Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at Roy Spencer’s usually excellent blog, Roy has published what could be called a hatchet job on “citizen climate scientists” in general and me in particular. Now, Dr. Roy has long been a hero of mine, because of all his excellent scientific work … which is why his attack mystifies me. Maybe he simply had a bad day and I was the focus of frustration, we all have days like that. Anthony tells me he can’t answer half of the email he gets some days, Dr. Roy apparently gets quite a lot of mail too, asking for comment.
Dr. Roy posted a number of uncited and unreferenced claims in his essay. So, I thought I’d give him the chance to provide data and citations to back up those claims. He opens with this graphic:
Dr. Roy, the citizen climate scientists are the ones who have made the overwhelming majority of the gains in the struggle against rampant climate alarmism. It is people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts and Donna LaFramboise and myself and Joanne Nova and Warwick Hughes and the late John Daly, citizen climate scientists all, who did the work that your fellow mainstream climate scientists either neglected or refused to do. You should be showering us with thanks for doing the work your peers didn’t get done, not speciously claiming that we are likeable idiots like Homer Simpson.
Dr. Roy begins his text by saying:
I’ve been asked to comment on Willis Eschenbach’s recent analysis of CERES radiative budget data (e.g., here). Willis likes to analyze data, which I applaud. But sometimes Willis gives the impression that his analysis of the data (or his climate regulation theory) is original, which is far from the case.
Hundreds of researchers have devoted their careers to understanding the climate system, including analyzing data from the ERBE and CERES satellite missions that measure the Earth’s radiative energy budget. Those data have been sliced and diced every which way, including being compared to surface temperatures (as Willis recently did).
So, Roy’s claim seems to be that my work couldn’t possibly be original, because all conceivable analyses of the data have already been done. Now that’s a curious claim in any case … but in this case, somehow, he seems to have omitted the links to the work he says antedates mine.
When someone starts making unreferenced, uncited, unsupported accusations about me like that, there’s only one thing to say … Where’s the beef? Where’s the study? Where’s the data?
In fact, I know of no one who has done a number of the things that I’ve done with the CERES data. If Dr. Roy thinks so, then he needs to provide evidence of that. He needs to show, for example, that someone has analyzed the data in this fashion:
Now, I’ve never seen any such graphic. I freely admit, as I have before, that maybe the analysis has been done some time in the past, and my research hasn’t turned it up. I did find two studies that were kind of similar, but nothing like that graph above. Dr. Roy certainly seems to think such an analysis leading to such a graphic exists … if so, I suggest that before he starts slamming me with accusations, he needs to cite the previous graphic that he claims that my graphic is merely repeating.
I say this for two reasons. In addition to it being regular scientific practice to cite your sources, it is common courtesy not to accuse a man of doing something without providing data to back it up.
And finally, if someone has done any of my analyses before, I want to know so I can save myself some time … if the work’s been done, I’m not interested in repeating it. So I ask Dr. Roy: which study have I missed out on that has shown what my graphic above shows?
Dr. Roy then goes on to claim that my ideas about thunderstorms regulating the global climate are not new because of the famous Ramanathan and Collins 1991 paper called “Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Niño”. Dr. Roy says:
I’ve previously commented on Willis’ thermostat hypothesis of climate system regulation, which Willis never mentioned was originally put forth by Ramanathan and Collins in a 1991 Nature article.
Well … no, it wasn’t “put forth” in R&C 1991, not even close. Since Dr. Roy didn’t provide a link to the article he accuses me of “never mentioning”, I’ll remedy that, it’s here.
Unfortunately, either Dr. Roy doesn’t fully understand what R&C 1991 said, or he doesn’t fully understand what I’ve said. This is the Ramanathan and Collins hypothesis as expressed in their abstract:
Observations made during the 1987 El Niño show that in the upper range of sea surface temperatures, the greenhouse effect increases with surface temperature at a rate which exceeds the rate at which radiation is being emitted from the surface. In response to this ‘super greenhouse effect’, highly reflective cirrus clouds are produced which act like a thermostat, shielding the ocean from solar radiation. The regulatory effect of these cirrus clouds may limit sea surface temperatures to less than 305K.
Why didn’t I mention R&C 1991 with respect to my hypothesis? Well … because it’s very different from my hypothesis, root and branch.
• Their hypothesis was that cirrus clouds act as a thermostat to regulate maximum temperatures in the “Pacific Warm Pool” via a highly localized “super greenhouse effect”.
