NOTE: This will be a “sticky” top post for awhile, new posts appear below this one. UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a new cartoon.
I was hoping to have a quiet holiday weekend away from WUWT doing some household chores. Apparently that isn’t in the cards.
Below, I have reposted an essay from Dr. Roger Pielke Senior regarding an opinion piece published in The Daily Climate attacking Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer for their ongoing work in satellite based measurement of the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Pielke does an excellent job of summarizing his rebuttal points, and I’ll point out that he’s used some very strong unconventional language in the title of his piece.
One point Dr. Pielke touches on related to an orbital decay correction applied to the UAH satellite measurement comes from his first hand experience, and I urge readers to read it fully to get the history. One line from the op-ed in The Daily Climate bothered me in particular:
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.
This my friends, is breathtaking for its sheer arrogance, agenda, and the scuttling of the scientific process in one sentence.
The entire process of science is about building on early incomplete knowledge with new knowledge, and discarding old knowledge in favor of new evidence that is better understood and supported by observational evidence. All scientists make mistakes, it is part of the learning process of science. Any scientist who believes he/she hasn’t made mistakes, has never made a correction, or hasn’t built upon the mistakes of others to improve the science is deluding themselves.
And that crack about “…mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.” is ludicrous. By the very nature of the scientific process, scientists work to uncover flaws in the work of others, and when mistakes and irrelevancies are burned away by this process, what is left in the crucible of scientific inquiry is regarded as the pure product.
I could say the same thing about GISS related to Hansen and Gavin’s Y2K temperature problem which required a correction, also something other scientists were “forced to uncover”.
Even Einstein made mistakes, from Physics Today in 2005 Einstein’s Mistakes by Steven Weinberg:
In thinking of Einstein’s mistakes, one immediately recalls what Einstein (in a conversation with George Gamow2) called the biggest blunder he had made in his life: the introduction of the cosmological constant. After Einstein had completed the formulation of his theory of space, time, and gravitation—the general theory of relativity—he turned in 1917 to a consideration of the spacetime structure of the whole universe. He then encountered a problem. Einstein was assuming that, when suitably averaged over many stars, the universe is uniform and essentially static, but the equations of general relativity did not seem to allow a time-independent solution for a universe with a uniform distribution of matter. So Einstein modified his equations, by including a new term involving a quantity that he called the cosmological constant. Then it was discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding. Einstein came to regret that he had needlessly mutilated his original theory. It may also have bothered him that he had missed predicting the expansion of the universe.
For those reading who are prone to eye rolling, I would never presume to compare anyone in climate science to Einstein, but there’s an important and germane science history lesson here worth noting that parallels what has happened with the Spencer and Braswell paper challenging climate models and climate sensitivity.
Consider Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe based on observational evidence. Einstein created a mathematical model of the universe, and as Wikipedia reports: Earlier, in 1917, Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a “fudge factor“) to the equations to avoid this “problem”.
Einstein didn’t launch a tirade in the press. Instead, Einstein was humble enough to consider that he’d made a mistake and modified his mathematical model to fit the new observation. He later came to regret the cosmological constant, but it demonstrates his ability to assimilate new observational evidence.
Like Spencer and Braswell, Einstein too got his share of public drubbing for his work. Hitler commissioned a group of 100 top scientists in Germany write a book called “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” (Hundred authors against Einstein).
Einstein was asked: `Doesn’t it bother you Dr Einstein that you’ve got so many scientists against you?’
And he said: `It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact’. Source
And that is the way of science. Opinions don’t matter, certificates, awards, and accolades don’t matter. Only the provable evidence matters. In the case of Spencer and Braswell, they too bring observational evidence to bear that may require adjustments to mathematical models. The difference here has been that rather than take the path of reconsideration, and arguing using the science following the peer review process, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth ignore that process and resort to a diatribe of ad hominem attacks, which in my opinion with that one sentence referencing to “…serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”, crosses the threshold from argument to libel.
Apparently, it is impossible for them to consider observational evidence supporting a lower climate sensitivity, and thus they’ve scuttled the scientific process of correcting and building on new knowledge in favor of a tabloid style attack.
Clearly, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth share none of the humble virtue demonstrated by Einstein.
