in.
So, the thread has become boring and uniformative to onlookers who – by now – will have stopped reading. Thus the troll has achieved his/her/their/its objective.
I strongly suggest that it is best to ignore him/her/them/it and to avoid similar destruction of future threads by ignoring all similar trolls as soon as his/her/their/its behaviour becomes apparent.
Richard
@Smokey – you said it was a fact that Christy and Spencer contact authors that they disagreed with prior to publishing their counter material. I mean to have done otherwise makes their protest now a double standard, and no one here would stand for that. After all that would be a terrible practice.
I simply asked, since it is clearly a fact they did that each and every time, that you show the documentation of that. As it is a fact, yes, surely that is simple to do.
So will you be posting documentation that today will you?
“Tom” says:
“Seems a bit odd that no one other than me is trying to actually help resolve the specific issue on this specific thread.”
Earth to Tom: You are not trying to resolve anything. Drs. Spencer and Christy have resolved the specific PCF issue in their article above, titled:
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures
If you have a response to that specific criticism, post it. Otherwise, GTFA.
@DavidM – no, I assume Smokey has the documentation because to state something as a fact without any shred of evidence, and counter to actual history, at a site focused on science would be ludicrous. I mean all the science focused people here would obviously take issue with that.
Richard, I think Tom served a very usefull purpose. The only critiscism of Spencer and Christy’s article comes from an obvious troll unable to muster a single comment that has anything to do with the science. Not one single point has been raised by anybody in refutation of the science they presented. THAT is the seminal point of this thread that needs to be made to those who are recently arrived to the debate. The skeptic cristism of CAGW is well rooted in science. The warmist critiicism is limited to troll behaviour of which Tom is a perfect example. How many times did I challenge him to discuss the science? He failed to do so each and every time, because science is NOT in the side of CAGW, and those new to the debate need to see and think about that at every opportunity.
davidmhoffer:
re. your post addressed to me at May 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm.
I take your point. Thankyou. And I hope you are right that onlookers will recognise it.
Richard
My review of this post and comments tell me the climate science bureaucracies had a lot invested in having the troublesome satellite “debunked” by a paper. Because they knew that it was a big enemy, that’s why they jumping on unimportant rhetorical details.
Tom, really, you doth protest too much. The IPCC 5AR can’t beat the internet. If they try to pull that stunt about debunking the satellites, they would become the focus of instant derision. The people believe the satellites more than the warmistas or skeptics. Also, the satellite debunking sounds too obviously “tricky.” It will only work on those already believing or invested in big feedbacks.
Also, the non-scientists in the media warmista brigade are already dumping the feedbacks. Obama would call it “evolving.” They are changing their goal posts to the position that they have always only argued that increased CO2 will cause some effect (e.g., climate change, non necessarily global warming), and that the “deniers” have always denied that their could be “any” effect. You might join them, or you can take a big leap and join the McKibbenista lunatic fringe who worship the words of James Hansen. Something, don’t hang your hat on debunking the satellites.
davidmhoffer says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Richard, I think Tom served a very usefull purpose. The only critiscism of Spencer and Christy’s article comes from an obvious troll unable to muster a single comment that has anything to do with the science. Not one single point has been raised by anybody in refutation of the science they presented. THAT is the seminal point of this thread that needs to be made to those who are recently arrived to the debate. The skeptic cristism of CAGW is well rooted in science. The warmist critiicism is limited to troll behaviour of which Tom is a perfect example. How many times did I challenge him to discuss the science? He failed to do so each and every time, because science is NOT in the side of CAGW, and those new to the debate need to see and think about that at every opportunity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry, I just thought this bore repeating.
Tom says:
“@DavidM – no, I assume Smokey has the documentation because…” &etc.
Tom is a noob here, so he believes he can counter my criticism by trying to re-frame the argument using something I never said or even implied.
Tom: ball’s in your court. Quote my words, verbatim, where I said I had your “documentation”. If you can’t, then explain your misrepresentation. You wouldn’t want to be seen as a lying propagandist, would you? So, quote where I said I had any ‘documentation’. Thanx in advance, old chump.
@Smokey – you said it was a fact. Facts require and have evidence.
So please show your evidence of the fact. Simple.
Just like answering a Yes or No question.
Let us do that so we can then proceed to the other questions.
My goodness, truly hard to understand the inability – and it does appear to be an inability at this point – to do that.
So much effort to avoid answering my simple question.
After reading this article and the comments, here are my (layman’s) conclusions:
1. JOAT did not ask the original authors of the satellite data to peer review the paper attacking the satellite data.
2. PCF did not consult with the the authors of the satellite data prior to writing a paper attacking the satellite data.
3. PCF did not reference any of the prior papers written about the satellite data, in thier paper attacking the satellite data.
4. According to the authors of the satellite data, PCF appear to be uninformed on the complexities of the algorithms used to analyze satellite data. This might not have been a problem, had PCF or JOAT given more respect to the scientific method and/or the peer review process.
5. PCF appears to have cherry picked data, in as an attempt to make the satellite data better fit AGW climate models.
6. In general, the PCF paper appears to be a political shot across the bow to climate skeptics, and (considering items 1,2 and 3 above), it is highly suspect that cronism took place during the peer review process.
@Just some guy – was all the satellite data in question or just the data from a specific source that has been widely shown to have accuracy issues? Creating a straw man argument isn’t effective in dismissing the issue raised in the paper correcting the error.
That Christy and Spencer are seeing boogie men, as are you, as a result of a double standard being applied is telling.
Still no one here who can handle my original, on topic, per the matter in the post, simple Yes or No question? Curious…
Tom, in answering your question, I was referring to the UAH data, which is the subject matter for this blog post.
The rest of your comments are subterfuge.