• My hypothesis is that thunderstorms act all over the planet as natural emergent air conditioning units, which form over local surface hot spots and (along with other emergent phenomena) cool the surface and regulate the global temperature.
In addition, I fear that Dr. Roy hasn’t done his own research on this particular matter. A quick look on Google shows that I have commented on R&C 1991 before. Back in 2012, in response to Dr. Roy’s same claim (but made by someone else), I wrote:
I disagree that the analysis of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism has been “extensively examined in the literature”. It has scarcely been discussed in the literature at all. The thermostatic mechanism discussed by Ramanathan is quite different from the one I have proposed. In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins said that the albedos of deep convective clouds in the tropics limited the SST … but as far as I know, they didn’t discuss the idea of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism at all.
And regarding the Pacific Warm Pool, I also quoted the Abstract of R&C1991 in this my post on Argo and the Ocean Temperature Maximum. So somebody’s not searching here before making claims …
In any case, I leave it to the reader to decide whether my hypothesis, that emergent phenomena like thunderstorms regulate the climate, was “originally put forth” in the R&C 1991 Nature paper about cirrus clouds, or not …
Finally, Dr. Roy closes with this plea:
Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. But now I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong.
That’s what I work at doing.
But don’t assume you have anything new unless you first do some searching of the literature on the subject. True, some of the literature is paywalled. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules. And I agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available.
First, let me say that I agree with all parts of that plea. I do my best to find out what’s been done before, among other reasons in order to save me time repeating past work.
However, many of my ideas are indeed novel, as are my methods of analysis. I’m the only person I know of, for example, to do graphic cluster analysis on temperature proxies (see “Kill It With Fire“). Now, has someone actually done that kind of analysis before? Not that I’ve seen, but if there is, I’m happy to find that out—it ups the odds that I’m on the right track when that happens. I have no problem with acknowledging past work—as I noted above, I have previously cited the very R&C 1991 study that Dr. Roy accuses me of ignoring.
Dr. Roy has not given me any examples of other people doing the kind of analysis of the CERES data that I’m doing. All he’s given are claims that someone somewhere did some unspecified thing that he claims I said I thought I’d done first. Oh, plus he’s pointed at, but not linked to, Ramanathan & Collins 1991, which doesn’t have anything to do with my hypothesis.
So all we have are his unsupported claims that my work is not novel.
And you know what? Dr. Roy may well be right. My work may not be novel. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong … but without specific examples, he is just handwaving. All I ask is that he shows this with proper citations.
Dr. Roy goes on to say:
But cloud feedback is a hard enough subject without muddying the waters further. Yes, clouds cool the climate system on average (they raise the planetary albedo, so they reduce solar input into the climate system). But how clouds will change due to warming (cloud feedback) could be another matter entirely. Don’t conflate the two.
I ask Dr. Roy to please note the title of my graphic above. It shows how the the clouds actually change due to warming. I have not conflated the two in the slightest, and your accusation that I have done so is just like your other accusations—it lacks specifics. Exactly what did I say that makes you think I’m conflating the two? Dr. Roy, I ask of you the simple thing I ask of everyone—if you object to something that I say, please QUOTE MY WORDS, so we can all see what you are talking about.
Dr. Roy continues:
For instance, let’s say “global warming” occurs, which should then increase surface evaporation, leading to more convective overturning of the atmosphere and precipitation. But if you increase clouds in one area with more upward motion and precipitation, you tend to decrease clouds elsewhere with sinking motion. It’s called mass continuity…you can’t have rising air in one region without sinking air elsewhere to complete the circulation. “Nature abhors a vacuum”.
Not true. For example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. The thunderstorms will self-assemble into “squall lines”. These are long lines of massed thunderstorms, with long canyons of rising air between them. In part this happens because it allows for a more dense packing of thunderstorms, due to increased circulation efficiency. So your claim above, that an increase of clouds in one area means a decrease in another area, is strongly falsified by the emergence of squall lines.
In addition, you’ve failed to consider the timing of onset of the phenomena. A change of ten minutes in the average formation time of tropical cumulus makes a very large difference in net downwelling radiation … so yes, contrary to your claim, I’ve just listed two ways the clouds can indeed increase in one area without a decrease in another area.
So, examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally (as Willis has done) really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems, which are ill-defined (except in the global average).