Here’s Dr. Pielke’s essay:
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
There is an opinion article at Daily Climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of Roy Spencer and John Christy. It also is an inappropriate (and unwarranted) person attack on their professional integrity. Since I have first hand information on this issue, I am using my weblog to document the lack of professional decorum by Keven Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick.
The inappropriate article I am referring to is
Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science
published on the Daily Climate on September 2 2011. The article is by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick.
Their headline reads
In his bid to cast doubts on the seriousness of climate change, University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer creates a media splash but claims a journal’s editor-in-chief.
The science doesn’t hold up.
I am reproducing the text of the article below with my comments inserted.
The text of their article starts with [highlights added]
The widely publicized paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, published in the journal Remote Sensing in July, has seen a number of follow-ups and repercussions.
Unfortunately this is not the first time the science conducted by Roy Spencer and colleagues has been found lacking. The latest came Friday in a remarkable development, when the journal’s editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, submitted his resignation and apologized for the paper.
As we noted on RealClimate.org when the paper was published, the hype surrounding Spencer’s and Braswell’s paper was impressive; unfortunately the paper itself was not. Remote Sensing is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should have received an honest vetting.
My Comment:
The claim that a journal on remote sensing, which publishes paper on the climate system “but…does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science”, is not climate science is obviously incorrect. This trivialization of the journal in this manner illustrates the inappropriately narrow view of the climate system by the authors. That the paper “should have received an honest vetting”, I assume means that they or their close colleagues should have reviewed it (and presumably recommended rejection).
The Trenberth et al text continues
Friday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.
My Comment:
My son has posted on this (see). I agree; for Kevin Trenberth to receive an apology is quite bizarre.
Their text continues
Unfortunately this is not the first time the science conducted by Roy Spencer and colleagues has been found lacking.
Spencer, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist, and his colleagues have a history of making serious technical errors in their effort to cast doubt on the seriousness of climate change. Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming.
My Comment:
This statement of the history is a fabrication and is an ad hominem attack. The errors in their analysis were all minor and were identified as soon as found. Such corrections are a normal part of the scientific process as exemplified recently in the finding of a substantial error in the ERA-40 reanalysis;
Screen, James A., Ian Simmonds, 2011: Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look. J. Climate, 24, 2620–2627. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1.
My direct experience with the UAH-MSU data analysis has been over more than a decade. I will share two examples here of the rigor with which they assess and correct, when needed, their analyses.
First, at one of the CCSP 1.1 committee meetings that I attended [for the report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences (in Chicago)], an error was brought to the attention of Roy Spencer and John Christy by the lead investigators of the RSS MSU project (Mears and Wentz).
The venue at which this error was brought up (in our committee meeting) was a clear attempt to discredit John and Roy’s research as we sat around the table. Roy found a fix within a few minutes, and concluded it was minor. This fix was implemented when he returned to Alabama.
When I saw how this “exposure” of an error was presented (in front of all of us, instead of in private via e-mail or phone call), I became convinced that a major goal of this committee (under the leadership of Tom Karl) was to discredit them. I told John this at a break right after this occurred. At a later meeting (in December 2008),
I explicitly saw Tom Karl disparage the Christy and Spencer research.
In order to further examine the robustness of the Christy and Spencer analyses, in 2006 I asked Professor Ben Herman, who is an internationally well-respect expert in atmospheric remote sensing, to examine the Christy and Spencer UAH MSU and the Wentz and Mears RSS MSU data analyses. He worked with a student to do this and completed the following study
Randall, R. M., and B. M. Herman (2007), Using Limited Time Period Trends as a Means to Determine Attribution of Discrepancies in Microwave Sounding Unit Derived Tropospheric Temperature Time Series, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008864
which includes the finding that
“Comparison of MSU data with the reduced Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate radiosonde data set indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long-term trend with a warm bias.”