Is this the same Spencer who said “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
Anyone confirm that this is the same Spencer?
Tom;
Can you find a single solitary thing wrong with the technical explanation provided by Spencer and Christy?
If not, then all your pretentions are just silly, pointless and frankly, you should be embarrased.
‘just some guy’ says to ‘Tom’:
“The rest of your comments are subterfuge.”
All of Tom’s comments are subtrefuge.
I’ve been away for the last few hours, but checking back, a quick count shows 23 posts by “Tom”, more than 20% of the entire thread! I wonder if Tom has a life? Does he post throughout the day from his mom’s basement? [My excuse is an invalid wife, who I must stay close by. I pass the time b!tch-slapping anti-science trolls like Tom who argue with everyone else].
Tom should note that skeptics are the overwhelming consensus here. By Tom’s wacky ‘reasoning’, that automatically makes us right. [Aside from the plain fact, of course, that Tom is wrong.] He needs to re-read the Spencer/Christy aricle and watch them eviscerate the hapless punks who used pal review to end-run peer review.
Now, for the science: Spencer & Christy write in point #1:
1) the authors’ methodology is qualitative and irreproducible
Honestly, they could have stopped right there. If PCF’s results are not reproducible, then they are not testable. And if they ar not testable, they do not follow the scientific method. And if they do not follow the scientific method, they are pseudo-science. QED
Guys,
Everytime there’s a new troll who comes up with inane, pointless, factless and lying obfuscations. Tom is the latest iteration. Stop feeding such trolls.
@ Smokey – so consensus is a good thing then when non-scientists reach it supporting an self-professed biased source, but bad when reached anywhere else.
Maybe I am just dizzy from your merciless slapping, but that appears to make utterly no sense.
@Venter – so skepticism on a “skeptical” site is a problem how, exactly?
That seems like an orthodoxy, or belief oriented, stance.
Venter,
I think I’ll take your advice. Because emotion-based pseudo-science isn’t my thing.
The so-called “consensus” or “conventional wisdom”, or “real world” IS reality. MUST be respected and followed …. WHEN IT IS BASED ON FACTS and experimental results and is verifiable.
A “religion” or “faith-based-consensus” that refuses as a convention (and a requirement to the become initiated into the fellowship) to release its data, its research, and its methods.
That cannot independently reproduce its methods and its research, except by other “believers” in the fellowship, using (what else!) but the same papers that the fellowship requires as a belief system.
That has no evidence for its research.
That relies on its fellowship-paid cronies to edit its “research” but refuses at the same time to publish anything except its fellowship-paying research.
That seduces money from its sponsors in the government to grant further “research” only by its fellowship for results only favorable to its fellowship, gaining in return trillions in power and money for its sponsors in the government.
That “religious” consensus has less “evidence” and fewer witnesses than religion based on spirituality and morals.
And is much less believable.
Note, however, that socialism and communism – responsible for killing hundreds of millions in only one century – still has millions of “believers” in that “consensus”. It makes those believers no less fervent for the failures of either system (perhaps even more fervent in their hatred of the truth, and their spirits and their fervor even stronger in their continued belief in failure!), but it makes neither socialism nor communism any more correct!
@Tom
It looks like PCF made two wrong assumptions about UAH’s TMT. The first being that the hot target coefficient was an independent variable and the other that NOAA-9 was the only satellite that mattered. Their analysis was apples to oranges in a sense, so the paper is of little value.
My question, however, is why the hot target coefficient is dependent on the diurnal drift, other smoothing factors, and the order that they are applied?
Let’s consider the homogenization procedures of both satellite and surface measurements. My understanding is that the surface indexes apply independent factor adjustments such as TOB and instrument variances first and then smooth the station measurements. UAH on the other hand applies an independent diurnal drift adjustment, smooths the satellite measurements, and then applies a hot target coefficient that is dependent on the previous steps. This I find odd and possibly the source of PCF’s confusion.
AJ
No Tom, we don’t like mindless and brainless trolls derailing discussions with their stupidity and lies.
I believe everyone here, including Drs Spencer and Christy, are missing the point of PCF, and therefore missing how it plays into the alarmists’ agenda.
Drs Spencer and Christy, in the above rebuttal, repeatedly point out that the mid-troposphere temperature record is “rarely used”. However, there is one thing it IS used for, something that is actually very crucial to the debate over CAGW, though, sadly, not very well known.
There are many possible causes for global warming, and they all have “signatures” that, if you look hard enough, you can clearly see. Warming caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has the signature that the middle troposphere warms faster than the surface. But that has not happened. Just look at the trends presented here in Spencer and Christy’s rebuttal. According to UAH, Lower Troposphere (i.e., surface) temperatures have risen at a rate of 0.137C/decade, while MT temperatures have risen at a rate of just 0.45C/decade, less than one third of that of the surface. Even the more alarmist-friendly RSS records show 0.134C/decade in the LT, and 0.79 in the MT (less than 60% of LT), but the alarmists have come up with all kinds of “explanations” for why it LOOKS LIKE the MT isn’t warming as fast as the LT, and if you pile enough of these explanations on top of each other, and take them out to three standard deviations, you can just barely adjust that pesky MT temp up to slightly above the LT temp, and they claim this PROVES that the warming is anthropogenic in origin.
