Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day

Cover of "Accepted (Widescreen Edition)"

Cover of Accepted (Widescreen Edition)

Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes:

Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized.

The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process for O’Donnell et al 2010 or the comment by Ross and me on Santer et al 2008. The Trenberth article was accepted on the day that it was submitted:

Received: 8 September 2011 / Accepted: 8 September 2011 / Published: 16 September 2011

CA readers are well aware of long-term obstruction by the Team not simply regarding details of methodology, but even data. Trenberth objects to incompleteness of methodological description in Spencer and Braswell 2011 as follows:

Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.

Obviously these are principles that have been advocated at Climate Audit for years. I’ve urged the archiving of both data and code for articles at the time of publication to avoid such problems. However, these suggestions have, all too often, been resolutely opposed by the Team. Even supporting data, all to often, remains unavailable. I haven’t had time to fully parse Spencer and Braswell as to reproducibility but note that Spencer promptly provided supporting data to me when requested (as did Dessler.) In my opinion, Spencer and Braswell should have archived data as used and source code concurrent with publication, as I’ve urged others to do. However, their failure to do so is hardly unique within the field. That Trenberth was able to carry out a sensitivity study as quickly as he did suggests to me that their methodology was substantially reproducibile, but, as I noted above, I haven’t parsed the article.

Trenberth observes that “minor changes” in assumptions yielded “major changes” in results, concluding that the claims in Lindzen and Choi 2009 were not robust:

read the rest here: More Hypocrisy from the Team

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
UK Sceptic

UEA whistles
FOI cough

KR

From the Trenberth paper conclusions:
“Consequently, our results suggest that a range of model skills in replicating the regressions of SB11 exists, but rather than stratifying them by climate sensitivity as done without basis by SB11, one should stratify them by their ability to simulate ENSO… Moreover, the degree of model fidelity is not directly relevant to their climate sensitivity.”
Those are some of the same conclusions Dessler came to. Hmm…

Good grief!
The hypocrisy really is worse than we though.
It is a travesty.

Keith

Trenberth, Jones and the Team see it differently of course. To them, obfuscation is allowed when it’s those evil sceptics wanting to know how you’ve conjured up the papers that form the basis of the biggest tax grab of all time (and records stretch back further than 32 years for that). Reason? They know they’re right, they’re just right, OK?
One for Josh perhaps, when he’s recovered: Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Santer and Steig unmasked by the guys from the Climate Mystery Machine – Watts, McIntyre, Spencer, Lindzen and Eschenbach. “We would’ve got away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling sceptics”

Oh my…… Anthony, this is my vote for the quote of the week. “Numerous attempts have been made to constrain climate sensitivity with observations.”
This is the beginning sentence of the “Travesty’s” response.
I forgot, observation is secondary in science now and in no way should observing reality constrain our thoughts of climate sensitivity. Just let them run wild and free without the hindrance of observation.
I’m not sure I can read more, but I’ll try……..

RockyRoad

Only an author with peer review in his pocket can accomplish a one-day turnaround. This dramatically shows there is effectively NO pier review process–either because it was completely dispensed with, or the peer reviewers agreed completely with the paper and simply rubber-stamped it. Something smells to high heaven in this whole sordid affair!

One just sits there dumbstruck. No matter who’s wrong or right but turnaround of 1 day versus the norm of a couple of months even for like minded papers shows a degree of arrogance beyond belief. Arrogance to assume that nobody catches on how this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the peer review process has been totally corrupted.

It really is a case of ‘it’s Not about what you know but who you know’.
One thing I’ve noticed is that all these new taxes and economic levies on industry, all seem to be planned years ago and now there has been a large push to implement these destructful green economies and expensive energy regulations before we enter into a period of cooling.

Wade

Don’t forget. According to some study, the number of peer-reviewed publications you have is a accurate measure of how reliable and competent you are.
So to sum up. The more peer-review publications you have, the more qualified you are. Also, don’t forget it is a crime when your friends review your publication, unless your friends agree that AGW is real. It takes a publication a long time to be reviewed when is anti-AGW, but reviews that are pro-AGW can be reviewed in as little as 1 day. Despite all this, it is those who are against AGW that are considered corrupt and paid-off by Big Media and the vocal environmentalists (which for some, like Al Gore, is a misnomer because he really isn’t an environmentalists).
I am now convinced that science is now more corrupt than politics and some religions.

