Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.

Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

“I cannot believe it got published”

Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”

Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR

I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?

Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.

The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.

About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)

But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?

I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.

For example….

…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David Falkner

I’m not sure if this is a repost from Dr. Spencer’s site, but:
“…ancient events which we have virtually do data on…”
is probably supposed to be:
“…ancient events which we have virtually no data on…”
Dessler’s comment struck me much in the same manner. Isn’t tweaking a model the purpose of modeling? And wasn’t there just a paper published tweaking the aerosols in the model and then claiming the aerosols caused the post-98 slowdown?

R. de Haan

If this exchange of comments is regarded as a game of chess, the empire is checkmate in two moves.

I recommend we collect all silly retorts by the “usual suspects” and use them against their future works

Robw

The truth will out…
I just love watching another card from the pillars of the AGW house get pulled out. The tide has definitely turned in favour of REAL SCIENCE.

Dave Dodd

Dissed by that bunch of bozos should be proudly worn as a badge of honor!
Thank you, Dr. Spencer, et al

On my first dive into the AGW debate I noted that Steve McIntyre made his points with math while the people at RealClimate stuck to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Now everything is different but nothing has changed.
Using the argument that “My model is better than your model.” is a transparent attempt to ignore that the data falsifies their model. Of course saying“I can’t believe that this ever got published” is just back to the tried and true ad hominem.
I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.

ChE

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Sounds like Bellarmine talking about Galileo.

Keep plugging away Roy, you’ve got them making incoherent statements now. The end is in sight.

Trenberth and Fasullo also responded in a guest post at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
The second sentence includes the obligatory: “News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites…”
A note to Trenberth and Fasullo : That’s as far as I read. Your post began with nonsensical name calling, so I assumed the rest was nonsense.

Don K

“Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. ”
This would be a spokesman for the same community of experts who failed to notice that Mann et.al’s hockey stick had dispensed with the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period? Paleoclimate indeed. Is there any evidence that Schmidt et. al. have any particular familiarity with the Paleoclimate record?
And why wouldn’t one expect the paleoclimate record when interpreted by folks who know what they are doing to tell pretty much the same story told by current satellite data? Does Dr Spencer see any fundamental conflict between the two?

DirkH

Kevin Trenberth should be glad somebody has finally discovered where the missing heat went.

“the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”
Masterful irony! Does this remark presage a flurry of (harrassing) FOI requests from Trenberth et al?

Doug Proctor

For a science that is “settled”, and the outcome/processes, “certain” it is significant that Schmidt et al respond so vigourously and quickly to disagreements with their findings. A strong offence is the best defence and all that, but the lady’s protests make one wonder why she is so touchy. If the technical work is so solid, you’d think they would dismiss, disregard, yawn about Spencer thoughts, not set about dismembering it (with sarcastic bewilderment at its foolishness).
Touche, Monsieur Spencer.

Mike

How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?

One of the most important laws in climatology is the reciprocal relationship between the time lag for Gavin’s riposte and the seriousness of the blow to the team. The nearly instant and vociferous attack here indicates that a) the team are very worried, and b) the team had possession of the paper prior to publication
By the way – inviting the team to ‘become a little more creative’ is probably not wise. These are the people who think nothing of deleting incriminating emails, faking their graphs, and redefining peer review and the scientific method.
You’d think that if the science was so settled their bile would be a little more contained, wouldn’t you?

PaulH

The “Bad Astronomer” is flustered as well, including himself with the usual suspects:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
It’s not clear whether he read the entire article either.

Latitude

Wait a minute…….
I thought the science was settled
/snarc
Keep going after them Dr. Roy, you’re my hero

James Sexton

lol, Doc, yeh, you’ve sent them over the deep end on this one. Discover magazine did an exceptional job of including the most logical fallacies in one little article than I ever remember seeing in so few words.
Apparently, J. Taylor also authors for the Heartland institute and they once got money from Exxon, so, we should ignore your science. I once have a cousin, twice removed, married to a guy that inherited land with an oil well on it, so….. I guess, I can never publish. I’m immediately disqualified because of my obvious bias.
And, yes, they did quote the Kev in the article, too. And apparently you are an advocate of ID….. so, there you go. Apparently your are part of the “far right”. Which, btw, hates the Big Bang…… I never knew we didn’t like comedic piano bars, ……..
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Someone should tell that mental giant, Phil Plait, that the Big Bang theory was introduced by Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

Athelstan.

Dr. Spencer, the greater the indignation, the closer you must be to the truth.
“Usual suspects”, is right, ‘tweaking models’ – who patented that ‘technique’?
And then we could start on the T record and get into tree ring proxy data sets……………couldn’t we KEN?
May I suggest lads, that you put your own house in order, not that there is much of value therein.