My favorite one was a couple of years ago when someone (not sure, but I THINK Trenberth was involved in this one too) claimed that the satellites, when specifically aimed at and calibrated for the MT, were nevertheless getting a signal that was partially composed of UPPER tropospheric, and even STRATOSPHERIC, temperatures. They applied some extremely generous (for them) assumptions and tortured the hell out of the numbers until the “adjusted” RSS (not UAH) TMT trend was only 10% below that of the TLT, and with a straight face claimed that this difference was “statistically insignificant”. So they concluded (in a way that no statistician would accept as valid) that the TMT trend was EQUAL TO the TLT trend, apparently forgetting that what they actually needed to prove was that TMT trend was GREATER THAN the TLT trend. (One wonders, if they had been able to “adjust” the TMT trend to 10% ABOVE the TLT trend, whether they would have used the same definition of “statistically significant”.) Curiously missing from this study was any discussion of whether the satellites, when aimed at and calibrated for the LOWER troposphere, were getting a similar corruption from the Middle Troposphere. You see, the satellite measurements of the LT are very much in line with surface thermometers and weather-balloon data, so they would have had to admit that no such signal corruption was finding its way into the LT temps, and then they would have had to explain how satellites can accurately record the temperature of the surface, 10 miles further away from the satellite, and with 10 miles more of atmospheric thickness to corrupt the signal, but can’t get an accurate read on the MT.
But they’ve never been able to come up with an explanation (or even a combination of explanations) for Spencer and Christy’s numbers. It’s just too big a difference to be explained by any of their made-up theories and bullspit “adjustments”. So, for the last 10 years, they’ve been trying to DISCREDIT UAH, with one theory after another about how Spencer and Christy flubbed the data. For example, they’ve been harping for YEARS about the “diurnial correction” of UAH, claiming Spencer and Christy aren’t doing it right. And this paper is just the latest lame attempt to discredit the UAH middle-tropospheric temperature record. Frankly, I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot with this, because the whole MT/LT inconsistency is a bit over the head of most of the general public (as is anything beyond “temperatures are warmer/cooler than they were before”), so the skeptics haven’t really pushed it like I believe they should. This paper might force our hand.
Why are you guys letting Tom bait you? He’s asking for proof that Spencer and Christy never published a paper critical of another paper without first consulting the author(s) of the original paper. But Spencer and Christy aren’t complaining about that. I guess they’re used to it after all these years. What they are complaining about is the fact that the authors of the critical paper don’t understand the algorithms Spencer and Christy used. Not as a matter of respect, but in order to do the calculations correctly, the authors SHOULD have consulted with Spencer and Christy (or someone else who understood Spencer and Christy’s work) before they started doing the math, and then maybe they would have gotten it right (of course, if they HAD gotten it right, it wouldn’t have proven what they set out to prove, which is why they INTENTIONALLY got it wrong).
And you need to just ignore Tom’s comments about the accessibility of the information. Maybe Spencer and Christy don’t PUBLISH the algorithms and raw data, but as true scientists, they are more than happy to provide any and all data, source code, or anything else used in the compilation of UAH data, to anyone who requests it. Compare that to the the other side. Not only do they REFUSE requests for raw data and code, but they fight, tooth and nail, against even valid FOI requests, and even when they are FORCED by law to give up the goods, drag their heels, delaying as much as possible. Their institutions (UVa, e.g.) fight against the very government (State of Virginia) which pays the bills for their research when that government asks for emails sent and received on a computer and internet account (both purchased with government funds), claiming it’s an invasion of privacy (when any government or university employee, or private-sector employee for that matter, knows damned well that there’s no expectation of privacy when you’re using your employer’s computer). They do everything in their power to keep their raw data and source code from ever seeing the light of day, even conspiring to DESTROY it rather than let it fall into enemy hands. The only way that Spencer and Christy’s code is “inacessible” is in the sense that most people just can’t understand it. It is not at all inaccessible in the sense that Hockey Team data and code are inaccessible, which is, for all intents and purposes, “Hell will freeze over before I let you see my raw data and source code!”
Tom understands both distinctions, but he’s willfully obscuring the issue and ignoring everything anyone here says to clear it up for him, while claiming, with a straight face, that no one is answering his questions. His questions have been answered over and over again, but he just keeps asking them. DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLL.
Interesting. Po Chedley is getting lambasted by public commenters over at UW’s press release for not getting input from Christy/Spencer before going public with thier paper. This is a big deal. The public is getting tired of this sort of chenanigans coming from academics.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 6:02 am
@ Bill Tuttle “Nope. It’s a generalist blog about “interesting things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.”
Interesting, so that suggests that what is expressed here are simply opinions untethered to any valid science?
Nope. It suggests only that there haven’t been enough goats crossing your bridge to keep you occupied.
@Tom (whoever that is)
If Spencer and Christy have failed to communicate with authors whose work they criticize I fail to see how that excuses PCF. I don’t know either way whether Christry/Spencer are guilty of the same misconduct.
Where I come from we are taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. Were you taught that? A simple yes or no is all I need from you. 😉
Trevor says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm
re; mid-troposphere warming faster/slower than surface
Good point. Since the criticism doesn’t change surface temperature trend one should indeed ask why PCF bothered with it. It does indeed change the signature away from, for example, the cloud iris effect (Richard Lindzen) back to CO2.
The CO2 signature arises because back-radiation from CO2 does not warm the tropical ocean much but rather raises the evaporation rate instead. This causes surface temperature to remain nearly constant and the mid-troposphere to warm instead when the water vapor condenses due to adiabatic fall in temperature below the dew point.
I point this out because it’s not a well accepted notion on this blog that back radiation cannot raise water temperature due to the physics of LWIR absorption by water. The energy in back radiation is practically all carried out of the ocean instantly by evaporation. Climate boffins acknowledge this when they speak of the CO2 “signature” even if they won’t come right out and say why. On the other hand Lindzen’s cloud-iris hypothesis results in more or less short wave radiation reaching the ocean surface which effects surface temperature more than mid-troposphere temperature.
This appears to be all about discounting scientists like Lindzen and Svensmark who present an increasingly compelling alternative to man-made global warming by way of natural variation in cloud type and distribution caused by factors external to the earth.