Mmm … well, to start with, these are not simple “feedbacks”. I say that clouds are among the emergent thermoregulatory phenomena that keep the earth’s temperature within bounds. The system acts, not as a simple feedback, but as a governor. What’s the difference?
- A simple feedback moves the result in a certain direction (positive or negative) with a fixed feedback factor. It is the value of this feedback factor that people argue about, the cloud feedback factor … I say that is meaningless, because what we’re looking at is not a feedback like that at all.
- A governor, on the other hand, uses feedback to move the result towards some set-point, by utilizing a variable feedback factor.
In short, feedback acts in one direction by a fixed amount. A governor, on the other hand, acts to restore the result to the set-point by varying the feedback. The system of emergent phenomena on the planet is a governor. It does not resemble simple feedback in the slightest.
And the size of those emergent phenomena varies from very small to very large on both spatial and temporal scales. Dust devils arise when a small area of the land gets too hot, for example. They are not a feedback, but a special emergent form which acts as an independent entity with freedom of motion. Dust devils move preferentially to the warmest nearby location, and because they are so good at cooling the earth, like all such mechanisms they have to move and evolve in order to persist. Typically they live for some seconds to minutes and then disappear. That’s an emergent phenomenon cooling the surface at the small end of the time and distance scales.
From there, the scales increase from local (cumulus clouds and thunderstorms) to area-wide (cyclones, grouping of thunderstorms into “squall lines”) to regional and multiannual (El Nino/La Nina Equator-To-Poles warm water pump) to half the planet and tens of years (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
So I strongly dispute Dr. Roy’s idea that “feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems”. To start with, they’re not feedbacks, they are emergent phenomena … and they have a huge effect on the regulation of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales.
And I also strongly dispute his claim that my hypothesis is not novel, the idea that thunderstorms and other emergent climate phenomena work in concert planet-wide to maintain the temperature of the earth within narrow bounds.
Like I said, Dr. Roy is one of my heroes, and I’m mystified by his attack on citizen scientists in general, and on me in particular. Yes, I’ve said that I thought that some of my research has been novel and original. Much of it is certainly original, in that I don’t know of anyone else who has done the work in that way, so the ideas are my own.
However, it just as certainly may not be novel. There’s nothing new under the sun. My point is that I don’t know of anyone advancing this hypothesis, the claim that emergent phenomena regulate the temperature and that forcing has little to do with it.
If Dr. Roy thinks my ideas are not new, I’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. As far as I’m concerned they would be support for my hypothesis, so I invite him to either back it up or back it off.
Best regards to all.
w.
Good grief Poptech, what is your problem? I’m beginning to detect a hard cynical edge to your comments. Your repeated references to Willis’s CV and to his ‘fanboys’ – whoever they are supposed to be – betrays something oddly bitter within you.
Firstly, I am perfectly aware of Willis’s background as he has been very open about it over the years (like many others, I arrived here when Climategate first broke and have read WUWT almost every day since). Consequently I understand perfectly that he’s neither a credentialed scientist nor an indentured scientist. That he is in fact very much the amateur citizen-scientist. In my eyes that is actually his greatest strength. He looks at things as it were from the same end of the telescope as most of us aspiring citizen-scientists. This means that he is far better able to take his readers on a journey and get them to enjoy science. This in contrast to so much of the dry, po-faced crud that emanates from the professional sinecured scientists who are obviously technically more qualified to pronounce on the subject.
Secondly, as regards my own lack of qualifications, I am quite open about this. I make no claim to comprehend the intricacies of quantum physics, though it’s one of my favorite subjects, or to be able to fathom the depths of Hofstadter’s GED and artificial intelligence. Such things are clearly beyond my intellectual capacity. But that’s why I come here. Here I find accessible science that sharpens my understanding yet does not patronize me. Here I find a fiercely intelligent environment that doesn’t suffer fools gladly – I like that! I’m not defending Willis. If he’s proven one thing beyond all doubt it’s that he is very capable of defending himself.
What’s more, I resent no man who has made the effort to study and become qualified in a specific field. What I resent is being told that because I do not fall into this category that I somehow have less right to comment on things that interest me on an open forum populated by a wide variety of interesting people with varying degrees of aptitude. Or that owing to my lack of credentials I am incapable of discerning nonsense when I see it. Please, though my lack of formal education and training may well be a handicap, it is not by definition a sign that I am stupid or lack insight, though that may also be true – only time will tell.
