On Recent Criticisms of My Research
By Dr. Roy Spencer
One of the downsides of going against the supposed “consensus of scientists” on global warming — other than great difficulty in getting your research funded and published — is that you get attacked in the media. In the modern blogging era, this is now easier to do than ever.
I have received many requests recently to respond to an extended blog critique by Barry Bickmore of my book, The Great Global Warming Blunder. The primary theme of my book was to present evidence that scientists have mixed up cause and effect when diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system, and as a result could have greatly overestimated how sensitive the climate system is to our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
For those interested, here is our most extensive peer reviewed and published evidence for my claim.
But for now, instead of responding to blog posts, I am devoting all the time I can spare to responding to peer-reviewed and published criticism of my work. The main one is Andy Dessler’s paper in Science from last fall, which claimed to find positive cloud feedback in the same 10 years of NASA satellite radiative energy balance (CERES) data we have been analyzing.
In his paper, Dessler dismissed all of the evidence we presented with a single claim: that since (1) the global temperature variations which occurred during the satellite record (2000-2010) were mostly caused by El Nino and La Nina, and (2) no one has ever demonstrated that “clouds cause El Nino”, then there could not be a clouds-causing-temperature-change contamination of his cloud feedback estimate.
But we now have clear evidence that El Nino and La Nina temperature variations are indeed caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes.
And without going into detail, I will say it now appears that this is not the only major problem with Dessler’s diagnosis of positive cloud feedback from the data he presented. Since we will also be submitting this evidence to Science, and they are very picky about the newsworthiness of their articles, I cannot provide any details.
Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has recently told me Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months. Science has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct.
In the meantime, I will not be wasting much time addressing blog criticisms of my work. The peer-reviewed literature is where I must focus my attention.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The world can only advance from all these studies, whether whatever the cause(s). So in that at least this controversy has greatly advanced our understanding of the natural world.
consensus of scientists=dead wood with axe in hand.
Have you reviewed this. Apparently, this has been supressed also.
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/physicist-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-in-earth%E2%80%99s-climate
Dear Dr. Spencer: Looking back on Science’s performance over the past few years I an not surprised. I don’t know if it results from this recent spate of Post Normal foolishness, or just collective Cognitive Dissonance. They have cast their lot with those who are more interested in protecting their grants and advocating for some cause or another, all to often the fundamental components of sound Popperian (Is that how it should be spelled?) Science are being lost.
What is most disconcerting about attacks by Brickmore and the other under-informed wags, is how far from the mark they can be. In the case of your book, I would personally be flabbergasted if Brickmore actually read it. I looked at his blog. He obviously did not understand it, assuming he read it. On the matter of Science, I simply boycott them. They publish so little ground braking stuff in geology that I can get away with that. Not everyone can or should. In that respect the best way to bring science back to is philosophical grounding is probably example.
It is obvious the editors at Science are boycotting your blog, WUWT and my philosophical musings too. Otherwise they would surly know better. In my case it is not so much a boycott, as ignorance of my existence. They are in good company on that score.
Science can be as dangerous, as useful.
Re: Peer Review, Pal Review, and Broccoli
February 17, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
The greatest danger in the current peer/pal review system is that important papers can get buried or delayed through excessive review comments and/or ultimate rejection. Yet, there are good reasons for a blind or double-blind peer review process.
Willis: \\We need a system where we can see what the Editor is doing, because at this point, I don’t trust them one iota //
To protect authors from adverse delay, to partially open the peer review process, and to protect the business interests of the journals, I propose this middle ground:
30 days after a journal accepts a paper for peer review
The Journal should catalog online the Paper Title, Author, Abstract,
and Review/Acceptance/Publication status.
+ This protects the author with a date of work claim. The Abstract is public giving some connection of the author to the idea.
+ There is no change in the process if a Journal rejects papers within the first 30 days. It is not cataloged.
+ Within the first 30 days, the Abstract should reach publication acceptance or the paper should be rejected outright.
+ The cycles of peer review and revision leaves a public trail.
+ The Journal has a list of “coming attractions” with anticipated publication date. Anticipation of an Abstracted paper should be a win-win for Author and Journal.