@ Venter – so anyone that raises questions on what is written here is a troll? Anyone that is skeptical and disagrees with the consensus here is inherently guilty of ” stupidity and lies”
Doesn’t that violate the very principle many claim to hold as a required activity to think for ones self, no?
If this is a site where skepticism is encouraged, why all the personal attacks and smears instead of any accountability for Spencer and Christy? Why not hold Spencer and Christy accountable to the very standard they are demanding Venter? Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do in the interest of science?
@bpascal – I mate. So you are agreeing then that Spencer and Christy are also in the wrong then?
Trevor said “He’s asking for proof that Spencer and Christy never published a paper critical of another paper without first consulting the author(s) of the original paper. But Spencer and Christy aren’t complaining about that.”
Spencer and Christy said “Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself. ”
Maybe I still suffering from all the personal attacks and smears, but that sure sounds like Spencer and Christy complaining.
@Just some guy said “Po Chedley is getting lambasted by public commenters ”
If you actually look at those comments topics include “Obama”, “schizophrenia”, “mantra”, “money”, “evil”, etc.
So forgive me, kindly, if I look at your assertion as either spectacularly ill informed, or deliberately misleading.
I suppose there is one other possibility, which is that if you really believe that it is good science to blindly accept data from a source that has proclaimed publicly that science is secondary to his goal, perhaps responses that include “Obama”, “schizophrenia”, “mantra”, “money”, “evil”, etc. seems totally reasonable as well. My goodness, how silly would that be?
Having been butted off the bridge countless times in succession, the troll nonetheless climbs back up, and dripping water, triumphantly declares his victory.
Trevor says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:07 am
“Why are you guys letting Tom bait you?… ”
Thanks for the post Trevor, well said, you summarised it. Trolls do not try to make any constructive discussion, but just disruption.
Just some guy says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:14 am
“Interesting. Po Chedley is getting lambasted by public commenters over at UW’s press release for not getting input from Christy/Spencer before going public with thier paper. This is a big deal. The public is getting tired of this sort of chenanigans coming from academics.”
Good to hear this. Thanks.
Tom:
Go away.
Richard
@Tom
>…as Christy and Spencer are academics does that not make them part of the problem per your statement?
>Or are they somehow special and exempted? If so it would be most enlightening to understand that process.
+++++++++++++++++
I am making no statement against the works of academics, I am just not letting them have the keys to the farm just because they study bacteria, if you get my drift. Christy and Spencer are doing exactly what scientists, academics or not, are supposed to do: to train, educate, lead or support their fields, uncover new knowledge, confirm or re-evaluate old knowledge and to contribute the development of an ever-advancing civilisation.
I fortunately still float into and out of universities and the private sector enough to know at least something about where the benefits of academia and the private sector lie. On the academic side, I was asked this morning to provide a complete explanation of how a certain set of emissions was calculated by a PhD candidate. This is an uncompromising request – the answer has to be complete and will be examined in detail (as it has already by LBNL) to see that the method is robust. If a few holes can be picked in it I must close them. That is how science is done. I can’t hide anything and still get published. In the private sector, ‘the medium is the message’ and advertising claims exceed the product so much of the time there are laws needed to control them.
If one of the lecturers knows how to calculate the emissions handily, it does not mean they automatically get to write EPA standards or create legislation and national standards, no matter how perfectly they understand the math that underlies the methods. Advice from Hansen on how to run an economy and how to protect ‘nature’ (as if nature was a potential litigant) can be considered but decisions are subject to consideration of input from other opinion holders (as if they also might know what they are doing). The key to unlocking the climate controversey is the realisation that most of the argument protecting CAGW is personal attacks on those who show contradicting evidence, and on people providing evidence that no case was properly made in favour of the need for alarm or the stupendously expensive ‘solutions’ (as if carbon trading was a solution) they have vainly imagined. That so many proponents of climate alarmism benefit materially from it is telling.
@ Crispin said “Academia always wanted to rule the world. That is why we keep them locked/tenured in ivory towers.”
Crispin said “I am making no statement against the works of academics, ”
Pardon my inability here, but are these not inherently conflicting assertion?
Maybe we can resolve that and then get back to why “The key to unlocking the climate controversey is the realisation that most of the argument protecting CAGW is personal attacks on those who show contradicting evidence” is an inherently wrong assertion.
troll said: “…. I look at your assertion as either spectacularly ill informed, or deliberately misleading.”
Here is cut and paste of all the comments at UW’s Press release, which follow and reply directly to Po Chedley’s comment:
“Stephen Po-Chedley: We do not know who reviewed our paper, but we did provide UAH with the final draft of the paper before UW Today posted this story. 3 days ago
Alex Harvey: Dear Dr. Po-Chedley, Why did this work not proceed in collaboration with Drs. Christy and Spencer? 12 hours ago, in reply to Stephen Po-Chedley
Mogumbo Gono: Stephen Po-Chedley, By never contacting the recognized experts on this subject for their input, advice, and constructive criticism, you have cemented your status as a pseudo-scientist. Making an end run around honest peer review is the kind of devious action that gives honest scientists a bad name. The public is becoming disgusted with your shenanigans. 19 hours ago, in reply to Stephen Po-Chedley
James in Perth: Just curious as to how much time UAH had to review your paper and whether they offered any comments? 1 day ago ,in reply to Stephen Po-Chedley
Charlesx: UAH had no chance at all to review the paper. They were only provided with the final proofs just before the paper was published. See Roy Spencer’s blog. 1 day ago, in reply to James in Perth
alvin691: Did you give UAH a chance to review your proposal before it was released to the public? I certainly hope the peer review process was transparent and robust. 3 days ago
William (aka Tom the troll): Question Alvin, if the Spencer and Christy work was open, robust and well documented why is any special review needed? If it was not open, robust and well documented to a point where other people can reproduce the results and it withstands scrutiny, why not? 1 hour ago, in reply to alvin691”
@ just some guy.