Shaun Dunne

Tallbloke I think Roys response would best go along these lines
Take gavin’s words
“The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.”
Forget Dressler and Trenberth, forget their incoherency. Take gavin’s statement and draw the logical conclusion. Gavin has given 3 possibilities. I think Roys approach of showing a simple model that is consistent with the observations, doesnt address the uncertainty. It hints that the error may be in the models, it doesnt prove it. To prove it one needs to eliminate gavins objections one by one
1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.
3. Errors in the models: need to get specific here.
I think Gavin is making a very coherent statement. he doesnt deny the mismatch. He tells you clearly what issues need to be addressed. Knock those issues down one by one and your left with a conclusion that he cant deny. The models are too warm. Time to figure out why, exactly. But first, steps one and 2

Pamela Gray

If there are serious disagreements and there are plausible proofs of these disagreements, they should put it in the journal as a rebuttal letter. Off the cuff pithy comments not followed by such serious published debate are decidedly unprofessional.

James Sexton

Maurice Garoutte says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:08 am
I must have missed the part about the study being funded by big oil, or maybe something has changed.
===============================================================
Nope, nothing has changed, ……. “He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.”
Of course, Heartland doesn’t receive funding from Exxon, but we shouldn’t let little facts like that get in the way of a good smear attempt. Why bother with the truth when lies can further an agenda?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

RockyRoad

“Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

“I cannot believe it got published”

Were Kevin talking about the missing heat, perhaps it is his missing heat that we don’t believe now.
On the whole, it looks like The Team is fearful of becoming irrelevant. Oh, did I say “becoming”, because this has not been a good month for CAGW acolytes. (It kind of reminds me of the Debt Ceiling crisis–whether spending yourself to death or circumventing the truth, it eventually catches up with you and no amount of groveling, grousing, or griping will reverse the inevitable.)

Hoser

The other side are shaped by group-think. That’s why “scientific consensus” has traction. It’s done for political reasons, since AGW has a political basis. For one thing, it’s funded by government to justify the regulations they want to impose on us.
Consequently, since there are more of them, they can get away with holding skeptics to a higher standard. There is power in the group. Group thinkers are afraid of unrestrained individuals. Power in the hands of persons disconnected from a group association are considered dangerous to members of herds. Those working supposedly for the good of the group are protected, even after making serious errors, because they meant well.
Herds form as a means of protection from a perceived threat. Freedom is traded for a sense of safety. I don’t think anyone is surprised by the reaction to the paper. I’m afraid the only way to break the hold of the herd masters is to demonstrate that the real threat is AGW itself. We get it. Unfortunately, we lack a strong majority who realize the cost of AGW policies in lost jobs, lower standard of living, higher prices, invasion of privacy, wasted tax revenue, growing police state, etc.

James Sexton

Hmm, and again another comment went to never, never land?

R. Gates

What group did the original peer review of the paper? If the answer is there was none, then you can consider the comments by these other others as the post-publication peer review.
In reading their comments it does seem as though Dr. Spencer’s analysis would lead to the notion of clouds forcing the ENSO cycle whereas quite the opposite is the case as clouds are a result of a release of heat from the oceans. This also goes to the widespread belief by some that La Nina “cooling” means less energy in the system, when in fact the suppression of cloud formation during La Nina episodes is a time when more net heat is being absorbed by the ocean.

Scott Brim

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000-2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find it is not possible with current methods to quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

Dr. Spencer, in your opinion, what kinds of new observational techniques, what kinds of new empirical data and evidence, and what kinds of new analysis methods would be necessary to determine with reasonable certainty what the atmosphere’s CO2 sensitivity actually is?
In other words, what should we be doing in observing directly how the atmosphere actually responds to higher CO2 concentrations that we are not doing now?

RockyRoad

Steven Mosher asserts three possibilities:

1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.
3. Errors in the models: need to get specific here.

Numbers 1 and 2 are moot points, Steven, and aren’t that critical to the outcome (or let the modelers expose the data processing errors and/or errors in the data since they’re making these fantastic allegations).
Simply jump to step 3, get the model code, adjust the forcing factors downward until the results fit the empirical data, and report the differences in the factors. The results will show they’ve been too aggressive in their warming assumptions (which isn’t surprising because who would pay for a model that’s not a news headliner, right?). End of argument.

pat

Accurate data has always been the bugaboo to Warmists. Which is why, of course, they spend so much time censoring and altering data.

As Tallbloke says: The end is in sight..; and as the chinese philosopher said: “Wait in your front door and you´ll see the corpses of your enemies passing by”

Mike says:
“How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”
Good question. Because as Mike should know, the Climategate emails exposed the plain fact that there exists a conspiracy between climate journals and climate charlatans like Mann, Jones, etc., to sabotage any skeptical scientist who submits a paper that deviates from the alarmist narrative.
The conspiracy is exposed in the emails. Mike should read them to learn about the corruption of the journals first hand, written by the scheming perpetrators themselves.