+ The Journal is protected because only the Abstract is cataloged, but the paper is still held until published.
+ The Improvement in the quality of Abstracts would be an expected result.
http://support.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/209/~/track-the-status-of-an-accepted-paper
Go get ’em, Roy.
Jack says:
April 2, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Have you reviewed this. Apparently, this has been supressed also.
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/physicist-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-in-earth%E2%80%99s-climate
Always mistrust anything which claims to “prove” that AGW doesn’t (or does) exist.
The paper you referenced is the Miskolczi paper which, coincidentally, Roy Spencer has commented uopon here:
http:/www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
The primary theme of my book was to present evidence that scientists have mixed up cause and effect when diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system…..
Cause and effect are inextricably linked, hence possibility of substituting one for the other. On a rare occasion nature generously provides something that looks like a ‘mirror image’ of an event, but it is neither a cause or effect.
This appears to be the case where the global temperature (Loehle’s reconstruction) is ‘mirrored’ by changes (first differential) in the Arctic’s geomagnetic field. There is an odd ~110 year period (1380-1490) with a sharp temperature drop when the correlation turns temporarily negative, but subsequently returns to the original tendency.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/T&dB.htm
As you assume sciencemag (etc) to be biased, wouldn’t it be more reasonable (for you and for lindzen) to go to a different journal. For example one of the egu-open-access-open-review-ones?
If truth in advertising were required, “Science” would be required to relabel their magazine as “Fraud!”
“In the meantime, I will not be wasting much time addressing blog criticisms of my work. The peer-reviewed literature is where I must focus my attention.”
You are Superman. Thanks for checking in. We do love you.
Frankly, I am beginning to think Miskolczi should get the next Nobel prize in physics.
After reading Spencers comments and the following discussion.
A bit of off topic, unqualified to be a peer, commentary.
As I stated here, Dessler made a fundamental error in his reasoning about feedback. He thinks that, if he plots cloud cover versus temperature change and finds a positive slope, then he has positive feedback. That is incorrect. It establishes only positive correlation, not positive feedback.
The orientation of the phase plot is very much dependent on the phase lag in the system. To see this, plot cos(theta) versus cos(theta+phi) for theta between -pi to pi and choose phi to be a constant in that range. Try different values. Can you make the plot tilt in either direction? If you followed the instructions, yes you can.
Positive feedback can, however, usually be determined by the direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) of the loops, because a positive feedback induces a leading phase (phi is positive), while negative feedback induces a lagging phase. Counterclockwise encirclement strongly suggests negative feedback. Spenser found counterclockwise encirclements. Ergo, the feedback is almost surely negative.
Roy Spencer says:
Do you think this is unique to going against the consensus of scientists? You might look around at some of the “consensus scientists” and what they have been subjected to. After all, despite the fact that your initial papers regarding the lower tropospheric temperatures turned out to have several errors in the analysis that significantly affected the conclusions, I don’t think you have been subjected to witch-hunts by Congressional committees and attorneys general like Mann et al. have. (And, just to be 100% clear here, I am not saying that you should have been subjected to such things … I am just saying that others shouldn’t have either.)
I think you have been, for the most part, treated rather well in the blogosphere…and in the political sphere…compared to Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa, etc.
Your work is the most important work in climate science at this time. I pray that God showers you and your work with unbounded Grace and Blessings. Success in your work will follow quickly. Thanks for informing us about what you are doing.
I should have been clearer for those who want to try the experiment. Plot cos(theta+phi) on the Y axis, cos(theta) on X. You will see CW encirclements for phi positive and CCW for phi negative.
Joel Shore says:
“I don’t think you have been subjected to witch-hunts by Congressional committees and attorneys general like Mann et al. have.”
Dr Spencer hasn’t been picking the taxpayers’ pockets while hiding his data and methodologies. BTW, where is Mann’s MBH98 data, anyway? Been 13 years now.
ROY
You and all the so-called skeptics should start up a new climate science journal.
Harold Pierce Jr,
“So called?” Apparently you are unaware that skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method. As is complete transparency.
Mainstream climate pseudo-science has neither. Why do you suppose that is?