So – and let me be sure I get this right – you are saying that the author/source of data needs to be contact before it is reviewed despite that Spencer and Christy do not do that, it is not a practically viable idea simply due to the sheer volume of research, and requiring it violates the key principle of have the work adequately documented so it can be understood and consumed?
Is that what you are arguing for?
@Tom, What proof do you have that Spencer/Christy have ever attacked another scientist’s work and published it in a scientific journal, without first requesting input from the author of that work? I want the name of the article, which scientific journal it was published in, the name of the author(s) who’s work was being attacked, and a credible link proving that Spency/Christy wrote the paper in complete absense of the original author.
@Tom says:
>>Crispin said “Academia always wanted to rule the world. That is why we keep them locked/tenured in ivory towers.”
>>Crispin said “I am making no statement against the works of academics, ”
>Pardon my inability here, but are these not inherently conflicting assertion?
I have no problems with plumbers doing plumbing and I call upon one when I need expertise. If you will recall my original thrust it was that lots of people feel that because they are really good at something, perhaps the best in the world, they get excited at the thought that they can do lots of other things too, sometimes far outside their skill set.
As you will be aware if you hang out here much, it is a common argument used against ‘skeptics’ that ‘they have no expertise to comment on’ some subject. I have seen this argument used a lot when the writer does not have a substantial response to a pointed comment indicating there is a problem with the scientific argument in favour of AGW. On one level, it is valid in that we suppose training and qualification are pre-requisites to being able to make informed comment on some subject. On the other hand formal qualification or long experience often puts blinkers on one’s world views. It has been referred to as ‘the obscuring dust of acquired knowledge’. Thus a lack of formal qualification is not necessarily a disqualification to make informed or worthy comment. It is the value of the comment, not the speaker that should be judged.
The rube often points out the obvious. Some of course take this too far: a formal qualification is seen to be a sign of incompetence. Charles Bronson movies are good examples of the lone underdog getting even when the qualified and formal sector fails.
>Maybe we can resolve that and then get back to why “The key to unlocking the climate controversey is the realisation that most of the argument protecting CAGW is personal attacks on those who show contradicting evidence” is an inherently wrong assertion.
Perhaps you have notice by now that the thrust of Gavin’s piece above is an attack on the person of Steve McIntyre, not the rendering of assistance through his influence with the Team (of which he is a self-acclaimed member). Gavin’s frequent (hundreds, possibly thousands of examples) assertions are that someone has not qualified to give an opinion (which I interpret as a personal attack) and should therefore be ignored. Another typical answer is that a paper written by a ‘qualified’ person is defective because of the incorrect personal motives of the author (which I also view as a personal attack). The establishment of RealClimate as a mouthpiece for this diminuition of the valid and correct consideration of arguments contradicting the excess and alarm inherent in CAGW and the insulting of the works and motives of scientists who make every reasonable effort to reproduce what are arguably the foundational pillars of those claims, was offensive. The stated motive of the Team was to propagate the truth. If the truth must ‘out’ then let’s start with the data and the methods, the code and the corrections. If you ignore the ad homs, and are not misdirected by them, the edifice of CAGW can be more clearly seen for what it is.
@ Just some guy – now now, there is an open question on the floor that you need to respond to before asking the impossible;
So I will ask again – and let me be sure I get this right – you are saying that the author/source of data needs to be contact before it is reviewed despite that Spencer and Christy do not do that, it is not a practically viable idea simply due to the sheer volume of research, and requiring it violates the key principle of have the work adequately documented so it can be understood and consumed?
Is that what you are arguing for?
@ Crispin – thank you for the thoughtful and very well written reply. I quite enjoyed reading it and we agree on much of it.
I have not seen the Gavin material so I cannot comment on it.
@Tom, You seem to have gone silent. Cat got your tongue? While you scour the internet in search of some scrapling of evidence to your fictional double standard. Chew on this: There is one well-known example where a skeptic wrote a paper and submited / published critisms of a climate scientist’s work. That skeptic’s name is Steve McIntyre, the work he attacked was the hockey stick. However, unlike PCF, it is well documented that McIntyre made exhaustive attempts to get input and data from the original authors of the hockey stick before going public with his work.
@Tom, Answer to your question is no. Your snarkily worded twisting of this issue is not what I am arguing.
Now I’ll repeat my question:
What proof do you have that Spencer/Christy have ever attacked another scientist’s work and published it in a scientific journal, without first requesting input from the author of that work? I want the name of the article, which scientific journal it was published in, the name of the author(s) who’s work was being attacked, and a credible link proving that Spency/Christy wrote the paper in complete absense of the original author.
Tom, you’ve been waving your arms around over this so-called double standard for several days now. Are you now saying it is impossible to prove? Really?
Trevor says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:07 am
Why are you guys letting Tom bait you? He’s asking for proof that Spencer and Christy never published a paper critical of another paper without first consulting the author(s) of the original paper. But Spencer and Christy aren’t complaining about that. I guess they’re used to it after all these years. What they are complaining about is the fact that the authors of the critical paper don’t understand the algorithms Spencer and Christy used. Not as a matter of respect, but in order to do the calculations correctly, the authors SHOULD have consulted with Spencer and Christy (or someone else who understood Spencer and Christy’s work) before they started doing the math, and then maybe they would have gotten it right (of course, if they HAD gotten it right, it wouldn’t have proven what they set out to prove, which is why they INTENTIONALLY got it wrong).
Your implication that the authors don’t understand Spencer and Christy’s work fails to take into account Fu’s history of work in this area, in fact it was he who was the first to detect the source of S & C’s error which they subsequently corrected with their version 5.2 (a diurnal drift adjustment).