Slabadang

Trenberth from RC!
“To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model. ”
Isnt that just fantastic!! Trenberth havent understood that the buty with Spencers observations dont need that as the data is everything included. Hes arguing to fix something that isnt there and defelitely nott broken.
The final comment is:
“The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).”
When a layman like my self realize that his is talking BS and tries to avoid the actual discrepancy between models and observations by laying smooke screens

Chris Jarrett

Roy, your ‘publication’ is a joke. The journal is an internet, on-line journal where authors provide the reviewers to the editor and then pay to have it “published”. It’s a publication venue for articles that won’t get accepted in real journals.

rbateman

You can’t harvest the crop before it has ripened, unless you like sour grapes and bad wine.
The unsrupulous, however, will try to sell you a green crop as the real thing.

jaypan

@steven mosher
“The models are too warm” and now Dr. Spencer should prove why?
It’s not his models, right?

Tilo Reber

I’ve seen Roy Spencer and Keving Trenberth testify before congress together, and I must say, that Trenberth has this tendency to make these huge absurd judgements based on absolutely no evidence. Trenberth is the guy who long ago stated that CO2 forcing + feedback was always going to be strong enough to overcome natural variation. So here we are, with thirteen years of no warming and Trenberth is still searching for his missing heat. It’s like a guy searching for his wife in his house long after his wife has left him.

Joe Bastardi

There is no evidence of any trapping hot spots at 400 mb where their modeling is claiming it will be, and hence the positive feedback. Roys work merely confirms what Roy and the rest of us already know.. In fact with the oceanic and solar cycles changing, global temps in the long haul are going to go the other way. That is not a bold prediction given what is occurring.

James Sexton

Smokey says:
July 30, 2011 at 10:18 am
Mike says:
“How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”
Good question. Because as Mike should know, the Climategate emails exposed the plain fact that there exists a conspiracy between climate journals and climate charlatans like Mann, Jones, etc., to sabotage any skeptical scientist who submits a paper that deviates from the alarmist narrative.
===============================================================
And, as Dr. Spencer alludes, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”…. the Kev is part of the gate-keeping team.
Now, why and how the Gav and the Kev think they’re qualified to comment on a study by Dr. Spencer, essentially interpreting satellite data, is beyond me. If I thought the data was flawed, I go to an expert and ask…… perhaps Dr. Christy or someone at RSS. Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum?….. not so much.

Latitude

“I cannot believe it got published”
“even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

R. Gates

Mike says:
“How many journals did Spencer submit the paper to before he found one that would take it?”
Then Smokey says:
“The conspiracy is exposed…”
____
Peer review is now a conspiracy? The Spencer and Braswell paper is now getting the review is should have had before being published.

Doug in Seattle

The ball is back on Dr. Spencer’s side of the net after Trenberth, et al give a weak return. Now its time for the spike. Perhaps Kirby or Svensmark will take the honors.

JDN

@Roy:
Everything you say depends on that CERES satellite working the way you think it should. How does it perform the measurements? Does it look at total irradience on a panel and the deconvolve to determine radiance from a point on the earth, or, does it look down at the earth in blocks and then reassemble the angular distributiion of radiance? Or something else? There are so many devils in that detail that you shouldn’t blindly accept the data. So, can you comment on why this satellite is measuring what you need to determine the radiation budget?

KnR

In a way Spencer should be grateful , three hundred years ago these ‘characters. would have been calling for him to be burnt at the stake for daring to suggest anything that part of the established dogma .
They have no choice their entire professional life and standard in tied up in AGW , they will defended to the dearth as their so far in that can’t back out . So they attack blindly not even knowing what it is they attack , all that really matters is that they react to any challenge to the dogma .

Steve Garcia

Roy:

(Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)