John Finn,
While I respect Dr. Roy Spencer’s work, I totally disagree with his evaluation and interpretation Dr. Miskolczi’s work. I believe that Dr. Spencer is dismissing what he genuinely believes is Dr. Miskolczi’s theoretical work because he is hung up on simple mis-interpretation of Dr. Miskolczi’s model. I can not go into detail here but suffice it to say that it possible for Dr. Spencer to be wrong on some things and this is one where he has blundered badly.
Most people do not realize that there are two components to Dr. Miskolczi’s work.
One is theoretical and the other observational. Even if totally dismiss Miskolczi’s theoretical work entirely, you still have to address what he has found observationally.
HE HAS SHOWN FROM OBSERVATION [deliberate use of capitals] that the mean infra red opacity of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 60 years or so. Given, that the infra-red opacity of the atmosphere must have increased because of additional Co2, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from his OBSERVATIONS [deliberate use of capitals] is that some other green-house must be compensating for the increased opacity due to CO2. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the “other green-house gas” is water vapor.
In fact, if you actually do a spectral analysis of the infra-red opacity of the atmosphere
over the last 60 years, you find that the spectral signature is exactly the same as the spectral signature of water vapor changes in the atmosphere that are induced by the El Nino/La Nina/ENSO climate phenomena.
Surprise, surprise, surprise! The increase in infra-red opacity of the atmosphere due to Co2 is roughly being negated by a decrease in infra-red opacity due to the decrease in the specific humidity (water vapor mass per Kg of air) of the upper troposphere in the tropics.
Why is this happening you ask? For the simple reason that increasing energy input in the lower troposphere in the tropics has resulted in an increase in convective overturning along the zone of convergence. The net result of this higher rate of convective overturning is the massive pumping of de-humidified air into the upper troposphere, lowering the overall specific humidity in this important region of the atmosphere.
When you combine this with the fact that half the Earth’s surface area lies between + and – 30 degrees of latitude, and the fact that most of the solar energy deposited in the atmosphere takes place in the tropics, it isn’t surprising that this negative feedback mechanism, caused by lower amounts of water vapor in the upper (tropical) troposphere plays a dominant role in setting the infra-red opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Dr. Miskolczi should be given credit for point out this important result. If you accept what he is saying (and no one has shown that his observational evidence is wrong), then you must conclude that Co2 has been relegated to a bit player in controlling the overall heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Smokey says:
He didn’t hide anything. Those are all just excuses. What you really don’t like is the results. The rest is basically just trumped up nonsense.
Smokey says:
We’re well aware of that. We also think that perhaps you should try practicing it sometime.
Joel Shore preposterously says:
Michael Mann “didn’t hide anything.”
OBVIOUSLY Joel Shore has never read The Hockey Stick Illusion, in which the decade long saga of Steve McIntyre’s tireless – and ultimately unsuccessful – efforts to get Mann to disclose his code and methodologies is thoroughly documented, chapter and verse, with extensive footnotes.
Joel problably even truly believes his own nonsense. But for anyone else, a visit to Climate Audit will set Joel’s phony record straight. Do an archive search there for MBH98, Mann ’08, Hockey Stick, Wegman, Disclosure, MBH, or any of the topics along the left sidebar.
Michael Mann has never cooperated with McIntyre’s numerous requests for full disclosure – a necessary part of the scientific method, a topic that Joel Shore seems constantly ignorant about.
Skepticism is necessary for the scientific method to work, and as I’ve told Joel Shore numerous times, skeptics have nothing to prove. Therefore, scientific skeptics simply ask questions, and request all underlying raw data, methods, etc. But that information is deliberately withheld IMHO for one reason: if Michael Mann disclosed all of his data, methodologies, metadata and code, he would face charges of scientific misconduct, and he knows it. So he stonewalls.
Joel Shore says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Smokey says:
Apparently you are unaware that skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method.
We’re well aware of that. We also think that perhaps you should try practicing it sometime.
——————————————-
Who is the “We” in “We’re” Joel ?? Do you remind people who use the word “Skeptic” in private as a pejorative of this when you’re faced with it ??
Answer: NO