The robustness of the UAH MSU [the Christy and Spencer analysis] is summarized in the text
“Figure 5 shows that 10-year trends center on the mid-1994’s through 10 year trends centered on the mid-1995’s indicates the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where the Sonde−UAH trends are not. In addition, for 10-year trends centered on late-1999 through 10- years trend centered on early 2000 the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where Sonde−UAH are marginally not. Another key feature in the RSS−Sonde series is the rapid departure in trend magnitude from trends centered on 1995 through trends centered on late-1999 where the Sonde−UAH magnitude in trends is nearly constant. These features are consistent with the diurnal correction signatures previously discussed. These findings [in] the RSS method for creating the diurnal correction (use of a climate model) is [the] cause for discrepancies between RSS and UAH databases in the LT channel.”
The latest Trenberth et al article is a continuation of this ad hominem effort to discredit John Christy and Roy Spencer.
The Trenberth et al article continues
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover. Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models.
This trend continues: On Tuesday the journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a peer-reviewed study by Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that undermines Spencer’s arguments about the role of clouds in the Earth’s energy budget.
We only wish the media would cover these scientific discoveries with similar vigor and enthusiasm that they displayed in tackling Spencer’s now-discredited findings.
My Comment:
Roy Spencer is hardly discredited because there are papers that disagree with his analysis and conclusions. This will sort itself out in the peer-reviewed literature after he has an opportunity to respond with a follow on paper, and/or a Comment/Reply exchange. Similarly, John Christy can respond to the Santer et al paper that is referred to in the Trenberth et al article.
What is disturbing, however, in the Trenberth et al article is its tone and disparagement of two outstanding scientists. Instead of addressing the science issues, they resort to statements such as Spencer and Christy making “serial mistakes”. This is truly a hatchet job and will only further polarize the climate science debate
What about all those social scientists and communication experts who were advising climate scientists about how to comunicate with a sceptical public? Was nobody listening? This kind of witch-hunting will do nothing to convert sceptics, but it will add fuel to the fire of those who believe there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress dissenting views.
The article of Trenberth!
Its a proof of that he has no scientific argument left. Personal attacks and he is shows to be just a simple sore looser who doesnt know what to sahy anymore. Im proud to have chosen the right guys to trust and from behavior it was very easy from the beginning who to trust or not.
They are hiding behind thier censur RC afraid of getting in to any debate. Spencer takes them on openly and from the debate on his blogg its obvciuos that he really knows what he is doing and doesnt loose a single arumentation. The team hiding behind “Obscurity” trying to shot Roy down with false accusations and a behavior that doesnt even fit in a sandbox. The team is a pathetic excuse of what a scientist should be. Roy Spencer doesnt allow him self to degrade himself down to their level and thats how a winner acts.
Spencers observations against the teams models on steroids is no match. The outcome is given!
Why shold anyone have repect or trust in the “team” ? They havent earned it and already spent the trust that were never there.
Can anyone explain why Wolfgang would apologize to Trenberth? Apologize for what?
Does Wolfgang or Trenberth imagine that Spencer had a duty to quote Trenberth and state that he, Spencer, is specifically criticizing this postion? Why would anyone think that? (One might think that the position needs criticism but that Trenberth’s presentation of that position is idiotic and choose not to quote Trenberth.)
Does anyone think that Spencer had a duty to state that Trenberth has a different approach that is…is what? Is equally valid? That would be stupid. Is worthy of respect? That would be stupid? Spencer is criticizing Trenberth, after all.
Does anyone think that Spencer has a duty to bow to Trenberth? Clearly, Trenberth does.
Interesting paradigm difference in engineering reviews, Theo: those you invite are precisely those you may be criticizing. It is, at best, intentional hostility. However, it works because all parties have a career on the line (even if their jobs are immediately safe.) Brutal, but tends to work well in that context.
Mark
Ian H says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I Initially had the same reaction as you upon seeing savethesharks writing ABRAHAM in all caps, but I think this is a similar misunderstanding to the one by Dave Springer on the “Breaking” thread re Roy Spencer’s reference to engineers – you’ve missed the point of the emphasis. Abraham’s role as a member of the Team is not as a producer of the stuff they pass off as science; rather he is a propagandist for the Team. Since the best of them is simply developing computer models to ‘prove’ AGW, and as we see, Trenberth et al do not like having their models contradicted by empirical evidence, all savethesharks is saying is that the Team’s bar for science is very low, and Abraham pretty much scrapes the bottom in his Powerpoint and other ‘refutations’ of sceptical science.