ONE day, eh? Astonishing. Someone turned over the climate pal review rock.
Compare that instantaneous turnaround to this, which is more the norm in professional journals.

They are relentless are these Dessler and Trenberth;et al. Absolute experts on the “climate” they create with their computer models; with their thinly veiled contempt for Spenser and Braswell et al.. If computers existed 200 years ago there would be someone who would shreik: Horse manure will be 20 feet thick in Manhattan by 1900. little would they have known that it took another 111 years for it to get that deep, in places. Am I alone in my astonishment that everybody doesn’t see the hypocrisy of the Global Warming, Climate Change-disruption, “establishment”?
I wonder if it’s warm in the models today, ‘Cause it’s a bit cool here in South Florida,75F this morning, only 80’s at 1PM. “Chamber of Commerce Weather” is what they call it.
Regards.

Robert M

Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.
Trenberth needs to have a chat with Mann about openness. It seems like he is one of those that Trenberth needs to get after.

whatever

so does anyone have any comments on the actual content of the Trenberth comment, or just allegations of conspiracy?

Kitefreak

UK Sceptic says:
September 16, 2011 at 9:04 am
UEA whistles
FOI cough
———————–
Very well said.And you know who the champion of the UEA (CRU) is, don’t you? Come on, who pays a visit to offer his support of the sterling work they are doing should they ever run into choppy waters. You know.
The whole US Academy / British Royal Society thing is stinkingly corrupt, and the learned journal publications and much ‘research’ coming from universities is part of the same system. Not to mention the media and their obvious complicity.
But no, there’s no conspiracy, no back-room deals, no dark overlords. No, it just all happens by accident and coincidence. That’s it. Ah, that’s better… what’s on the telly?

Mike

It is clearly labelled “Commentary.” Thus it is not regarded as a peer viewed article.

It must be nice to get service so quickly when everybody else has to wait. It’s like a Speed Pass.
Is your paper supporting our scam? OK, fast lane.
Are you a member of the Team? Good, go right on through, no speed limit.

Kevin Kilty

Smokey says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:11 am

That is some story. I thought parts of it had been fictionalized, until, at the end, I read the testation. I was really bothered by the suggestions that content of a comment had been leaked, which allowed authors an opportunity for a quick erratum. I have decided that this has happened to me a couple of times also, but I have no proof.
I have generally found peer review to be helpful, but it takes forever and sometimes we run into idiots along the way that make it, well, idiotic. So I have decided to write no more professional papers forever. Life is too short for peer review.

Definition of “rubber stamp” (various sources):
1. “to process, approve or decide matters routinely rather than through careful consideration“, 2. “a person who echoes or imitates others, a mostly powerless yet officially recognized body or person that approves or endorses programs and policies initiated usually by a single specified source”
Synonyms (from various sources):
“vouch, okay, certify, accept, confirm, re-echo, sign, endorse, undersign, affirm, validate,
subscribe, authorize, corroborate, echo, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, admit, adopt, affirm, agree to, approve, assent, assume, avow, bear, buy, comply, concur with, cooperate with, give stamp of approval, give the go-ahead, give the green light, give the nod, go for, lap up, okay, recognize, rubber-stamp, set store by, sign, sign off on, take on*, take one up on, thumbs up, undertake”
I would add: “Buy off”
Rubber stamp (politics):

A rubber stamp, as a political metaphor, refers to a person or institution with considerable de jure power but little de facto power; one that rarely disagrees with more powerful organs.
The term itself likely stems from the commonplace practice of subordinate employees or officials being deputized and given the authority to sign the name of their superior or employer.
In situations where this superior official’s signature may frequently be required for routine paperwork, a literal rubber stamp is used, with a likeness of their hand-written signature.
In essence, the term is meant to convey an endorsement without careful thought or personal investment in the outcome, especially since it is usually expected as the stamper’s duty to do so. In the situation where a dictator’s legislature is a “rubber stamp,” the orders they are meant to endorse are formalities they are expected to legitimize, and are usually done to create the superficial appearance of legislative and dictatorial harmony rather than because they have actual power.