So I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror, have yourself a nice glass of single malt and put your feet up in front of the fire. Relax, and ponder just how silly your cries are becoming.
@ur momisugly Theo Goodwin and Bernie Hutchins
Thanks for the feedback guys. Your kind suggestions are duly noted. That excellent book on logic will have to wait, but I have indeed come across some great websites on the logical fallacies (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com being my favorite). I too have discovered that the people who display the greatest humility regarding their credentials are the polymaths and the generalists, i.e. the ones with the broadest perspective. The ones who are acutely aware of the fact that the more you known, the more you know you don’t know – a quantum phenomenon if ever there was one…
One point in all this discussion is being overlooked by those that make a claim to “Academic Authority”. Here on WUWT there is a tremendous amount of info and detailed discussion covering and in depth the various elements primarily with regards to atmospheric science. It is PHYSICS. Now if one is capable of understanding basic physics then 40 hours, 200 hours, or like many of us, thousands of hours of reading the posts and comments would equal far more than the time spent in a classroom digesting that presented by a professor/textbook that was likely obsolete (especially the professor) by the time it was taught. Toss in the need/desire for funding and fame and the entire academic structure becomes bankrupt. WUWT is the premier university. I understand physics and have no financial dog in this game. I want the truth. It is offered here on almost a daily basis. The academic establishment is in shock.
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say, If your background was less limited, you would understand why as well. Perhaps if, instead of insulting everybody who disagrees with you and telling people who are much better trained that they are incompetent, you actually took some notice of what said and learnt some maths, you standard of citizen science might improve.
Arno Arrak says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:39 am
I agree with you that volcanic eruptions cannot adequately explain climatic phenomena such as the LIA, but IMO they can & do account for some weather observations, as those after Tambora in 1815 & the 1257 event:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110
The presumed consequences of this eruption are detailed in a study from GISS (I know, I know…):
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/climatepdfs02/ClimImpts1258VolcaClimChg00.pdf
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
Another vacant yet venom-filled comment from RC. Folks, please note that once again and true to form he’s just making empty, unsupported claims—as with almost every one of his comments, there’s not a number, a link, a citation, an observation, a reference, a quotation, or a fact in the lot.
He’s just treating us, once again, to his vitriolic opinions.
w.
vigilantfish says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm
The Pompous Git says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“This causes excitement because despite having been published in several journals, Willis is not one of the anointed priests of scientism. I surmise that in thirty years’ time one will read of the Eschenbach Effect, rather than Herr Professor Doctor Doctor Schmidthead’s Hypothesis.
——————–
Bingo! It’s the alliteration of “Eschenbach Effect”, which does rather have a ring to it, that probably excited “someone’s” interest in Willis’s work. I hope you are right.”
I am pleased that I coined the term “Eschenbach Effect” a while back and also differentiated it from the Ramanathan and Collins work, hoping that it would catch on before it is simply stolen as someone else’s effect which seems to be the central issue of this post. Here is my post from April:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/updates-to-and-enso-observations-from-the-wuwt-ocean-reference-page/
Gary Pearse says:
April 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
richardscourtney says:
April 28, 2013 at 9:59 am
Your link to Ramanathan and Collins “possible” limit of 30C for SST is a good start, but I would have also added the link to the more recent work by Willis Eschenbach who actually illustrates the phenomenon using buoy data and connects it to the creation of cumulus (not cirrus), followed by thunderstorm heat engines that cool hot spots – published in E&E.
Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010
A later work has unequivocal graphics of data showing that 30C is pretty much the limit. Scroll down to the blue “dotted graphics” to see these unequivocal illustrations
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/21/dehumidifying-the-tropics/.
Despite prior mention by Ramanathan and Collins, I propose that this phenomenon be named the “Eschenbach effect” for the full clear explanation for the phenomenon.
eyesonu says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
I made a misstatement in my earlier statement.
…. It is PHYSICS. Now if one is capable of understanding basic physics then 40 hours, 200 hours, or like many of us, thousands of hours of reading the posts and comments would equal far more than the time spent in a classroom digesting that presented by a professor/textbook that was likely obsolete (especially the professor) by the time it was taught. ….
Please strike; ” (especially the professor)”. In reality only those professors and textbooks created over the past 20 years would be obsolete.
Bair Polaire: Mental results of physical processes are called concepts.