Phil. The problem is that PCF avoided contacting the recognized experts in the satellite measurement field. PCF broke with established past practice and did a fast end run through pal review, just in time for AR-5 and Rio. Anyone who has read The Prince and understands human nature can see what’s going on here.
@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest? Since clearly this happens in each and every case don’t by shy about showing, oh, say 5 years worth of that interactions. That would be most interesting and consistent with the requests made of Mann.
Eagerly awaiting that documentation – nice to be making progress on this. So very exciting.
Smokey says:
May 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Phil. The problem is that PCF avoided contacting the recognized experts in the satellite measurement field.>>>
Smokey, it is so much worse than that. They made assumptions about the methodology used with no evidence to suggest that their assumptions were correct, and they made no attempt to verify their assumptions in any way, shape, or form, before publishing. Right up there with “are you still beating your wife?”
@Tom – So, do you always open every post with “so”?
DirkH says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am
“@frank – maybe you could kindly explain how refusing to engage on the specific question on the Christy and Spencer double standard and author contact issue that they themselves raise is off topic? ”
The author contact issue is not important. PCF didn’t know the algorithms and made no attempt at finding out about them. They were obviously not interested in the algorithms. Which is a funny detail indeed. WHY did they invest their work but didn’t bother to do it RIGHT?
Why do you assume this, during the last ten years Fu and his team have published at least 3 papers on the use of the MSU for atmospheric temperature calculation, mainly focussing on the interplay between the stratospheric and tropospheric channels? This paper follows this same path, the creation by S&C of a synthetic channel (2LT, TLT) is a recognition of this interplay. NOAA-9 has been known to be the source of disagreement between UAH and RSS so it’s no surprise that Fu has focussed on this satellite. Problems with S&C’s treatment of the data from NOAA-11 was responsible for the large change in trend between 5.1 and 5.2 when they corrected their error (detected by others).
Smokey says:
May 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Phil. The problem is that PCF avoided contacting the recognized experts in the satellite measurement field.
Why do you assume that they didn’t contact Mears et al?
AJ says:
May 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm
@Tom
It looks like PCF made two wrong assumptions about UAH’s TMT. The first being that the hot target coefficient was an independent variable and the other that NOAA-9 was the only satellite that mattered. Their analysis was apples to oranges in a sense, so the paper is of little value.
Really? It has long been recognized that “NOAA-09 is the weakest link in the inter- satellite merging procedure and must, therefore, be treated with great care in order to produce accurate time-series of MSU brightness temperatures”
http://www.ssmi.com/papers/Stable_Tropospheric_Time_Series_IGARSS.pdf
@ Tom:
Tom said “that sure sounds like Spencer and christy complaining”.
Well, Tom, on the ridiculously small chance that it will make you go away, i’ll briefly ignore my own advice and answer this one post. If that’s what it sounds like to you, Tom, you need to clean the carbon dioxide out of your ears, because that wasn’t a complaint. It was a DISCLAIMER. Spencer and Christy were making it clear that they had nothing to do with the errors in PCF.
@Phil. says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I don’t see any disagreement in our comment. Do you?
@Phil. says: May 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm
On the other hand, maybe they were aware that NOAA-9 was not the whole story and that the hot target coefficient was not independent. In that case, they did a lousy job ascertaining how the coefficient was calculated and what impact the adjustment would have. It sill looks like apples to oranges to me.
AJ says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Phil. says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I don’t see any disagreement in our comment. Do you?
Yes, you assert that PCF assumed that ‘NOAA-9 was the only satellite that mattered’ without any evidence to back that up. Schabel et al. showed that NOAA-9 was subject to errors in particular so it’s a natural place to investigate.
oztomcd says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:41 pm
I’ve never had any doubt that the IPCC-aligned climatology establishment would eventually come after Christy and Spencer and the UAH dataset since it remains the only untortured raw data in independent hands.
Hardly, UAH has had 7 corrections which changed the trend of the data (usually first pointed out by others), in one case their data had a correction term applied with the wrong sign, fixing that resulted in a 40% change. The MSU temperature data can hardly be described as ‘Raw’ given the large number of corrections which must be applied to get accurate temperatures from the microwave signal, such as correcting for: orbital decay, diurnal drift, target coefficients etc. Interestingly S&C are producing a new version of their software which will process the data differently and make PCF’s corrections “moot”, they apparently address the very factors which PCF investigate, likely this will lead to a change in their trend.
Interestingly S&C are producing a new version of their software which will process the data differently and make PCF’s corrections “moot”, they apparently address the very factors which PCF investigate>>>>
It would be hard for anyone who actually read what they wrote and even half way understood it to conclude that this remark deserves to be called anything but bullsh*t. Have you no shame?
Phil. says:
May 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Cite? Like any new and complex method of measurement, they and others have found errors. However, yours is the first claim I’ve found that the errors were “usually first pointed out by others”. What’s your evidence for that claim?
w.
Fellow bloggers. When are you going to realise that you are just giving Tom (alias for a member of the hockey team) just what he wants; to distract from the intent of this blog. Let’s just stick to informed comments on the concocted paper and Spencer and Christy’s detailed scientific response.
As far as I’m concerned Tom is invisible, and that’s better than he deserves. Let’s leave it at that.
@ Willis – here;
Prabhakara, C., R. Iacovazzi, 1999: Comments on “Analysis of the Merging Procedure for the MSU Daily Temperature Time Series”. J. Climate, 12, 3331–3334.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)0122.0.CO;2
Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Tom, I asked Phil for his citation, not you. I’ll wait for Phil to answer what citation HE is using, as I doubt very greatly that you have a clue what Phil is doing.