Per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_stamp_(politics)
.
.

Scott Covert

It seems the best way to get published would be to spoof one of the team’s email addresses and submit via that route. Sine the “Peer Reviewers” don’t appear to actually read the paper, you could publish the Wizard’a Assistant by Walt Disney et al with impunity.
It might actually work.

Bill Illis

If we take the lower bound of uncertainty in the climate models with the lowest sensitivity (or individual model runs that have no warming trend), these are consistent with observations.
In other words, no warming is consistent with the global warming models. Models that exhibit no warming for periods of time are the only accurate ones.
If you ask me, this type of uncertainty range (as Trenberth and Santer are using in recent papers/comments) should be disallowed. How can no warming be consistent with a 3C per doubling global warming theory.

Buzz Belleville

Putting aside conspiracy theories, it may just be that the scientific community was so embarrassed to have Spencer, Braswell hanging out there unrebutted that it acted quickly to debunk a patently shoddy paper that had somehow been published. If this was any other area of science than climate change, that would be the logical conclusion to be drawn by both the editor’s resignation and the Dessler and Trenberth papers. What if that is all there is to it here?

mpaul

If there was ever a doubt that politics has corrupted climate science, this is surely exhibit A. Trenberth needs to be able to ignore SB11 in AR5 in order to manufacture the results that the UN has commissioned. By placing this reply in Remote Sensing (after allowing 1 day for peer review), Trenberth can claim that SB11 has been refuted. I imagine that Trenberth has also issued orders to the now fully compliant editorial board of Remote Sensing to hold up any responses from Spencer of Lindzen until after the AR5 publication deadline.

Over to Roy Spencer. One assumes that the editors of Remote Sensind will grant him the same sort of treatment they have accorded to Kevin Trenberth. One wonders what the status of the Dessler paper in GRL is now.

Buzz Belleville

Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, and the scientific community would have been undermined if it was left hanging out there unrebutted. That seems to be the truth, as expressed by the resigning editor.

Cognitive dissonance in action:
Buzz Belleville says:
“Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, and the scientific community would have been undermined if it was left hanging out there unrebutted.”
See what cognitive dissonance does to the alarmist crowd? This article is about a ONE DAY turnaround. IIRC, it took Prof Richard Lindzen a year to get his last paper published. But then, he’s not in Trenberth’s climate pal-review clique.

Beesaman

That’s not peer review, that’s peer pressure in action…

Buzz Belleville says September 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, …

Can you demonstrate that?
Or is that the talking point you’ve been assigned to assert across the ‘interwebs’ today?
.

Latimer Alder

@buzz belleville
Umm..please explain how ‘the scientific community’ would have been ‘undermined’ by this paper – flawed or not. I can see that one or two prominent alarmist climatologists might have ben embarrassed to the point of being personally peeved and pis..d off.
But that is a very different thing from ‘the scientific community (chemists?, biologists? mathematicians? archaeologists?) being ;’undermined’ . Please justify your remark.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh !!
The Team invents “Warp Speed” !!!

Keith

Buzz, I assume you’ve read what Wagner actually wrote in his resignation letter? If you’re reading it as the actions of a man embarrassed to have published such a paper, why didn’t he stay to see it retracted? If it wasn’t worthy of retraction but merely response, why resign? That sort of thing happens all the time in proper science, without anybody feeling the need to commit ritual suicide.
Climate ‘science’ doesn’t seem so amenable to an open exchange of ideas, data and knowledge. Why could that be? Because the whole thing is back to front. The results have been politically pre-determined, and the published science needs to provide the justification. There’s a few emails floating around, as well as overt actions, that provide no shortage of evidence of this.

Keith

To be fair, if it’s a comment to SB11, it’s reasonable enough to pop it in and invite the reply from Spencer and Braswell in due course. Assuming that this is Remote Sensing’s usual MO.