You cite wikipedia? “Pnenomena” and “phenomenon” have more than one meaning. Mental results of physical processes include percepts as well as concepts. The part that “emerges” in an “emergent phenomenon” is merely something in a system studied that on initial viewing and study can’t be explained from what is already known. Once there as a lot of understanding, as with some of the recurring eddies at the edge of the Gulf Stream, it is clear that they are part of the process from which they arise. Thus, the “emergence” is purely mental. The other example was mushrooms that emerge from the fungal net: once there is enough study and understanding, it can be seen how the mushrooms emerge, and two mushrooms are no longer distinct physical process, but related and highly similar processes occurring simultaneously in different parts of the net. You can say the same for spiral waves that emerge and dissipate and emerge some more in dynamic systems: eddies and spiral waves on the surface of heart muscle are examples, and cyclonic storms may be (to my knowledge, mathematical analysis of cyclonic storms has not progressed to where they emerge in simulations, but they form continuously through time, and it makes more sense [to me, anyhow] to view them analogously to other physical spiral waves.
Gary Pearse:
re your comment at October 11, 2013 at 11:40 am.
I accept much that you say. However, as I have repeatedly said (and explained) in this thread, I consider the R&C Effect and the Eschenbach Effect to be very different. Importantly, Willis has also said in this thread that he thinks they are different effects.
Richard
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say, If your background was less limited, you would understand why as well.
+++++++++
I am getting caught in the fray here because I think the hateful attacks do not advance science, nor are the attacks constructive.
So what if I don’t understand why [or if] Willis’ “maths” is wrong? Would that have anything to do with my lack of credentials? I find lots of what Willis writes about well above my level of knowledge! BTW, my starting level of math in college was Calculus, then Calc2 and Calc3, Differential Equations, Complex Variables. I’ve also taken Statistics 1 and 2 and Statistical Process control.
When people of your ilk beat their chest with credentials instead of being able to have a cogent dialogue, it’s more telling of your own shortcomings. Look within yourself and wonder when you became so arrogant. You may feel a short term sense of elevated status by spewing irrational fodder, but everyone else sees you for what you are. Both you and Poptech suffer from both narcissism with an underlying dose of self loathing.
Tucker: I stopped reading Willis’ posts a while back …
You are as free to choose as anyone, but you are missing good stuff. At least, if that is a true statement. It’s appearance in a thread initiated by Willis is at least paradoxical.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:30 am
“That doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a BS or without any college degree at all.”
Well, maybe not, but I’d still say the odds are better of a PhD knowing more about the field than a long-haul trucker. Exceptions might occur.
++++++++++++++
Christoph: riddle me this: Which has better odds of being more honest, a PhD or a long-haul trucker?
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Cross posted from Dr. Roy’s blog …
Well done again.
Willis, thank you for taking the first step to get back together with Dr. Roy to fight the true enemy, not each other. As I said you are a bigger man than he and should be the one to take that first step. Roy, you screwed up royally, mon ami. Admit it to yourself and meet Willis half way. We have a war to win.
poptech: His rambling stories attract fanboys who obviously do not understand what Dr. Spencer is saying so they knee-jerk attack him.
A couple days ago when Dr. Spencer posted his short criticism I asked him to supply some details and references. Instead he posted a rant on his own web page that was wrong on its two main (decipherable) assertions. Your course of life post on Willis is totally irrelevant to the scientific and ad hominem points in this debate. Willis has a hypthesis that (stripped of the word “thermostat”) fits well within the field of mathematical and empirical dynamic systems analysis (e.g. “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics” by Henk A. Dijkstra. His data analysis is hypothesis-driven, and insightful.
Personally I skip Willis’ autobiographical stories (well, I read a couple paragraphs and skip the rest) but lots of denizens read them and praise them. Some people don’t like them, but they are incidental to the analyses he performs (though like a scientific biography of any scientist, they are part of the whole picture of the man — like, say Einstein’s first child.) It is a fact that in this debate, Dr Spenser made mistakes, so he was criticized. If there is a knee-jerk reaction here it is your disparagement of the person of Willis based on not reading enough of the writings here to be informed.
Richard S Courtney,
Since I sometimes spar with you, it’s only fair that I note an excellent post by you: Two brothers who sold bicycles were self-taught in engineering principles and scientific experimental study and methodology.
Matthew R Marler:
Thankyou for your comment addressed to me. I think a quid pro quo is in order.
I think your post at October 10, 2013 at 9:14 am was both excellent and timely. Willis is schooled in hard knocks but he must be feeling the need for encouragement.