Almost no single paper in science is a “proof” of anything. Each one stands as evidence of what it argues. The total body of evidence from multiple papers comprises the proof.
The “consensus,” i.e., the bulk of peer-reviewed papers does, in fact*, argue against Dr. Spencer’s side of things. The “*” is there because with the Trenberth-ian efforts to control what makes it through the peer-review process, we may not ever know what the true balance is between one side’s arguments and the other. In emails exchanged a few years ago with Dr. George Taylor, who was then the Oregon State Climatologist, George talked about how the older climatologists – who were much less convinced by the consensus – had realized that it was a madhouse (my word, not his) and that to argue against CAGW was to invite serious funding problems, and a large number of them were simply lying low.
Well, Dr. Spencer has not lain low, thank goodness. The discussion over at SlashDot on his paper is almost entirely picking on nits, as far as I can see, with the bulk saying either that he hasn’t “proven” anything (see above), or that some sentence in his paper argues against himself, or that it doesn’t trump anything – besides the ones that point out that, after all, this is Dr. Roy Spencer, and this is UAH, so what else can we expect out of him? (Many there seem to also confuse climate warming itself with anthropogenic warming; they can’t understand that it might be warming for reasons other than human activity (or human activity other than CO2), so they see any warming as proof that mankind is evil – intentionally so – and will, some day, stalk and kill Bambi’s mother, so that our grandkids won’t have Bambi anymore like we did.)
The first real point, as I see it, comes from Einstein, in his point that it only takes ONE real, solid, uncompromising fact to disprove a theory and that consensus means nothing in the face of that fact.
The second real point is that as long as there can be found holes in the CAGW theory – as long as there are any tangible facts arguing the other way – the science cannot not be settled.
I give Dr. Spencer a lot of credit for sticking to his scientific guns and being an adult among a bunch of immature fellow scientists who have gone off half-cocked in a wrong direction because of what they WANT to be true. I would define “immature scientists” as ones who want something to be true, so they garner facts to fit their desired conclusion, rather than let the facts point them to an objective conclusion. It is a lot like being infatuated with someone and only being able to see her/his good points; reality will educate them eventually – but in the meantime the adults in the room have to put up with all the gushing and cow eyes. And no matter what the adults say, the immature ones will defend their POV assiduously. Though he is well outnumbered, he keeps pointing out the errors of their ways.
Science is not about jumping to conclusions and then corralling facts to suit that conclusion. If conclusions do arise, they can only be tentative at first, and then science’s job is to derive enough tests that can falsify them. If correct, the conclusion will pass. In a complex field such as climatology, one such test is not enough to prove or disprove the entirety – but it does swing the pendulum one way or another. This paper swings the pendulum a little bit away from the CAGW conclusion, and the immature scientists “on the other side” aren’t happy about it. Big deal. The adult scientists on the other side and in the middle should be able to judge what it does to the overall state of things.

Tilo Reber

Steven Mosher:
“1. data processing errors? How do you prove its not that
2. errors in the data? see what science gavin does that relies on the same data.”
LOL. This is true of any studies that use emperical data. And studies that don’t use emperical data don’t tell us anything.
Mosher: “I think Gavin is making a very coherent statement. he doesnt deny the mismatch. He tells you clearly what issues need to be addressed. Knock those issues down one by one and your left with a conclusion that he cant deny.”
Gavin is grasping at straws. If you could satisfy one and two he would find some other straw to grasp. Take the Church and White study that we just looked at. Suppose I said that “well, it may not be true because there may be data processing errors or errors in the data”. But let’s say that I gave no evidence of these errors. I just asserted the possibility and rejected Church and White on that basis. Would you buy that and expect Church and White to prove that there were no errors in their data processing or their data? I don’t think so.

Gates says:
“Peer review is now a conspiracy?”
Of course, as anyone who has read the damning Climategate emails knows. Even Gates’ famously closed-minded cognitive dissonance can’t get around that fact.

Steve Garcia

A bit OT here, but the prosecutor Trenberth brought it up, so the defense is allowed a wider latitude…
@Slabadang July 30, 2011 at 10:19 am:

Trenberth from RC!

“During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño…

I’d like to know how he can assert this. I’ve searched high and low and can’t find out where the scientists say the heat energy for El Niño comes from. I know, Trenberth has much better access to sources than I do. I would have this question: What paper explains the mechanisms of HOW the La Niña “uptakes” and “stores” the heat? I’d like to see exactly what assumptions are behind this assertion. I have a hypothesis in the back of my head that I’d like to falsify and get rid of, if it is worthless.

Interstellar Bill

Here missing heat, here missing heat, heat, heat, wherever you are.
I have lots more delicious grant $billions, fresh from a bankrupt government’s printing presses…
Please, please, come out and rescue our scam, it’s almost too late!

Brian

James Sexton says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:55 am
“lol, Doc, yeh, you’ve sent them over the deep end on this one. Discover magazine did an exceptional job of including the most logical fallacies in one little article than I ever remember seeing in so few words.
Apparently, J. Taylor also authors for the Heartland institute and they once got money from Exxon, so, we should ignore your science. I once have a cousin, twice removed, married to a guy that inherited land with an oil well on it, so….. I guess, I can never publish. I’m immediately disqualified because of my obvious bias.”
Yes, James… James Taylor can’t be taken seriously because of his over the top article and ties to Heartland Institute. The guy is obviously a flim-flammer and probably a god fearing Republican also. If Spencer himself wasn’t trying to pass off his agenda, he would have called Taylor out on his over the top article.