RobW

Wade
I think you meant :I am now convinced that {climate} science is now more corrupt than politics and some religions.

whatever says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:19 am
so does anyone have any comments on the actual content of the Trenberth comment, or just allegations of conspiracy?
==============================================================
I’m on my second read, work keeps interrupting…..but, there appears to be very little content in the work. It basically says “is not!” That ENSO is key rather than worrying about what causes ENSO to behave in the manner it does. And that models seem to be preferred to observation.
It speaks of “major errors”, but then rambles about uncertainties. It makes what is probably legitimate criticisms of SB11, but it is gob-smacking hypocrisy coming from a team member. ie….SB11’s error analysis could probably be improved, correlation isn’t causation. (OMG!!! I can’t believe Trenberth wrote that!!!) But, this is my fav…… “Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.” This is hilarious on so many levels. It is true that SB11’s SI was lacking, but it is well known that they’ve freely and openly given their supporting data when asked. (See climate audit) One can only assume Trenberth didn’t bother to ask. Contrast this with the behavior of other climatologists in which hide behind loopholes in FOI laws to ensure their data doesn’t get disseminated.
Trenberth also seems confused about which paper he’s responding to is it Lindzen’s or Spencer’s?
There just really isn’t much in it. It just a mean spirited letter lashing out against people who understand clouds play a major role in our climate.
That’s my take on it, anyway. It is a typical content free rant by a warmista.
James

Buzz Belleville says:
September 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, and the scientific community would have been undermined if it was left hanging out there unrebutted. That seems to be the truth, as expressed by the resigning editor.
===========================================================
Ok Buzz, you’ve copies of SB11, and Dessler’s and Trenberth’s responses. Please point to these “fatal” flaws expose by the team.

Gary Hladik

KR says (September 16, 2011 at 9:22 am): “Those are some of the same conclusions Dessler came to. Hmm…”
One of the advantages of the “model ensemble” approach is cherry-picking, e.g.
Skeptic: “IPCC models don’t model precipitation distribution well.”
IPCC: “Oh yeah? Models Q & X do a pretty good job at that.”
Skeptic: “IPCC models don’t get regional temperature variations right.”
IPCC: “Oh yeah? Models D, E, & Z-13LS/MFT do a decent job at that.”
Skeptic: “IPCC models don’t match radiative loss during ENSO events.”
IPCC: “Oh yeah? Models C, R, A, & P replicate ENSO events pretty well.”
Skeptic: “So you’re saying that all your models get most climate parameters wrong?”
IPCC: “Uh… Denier! Oil company shill! Gaia-raper!”
BTW, the “best” ENSO-emulating models may not be all that good at simulating ENSO events:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/06/spencer-braswell-part-iii/#comment-109890

Gary Hladik

Matthew W says (September 16, 2011 at 12:51 pm): “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh !!
The Team invents “Warp Speed” !!!”
More like Ludicrous Speed:

Jones the Steve

Just be patient folks. As time passes and the thermometer refuses to rise, the ice-caps refuse to melt and the oceans refuse to rise the warmist charlatans contortions will become the subject of increasing ridicule by the taxpayer.
They are on the retreat. Just be wary about what they fix on next.
JS

Manfred

A turnaround time of 0 days means the peer review process is dead and the journal taken over by non scientists.

Gary Pearse

I see the desperation in all this charged innuendo and anger by the Glowball Warming team. It will get worse as Gullible Warming attenuates.