Richard
The colors are showing in this thread. Dig past the so-called colors and view deep into the psych. It has been a revealing and informative thread. The truth will prevail.
RC Saumarez: I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say
Really? Whenever was that?
Richard S Courtney, thank you.
Phew! I have read the whole thread. If anybody responds to me, I’ll check back tomorrow.
Steve314 said @ur momisugly October 11, 2013 at 6:18 am
Actually, this is untrue. Spencer has an interesting blog and has written a very accessible book:
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. Unlike many such, it is also rich in humour and therefore even entertaining as well as educational.
Your Steeleye Span comparison is very apt. I used to do security at a (sadly) now defunct annual folk festival. When we had Steeley Span, I was backstage after they performed. A local journalist asked Maddy why she sang. Maddy responded: “Because I like it.” The journalist rephrased the question and Maddy responded as she had previously. This happened a third time, whereupon Maddy said: “F**k off you stupid b***h!” and turned to me and said: “That will appear in tomorrow’s paper as my in-depth interview with Maddy Pryor”.
Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, 1966.
OK, maybe too often quoted, but the fact remains that even scientists with the best credentials have sometimes fallen victim to group think, defending orthodoxies against contrary claims by outsiders, even when the new ideas come from other credentialed professionals, such as Bretz & Wegener, rather than from amateurs.
I’m coming in a bit late here, but I don’t think that one need be any sort of climate expert to see that Dr. Spencer most assuredly did accuse Willis of plagiarism and a fair amount of ignorance. Whether you agree or not with Dr. Spencer’s assessment that Willis is putting forth someone else’s ideas as his own and without attribution, that’s what Dr. Spencer did. Willis might be the biggest blowhard on the face of the planet, suck at maths, only read abstracts, and be utterly ignorant of the way science works in the big leagues, but all that’s completely irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Spencer threw down the plagiarism card. He wasn’t being kind or gentle or good natured about it, either.
I’m not arguing whether Willis’s hypothesis is the same as that he purportedly plagiarized (but it doesn’t look to me as if it is), I’m just saying that if a man is challenged in a public forum that man has every right to respond in kind. A couple of years ago someone was angry with me and went on TV to air his complaints. I was not allowed by my employer to defend myself in any way at all, which caused me no end of frustration that my lack of a rebuttal would somehow give credence to that person’s whinge. Public accusations–particularly those unsupported by anything but opinions–require equally public responses, and debate such as I am reading here is always better than pistols at dawn.
richardscourtney said @ur momisugly October 11, 2013 at 9:49 am
It’s worth noting that a year after the Wright brothers flew their aeroplane that Scientific American declared the event had not taken place. Had the Wright brothers actually achieved what they claimed, then surely a journalist would have written about it.
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently tried to point out that there are things wrong with your mathematical approach.
Take your climate model in which you model the thermal capacity of the climate system is the form
y(n)=(1-alpha)*x(n)+alpha*y(n-1)..
This autoregressive equation has huge physical implications. It implies that the climate “heat sink” is a single compartment linear system.. There is a large body of eveidence that this is not the case. I have tried to explain to you that this is very important be cause the climate system shows persistance, that is not encapsulated by the above equation. One of the important indicators of this is the temperature auto-correlation function. This is very important because it affects the trends in temperature created by random inputs. I referred you to Luck and Lederle, Tol, and McIntyre. I even referred you to a piece that I had written.
You write about dynamic systems but you do not understand the significance of the autocorrelation function, This is elementary and also central to understanding system behaviour.
On a more recent thread I introduced the possibility of aliasing. Another commentator on the thread who says that he does signal processing in Earth Sciences as his job agreed. This was met by blast from you in which you told us that we were incompetent.
I suggested that the problem could be seen through a simple model. When challenged to say what this model was I produced it. OK. it uses Laplace Transforms and I used the conventional symbol for feedback in this notation, which is B(s). You responded that this was all BS! I don’t think that is a very intelligent response.
Let me remind you that you are the person who is posting about dynamics of systems, feedback etc. Laplace transforms are quite useful in analysing linearisable systems, and yield considerable insight into their behaviour. You clearly do not know what a Laplace Transform is, but it might help you if you discovered what it is and what it means because it is very important technique.
[SNIP that last paragraph was not only rude and condescending toward me and Willis, but an over the top policy violation – discuss the science issues, but don’t try to play that role again or it will end up in the bit bucket – Anthony]