In any case, I don’t find anything in that cite that covers my question … and your link doesn’t work.
Nice try, though …
w.
Friends:
re:
Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm
In other words, the troll claims a single example equates to “usually”.
Of coursed, the troll knows his/her/their/its post is patently ridiculous. Indeed, the stupidity of the post is intentional because his/her/their/its purpose is to disrupt proper discussion. And refutation of such stupidity is a disruption.
So, ignore everytrhing posted by the troll.
And I really do wish there was some way to cut-off the pay given to the professional trolls who currently infest WUWT.
Richard
Willis said: “… And your link doesn’t work.”
Thats too funny! 🙂
@Tom
Let the grown ups worry about the science. I’m still waiting for the proof of that “double standard” you’ve been driveling on about for 2 days. Sure you haven’t forgotten. Have you?
….Cut/paste….
What proof do you have that Spencer/Christy have ever attacked another scientist’s work and published it in a scientific journal, without first requesting input from the author of that work? I want the name of the article, which scientific journal it was published in, the name of the author(s) who’s work was being attacked, and a credible link proving that Spency/Christy wrote the paper in complete absense of the original author.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 11, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Phil. says:
May 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
… Hardly, UAH has had 7 corrections which changed the trend of the data (usually first pointed out by others) …
Cite? Like any new and complex method of measurement, they and others have found errors. However, yours is the first claim I’ve found that the errors were “usually first pointed out by others”. What’s your evidence for that claim?
When S&C first published they came out with a very low rate of cooling which several groups came out with criticisms of, Mears et al. which later produced the RSS data, Vinnakov et al., Fu et al. etc. Different defects were pointed out including: orbital decay, diurnal drift, target calibration, the effect of high ice, stratospheric contribution etc. The largest change of these was the one detailed by the RSS group which pointed out problems with NOAA-11, basically the adjustment was applied with the wrong sign, this was fixed in version 5.2. As I recall Fu et al. first pointed out that there was a problem with this satellite but didn’t identify the specific problem.
“In this work, we extend our method to TLT. InFig.1, BandC, we show a color- coded time-latitude plot of the corrections applied to TLT. For most latitudes, the Christy et al. TLT correction is of opposite sign from our TLT correction and from the corrections applied by either group for the middle/upper troposphere (fig. S2).”
http://www.ssmi.com/papers/mears_science_2005.pdf
Another major correction identified by others was addressing orbital decay:
Wentz, Frank J.; Matthias Schabel (13 August 1998). “Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends”. Letters to Nature 394: 661-661.
This resulted in version D, these two corrections resulted in a trend adjustment of +0.135.
OK Willis, I’m working this morning so didn’t have time to go into more detail?
davidmhoffer says:
May 11, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Interestingly S&C are producing a new version of their software which will process the data differently and make PCF’s corrections “moot”, they apparently address the very factors which PCF investigate>>>>
It would be hard for anyone who actually read what they wrote and even half way understood it to conclude that this remark deserves to be called anything but bullsh*t. Have you no shame?
Apparently your problem is that you only half way understood it, I suggest you read the following and cut the gratuitous insults.
“All of this will soon be moot, anyway. Since last year we have been working on v6.0 of the UAH datasets which should be ready with the tropospheric temperature datasets before summer is out. These will include (1) a new, more defensible objective empirical calculation to correct for the drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and (2) a new hot calibration target effective emissivity adjustment which results in better agreement between simultaneously operating satellites at the calibration step, making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary. So, since our new v6.0 dataset is close to completion and submission for publication, we have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset.”
Phil;
Apparently your problem is that you only half way understood it, I suggest you read the following and cut the gratuitous insults.>>>>>>>
Nope, I understood it. You said: “they apparently address the very factors which PCF investigate”
And then you quoted from the article: “making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary”
In brief, their new methodology no longer requires the step that PCF claim they were doing wrong. They in no way shape or form addressed the factors PCF brought up in their new methodology. If they had, the step being criticized would still be there, modified in some manner to take into account PCF’s criticisms. They found a way to obtain the correct data without taking the step being discussed by PCF at all. That is hardly addressing the factors that PCF raised.
And I think you know that.
I think you don’t care.
I think you have no shame.
And you protests of ad hominem attacks are pointless in the face of the manner in which you have carefully and obviously twisted the issue to your own purposes. Slimey comments deserve to be called slimey.
davidmhoffer says:
May 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
Phil;
Apparently your problem is that you only half way understood it, I suggest you read the following and cut the gratuitous insults.>>>>>>>
Nope, I understood it. You said: “they apparently address the very factors which PCF investigate”
And then you quoted from the article: “making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary”
Exactly, their new methodology which does not yet exist, when it does then the other experts in the field will no doubt address it, but until then version 5.4 is the existing version and papers and criticism about it are appropriate.
In brief, their new methodology will no longer requires the step that PCF claim they were doing wrong. They in no way shape or form addressed the factors PCF brought up in their new methodology how could they it doesn’t exist. If they had, the step being criticized would still be there, modified in some manner to take into account PCF’s criticisms. They have apparently found a way to obtain the correct data without taking the step being discussed by PCF at all. That is hardly addressing the factors that PCF raised. indeed it does because they claim to have rendered that correction moot
My corrections in bold.
And I think you know that.
I think you don’t care.
I think you have no shame.
That would appear to be your approach, the idea that S&C are planning to introduce new software to exist identified problems at some time in the future doesn’t mean that their existing product is immune to criticism.
And you protests of ad hominem attacks are pointless in the face of the manner in which you have carefully and obviously twisted the issue to your own purposes. Slimey comments deserve to be called slimey.
You’re the one doing the twisting.
You’re the one doing the twisting.
>>>>>
I shall let those whose reading comprehension and interest have brought them this far to draw their own conclusions.