I like here where Trenberth states the biggest unknown is;
“In addition, as many cloud variations on monthly time scales result from internal atmospheric variability, such as the Madden-Julian Oscillation, cloud variability is not a deterministic response to surface temperatures.
The recent work suggests that 20 years or longer is needed to begin to resolve a significant global warming signal in the context of natural variations. Given these basic facts, the interpretation of causality between clouds and temperature is often a major challenge.
Accordingly, in any analysis, it is essential to perform a careful assessment of (1) uncertainty in any
data set or method and (2) causal interpretations in the fields observed; while (3) accounting for the
natural variability inherent in any observed record. Several recent instances in which these basic tenets mare violated have led to erroneous conclusions and widespread distortion of the science in the mainstream media. For instance, SB11 [8] fail to provide any meaningful error analysis in their
recent paper and fail to explore even rudimentary questions regarding the robustness of their derived ENSO-regression in the context of natural variability.”
Yet there is NO available funding for exploring the interest in patterns of the “Natural Variability” that are repeatable and predictable, that so overwhelms the CO2 signal that it hampers any modeling attempts to forecast past 5 to 10 days. The study of these natural drivers of the weather and climate has been suppressed since they decided to go with numerical models and peer review to gate keep and enforce their decisions since the 1950’s, when all funds were removed from cyclic weather pattern studies, and shifted to the computer models.
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/solar-system-dynamics/
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
Others have found the dynamics with out identifying the mechanism of the driven forces of solar/lunar tides into the weather systems.
http://research.aerology.com/supporting-research/leroux-marcel-lunar-declinational-tides/
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/sea-ice-thermostat/

kim;)

@ Buzz Belleville says:
September 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Before you paint with such a broad brush…might I suggest this link [ Including the numerous links given within it ]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/journal-deliverance-the-true-story-of-the-climate-hillbillies/
AND
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-dismantling-of-prof-dr-wolfgang-wagner/comment-page-1/#comment-9191

Nuke Nemesis

Were any of the reviewers amicable to Trenberth’s positions? Was one of the reviewers at least somewhat skeptical?
Seriously, when you’re reviewing a paper and you already know what it says, how long do you need to take to go over it?

kim;)

Am I wrong or did Mr Trenberth just move the goal post AGAIN?
“The recent work suggests that [b]20 years [/b]or longer is needed to begin to resolve a significant global warming signal in the context of natural variations. Given these basic facts, the interpretation of causality between clouds and temperature is often a major challenge.”
Wasn’t the last claim 17 years?

JPeden

Mike says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:30 am
“It is clearly labelled ‘Commentary.’ Thus it is not regarded as a peer viewed article.”/ thus = “it doesn’t qualify” and T says he doesn’t yet possess S&B’s SI to boot = “Fatal squared”!

Brian H

The jaw-dropping hypocrisy of Trenberth demanding public archiving of data sets is a core issue here. Combined with the Pal Wave-Thru-Review, it amounts to a perfectly acted-out demonstration of Climate Science Duplicity.

Brian H

Trenberth should be asked for the name of one, just one, paper he’s authored with publicly archived data sets co-incident with publication. Or even later. I doubt he could respond.

HAS

Trenberth et al assert: Our results suggest . . . that [S&B’s result] is merely an indicator of a model’s ability to replicate the global-scale TOA response to ENSO by finding one model (ECHAM5) that purportedly replicated the observations well, coupled with an unreferenced and controversial in the literature claim that ECHAM5 is a good at modelling ENSO.
It is all proof by example and assertion.

Rosco

How does Trenberth have any credibility ?

I dont know whether this is a coincidence or not, but Trenberth’s paper was sent to Remote Sensing on 8th September 2011. On Roy Spencer’s blog, his update #2
of his critique of the upcoming Dessler paper in GRL is also dated 8th September 2011. Maybe The Team realize that Dessler’s new paper is not going to be able to withstand Roy’s criticism, so Trenberth rushed a paper to Remote Sensing, so that the IPCC for AR5 can ignore SB11, because it has been “refuted”. Just a thought with nothing to support this idea.

John W

Is it just me or does Trenberth saying “correlation does not mean causation” and “what is driving all of the changes are the associations with ENSO” seem odd?
A short walk down memory lane:
Spencer: “As Joe D’Aleo, Don Easterbrook, and others have pointed out for years, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has experienced phase shifts that have coincidently been associated with the major periods of warming and cooling in the 20th Century.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
And who amongst the skeptics hasn’t had to repeatedly point out that “correlation does not mean causation” to no avail, they just kept pointing to CO2 going up and temperature going up as if that’s all there was to it. Now that the temperatures aren’t cooperating, oh yes, NOW, they finally understand “correlation does not mean causation”. (Or do they? Will they apply the same skepticism to their own pet theory that they’ve venomously unleashed against a competing theory?)
No, they don’t even see the hypocrisy in “Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.”

It is a travesty!