I propose that Anthony create the “Wolfgang Wagner Award” to be bestowed annually on some person of importance in climate science, such as an editor of an academic journal, who has “done a Wolfgang” during the preceding year. The criteria are unsettled at this time. We can use Wolfgang as a template. The criteria would go something like this: “the editor of a journal reads some upsetting remarks on a blog, lambasts the authors and his staff in print, and blows himself up.”
At the beginning of each August, Anthony could post a “Request for Nominations for the Wolfgang Award.” Nominations would be open for comments. At some point, Anthony closes nominations and uses some method yet to be decided to choose the winner and a couple of others.
Everyone please feel free to take this suggestion and run with it.
izen;
Your “resignation” narrative is elaborate BS. Wagner resigned because RS wouldn’t cave to the pressure from the Team to retract the article, and he had to decide whose side he was on.
His bumbling and confused “apology” is nothing more than a declaration of allegiance and obeisance to the Consensus, AKA the Hokey Team.
Dr. Spencer, Dr. Christy, Dr. Braswell, Anthony,
What can I, as an individual, do to assist you and your determined stand on facts and integrity? You are not alone. Many like myself are more than willing to help. You have legions of willing ‘soldiers’ at your beck and call, eager to help you. Tell us how…. Where can we individually and collectively bring pressure to bear? Through the media? Through the financial backers of your opponents? We can frontal charge, flank and enfilade fire, defilade and snipe, or fifth column attack… but we need organization and we need guidance…..
You are facing a well financed, entrenched, determined, and organized opposition. Don’t try to fight them with small squad tactics alone! Facts and science are not the only tools in your tool box nor your small circle of trusted friends your only resources. You have an unguided legion of supporters, ready and eager to help. Show us how!
Third Spear Carrier On The Right.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:30 pm
And what happened, did RealClimate with its much greater reach pass on posting their opinion?
In their attempts to reduce Spencer and Christy to the intellectual level of the Grocery Checkout Gossip Rag, they appear to have beat themselves to it.
It would be great if Trenberth were to appear on TV as he did following the Climategate kerfuffle. He is such an arrogant a***hole.
Attention Tom Karl, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth.
Read this article and weep. You can only wish for such a knowledgeable group that have the facts and skill of the WUWT readers, commentator’s and contributor’s You are a sad bunch who can’t accept or explain the truth, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel over and over again by publishing inferior rebuttals and scum pond science that even die hard warmists can see through. You and your [snip] are in full retreat, your running out of financing and time. You are masters of the foot in mouth, shoot yourself in the foot syndrome. Your deceitful world and shrinking pool of believers are dying on the vine.
Good riddance!
Ian H says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:25 pm
savethesharks says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Trenberth, Gliek, ABRAHAM, Karl, Santer.
With names like this, would anybody expect any better from The Machine??
WTF – why have you capitalized ABRAHAM. Is this
some kind of antisemitic comment!?
EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!!
====================
No. You dumbass.
I don”t have to explain myself.
**** your false assumptions.
This was geared toward the completely totatlitarian Professor Abraham.
Lighten up.
mark t,
September 4, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I don’t see where I disparaged anyone’s training. I simply pointed out that Trenberth couldn’t get another climate scientist to add any heft to the article. What I saw was a puerile attack on the competency of Spencer and his colleagues.
I absolutely believe other fields of science are perfectly capable of legitimate climate data analysis. It is after all the legitimacy of the argument and not the person that is important. I saw no legitimate arguments presented in the Trenberth screed. He didn’t want to take sole responsibility for it, so he went outside the field to get a couple supporting authors.
What an amazing piece of anti scientific propaganda. Trenberth should appologize and shut up at least until he can learn a little something about how scientific method works.