Been following this argument…. Applying reading comprehension….. Agree with David.
“making the …. adjustment unnecessary” has a very different meaning than “addresses the factors which PCF investigate”. One implies the issue is moot, while the other implies the issues is valid.
Very subtle…. Very tricksey of Phil.
Phil. says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:31 am
Come back when you have time. That in no way provides the citations necessary to support your claim, which was:
You claimed 7 errors. Identify them. You claim that the majority of the errors were found by others. Identify who found them. Provide citations for your claims.
w.
PS: To help you to identify the seven errors you claim were found (but have failed to identify), here’s my list of the twelve errors I know were found in the processing, along with estimates of their effect on the results, from the UAH MSU T2LT “README” file. As far as I know, only one of these was identified by an outside group, although I’m happy to be corrected in this matter.
…
Update 8 April 2002 **********************
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
… your turn, Phil …
I think he’s using wikipedia. But please continue. I am very interested to see where this goes.
Willis Eschenbach:
re. your post at May 12, 2012 at 10:09 am
Excellent. Well done.
Please continue demolishing Phil’s assertions because his assertions could seem to have some merit to on-lookers (unlike the comments of Tom that are obviously silly).
Richard
Well Willis it’s Mother’s day weekend so I’ll probably get to it on Monday. Please note that I have provided citations for two version changes originated by others, D and 5.2.
Phil. says:
May 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm
You’ll have to be more specific, what is version change “D”? Everyone knows that the error leading to version 5.2 was discovered by Mears et al., but what is “D”?
In any case, I’ve documented 12 errors. All but one of them, as far as I know, were discovered by S&C.
Curiously, AFAIK the claimed change recommended by Fu has been adopted by RSS (but not UAH), along with its oddity—it leads to a negative weighting for part of the data, which is a physical impossibility. So if it’s the Fu claim you are referring to, I fear you haven’t dug deeply enough.
w.
Version D was related to orbital decay and was discovered to be an issue back in 1998 (I did some research). You can read more about it here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/uah-msu.pdf
Jump to the sections on “previous studies” and “new discoveries” if you don’t feel like reading the whole thing.
Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. There was no “mistake” being corrected, it was just new research being incorporated into the work by a responsible scientist. I’m guessing back then things were different as collaboration seems to have been the rule and not the exception.
I’d like to see what more Phil comes up, but in any case, I believe he has 2 out of 7 (or 12 depending on who’s count). He needs at least 2 more (or 5 more) for his “usually first pointed out by others” claim to be valid.
I also think his “applied the wrong sign” spitball is another tricksy word twisting game.
The citation: “…..the Christy et al. TLT correction is of opposite sign from our TLT correction ….”
has a different meaning than
“Christy applied the wrong sign.”
The cited version implies that the two papers disagree with what a correction should be, and that they happen to be in opposite directions. Phil’s version implies Christy just made a basic math error. So subtle…. so tricksy……
I see that our pal Phil never came back with the rest of those citations like he said he would. This thread is dead, and no one will probably see this, but just because I hate loose ends…..
So it’s now confirmed. Phil’s assertion that corrections to the UAH data is “usually pointed out by others” was a bald-faced lie.
Wah.
I came back to this thread for the express purpose of making a snarky remark should Phil fail to show as promised. But some guy beat me to it. Who? I dunno. Just some guy.
I always try and get my buddy from SacU to come into these forums and test out his thinking, but alas, here I am. Is there any thoughts or links to respond in kind to his following post?
=====================================
Interesting find. I would like to share with you a few references from a different perspective if i may though.
In 2009, a study was conducted to see what people though about global climate change. Though nearly 40% of the general public said they did not think humans had any significant impact on climate change, more than 95% of actively publishing climatologists reported that they do think humans significantly affect our climate through our gas emissions. (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
I also think it could be useful to define the changes that have recently been of interest to climate researchers, and there is a great reference list attached to this page (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/humanfingerprintshighres.pdf). These studies are a good place to start if you are interested in hearing an opposing argument, or if you are looking for credible evidence that climate change is actually happening.
Lastly, its perfectly ok to question science. It is by skepticism that truth is sought, and i encourage you to question these findings. I happened upon something that very clearly outlines the position of uncertainty and what exactly it means when conducting research and analyzing data. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/certainty-vs-uncertainty.html) I feel that this is an important concept when looking at these studies.
I agree that those who make absolute claims about what exactly will happen to our atmosphere as time goes by are out of line, and that cuts both ways. Lets question everything, even our impulse to reject each other’s claims. If i can see your side clearer and you can see mine clearer as well, maybe we will both be one step closer to the truth.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Phil. says:
May 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Well Willis it’s Mother’s day weekend so I’ll probably get to it on Monday. Please note that I have provided citations for two version changes originated by others, D and 5.2.
You’ll have to be more specific, what is version change “D”? Everyone knows that the error leading to version 5.2 was discovered by Mears et al., but what is “D”?
In any case, I’ve documented 12 errors. All but one of them, as far as I know, were discovered by S&C.
See above, I’ve already cited two.
Given the level of detail you’ve asked for Willis, i’m going to take a bit longer to put together a full response with full citations.
The versions were first identified by letter: A,B,C,D, then number: 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and next will be 6.0.
Version D addressed orbital decay and was identified in the following:
Wentz, Frank J.; Matthias Schabel (13 August 1998). “Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends”. Letters to Nature 394: 661-661.
Ha ha! Yup, the low hanging fruit is used up and he still falls short. Get ready for some tricksy word-craftery….. I’m sure he’ll figure out something clever buried in those details……
You should see how much arm-twisting it took to get my friend to admit his statement was based on 79 people for his consensus stat! http://www.facebook.com/sean.giordano/posts/132746873526843?