Finding and fixing errors is the whole point of the process. Trenberth’s ongoing refusal to look at observarions or consider explanations that on the basis of the data are unquestionably better than his own; means he is not a scientist regardless of some title bestowed on him by a university.
vigilantfish says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Ian H says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I Initially had the same reaction as you upon seeing savethesharks writing ABRAHAM in all caps, but I think this is a similar misunderstanding to the one by Dave Springer on the “Breaking” thread re Roy Spencer’s reference to engineers – you’ve missed the point of the emphasis. Abraham’s role as a member of the Team is not as a producer of the stuff they pass off as science; rather he is a propagandist for the Team. Since the best of them is simply developing computer models to ‘prove’ AGW, and as we see, Trenberth et al do not like having their models contradicted by empirical evidence, all savethesharks is saying is that the Team’s bar for science is very low, and Abraham pretty much scrapes the bottom in his Powerpoint and other ‘refutations’ of sceptical science.
===============================
Exactly.
Thanks for the clarification, vigilantfish.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Dear Messrs Karl, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth
This will not achieve anything…..except high blood pressure.
Regards
Free Advice
I guess the problem is with these people’s way of predicting future. They think that what was happening in the past will continue to happening in the future. Temperature has raised in the past so it must always raise in the future. Spencer did mistakes in the past so he must always make mistakes.
There is an opportunity to make lemonade here. (“When the going gets tough, make lemonade.”) S&B could call for a “jury” of a dozen distinguished retired scientists from various relevant fields outside climatology to hear & read the evidence, question the opponents, consult with experts (both sides could supply names), and issue opinions on this controversy.
Each side could name three members, and those members could chose the other members. (Alternatively, some members could be selected by any scientific society under whose auspices the Inquiry (as it should be called) is held.) Members should be warned that their names and votes will be etched in stone on a wall somewhere, to shame them in the future if they vote for what’s convenient or appealing now, rather than doing the right thing.
This Inquiry could serve as a template for dozens of similar additional Inquiries on other contested points of the GW controversy.
I always thought the “gang” worried about Mann not being able to control his emotions and likened him to a “Loose Cannon”. It would appear that Trenberth is out of the same mould and his signature is all over the opinion piece. Shameful actions from shameless people!
PS: Scientists who have taken strong positions–or maybe any positions–on the GW controversy would not be allowed to serve as “jurists.”
I was looking at Trenberth’s CV. Membership of countless committees and organisations. Also, ‘The total number of publications (April 2009) is 45 books or book chapters, 186 journal articles, 23 Tech. Notes, 104 proceedings or preprints, and 65 other articles, plus three videos, for a total of 423 publications plus 3 videos.’
This guy has spread himself so thin, it’s no wonder he doesn’t understand what Spencer and Braswell are saying.
With each episode of this dismal type, I wonder more about the motivation. Desperation shows in Trenberth’s writings past and present. What are the stakes?
No longer do I believe that personal reputation or scientific satisfaction drive the agenda.
Each outburst reinforces my hypothesis that there is a core of people who have a large financial investment in the success of CAGW and the carbon tax and relatives. I think of these as powerful people who are not above driving scientists to do unusual acts by threat or reward. From sniffs and hints here and there, I get the further impression that this core investment group includes people able to influence the daily news. (Others have commented on the future reliance of the BBC Pension Fund on the success of CAGW, but I have no independent knowledge of this).
As to the motivation of the Editor of ‘Remote Sensing’, the hypothesis extends to the core people assisting the placement of ‘stooges’ into positions of influence. If the stooge does not perform, he/she gets the chop.
It’s not conspiracy theory. It’s more the way that powerful people have enriched themselves in stock markets over the decades by manipulation of information. Money is to be made by advance knowledge of imminent change, so why not help create change? What else could generate cash in the amounts indicated by carbon credits/taxes etc?
If you seek to do something positive, dig into who’s likely to make heaps of $ if CAGW succeeds, then out them.
“It was precisely this kind of treatment of McIntyre in the early 2000′s that got me to start paying attention to the climate “debate”. ”
Me too. Not only do they protest too much, they do so in unsubstantive, logcially fallacious, anti-scientific ways. These are the enraged outbursts of a naked emperor.
Ironic that it is the likes of Trenberth that are demonstrating the anti-scientific gyrations of one desperately clinging to a faith commitment in the face of growing cognitive dissonance. It is the sort of thing that they imply about Spencer with their ad homs, while he is the one sticking to the methods of science.
Scientists make mistakes?
We’re doomed!
The publicity raised on this event sure denies the claim “the science is settled.”