2011-05-21 01:48:34Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Barry Bickmore put together a response to Spencer's latest blog post which I think is just tremendously good.  Have a look, see if you have any comments before we re-post here.

Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet

2011-05-21 02:06:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Incidentally, it's got my thumbs-up.

2011-05-21 02:37:57
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144

Good article!


html needs tidying, and equations should go through an html to TeX machine. I would also be inclined to cut down on text, but I know I always say that :P

 

 

EDIT: might be worth checking figure 4's data. There's a jump down right after it's initialised and this could be a case of inadvertent cherry picking. How does it work with running means?

2011-05-21 02:40:20
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.253

The style is very much like a real "Comments on" in a scientific journal, which I like. It might be hard for the general public to understand, but occasionally a more detailed post doesn't hurt.

In any case, it is a repost and must be left as it is.

2011-05-21 04:32:02
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.253

One more thought.

In the conclusions it would be helpfull to have a summary in plain english of the tecnique used (intentionally or not) by Spencer to arrive to the wrong conclusions.

Also, I'd drop the part where you show that Spencer indirectly admitted his previous error. We don't need it to know you're right. :)

2011-05-21 04:56:01
bbickmore

bbickmore@comcast...
67.182.217.158

I made some of the changes suggested here.  I had to leave the part where Spencer indirectly admitted his previous error, though.  After all that work, I had to have a little fun with him!

2011-05-21 05:19:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hello Dr. Bickmore,

Maybe be a bit more specific in the Conclusions about the CS numbers and nature of the errors-- some, indeed many, might only read the "Conclusions".  

For example,

"we come up with climate sensitivity estimates that are at least as high as the IPCC’s."

Maybe say "we come up with climate sensitivity estimates that are slightly higher than the best estimate of +3 C reported in the latest IPCC report.  In contrast, Spencer's erroneous estimate is less than half of that at 1.3 C."

Or something along those lines.  You really ought to hammer home the point that each and every time that a contrarian claims that they have demonstrated that CS is low (i.e., ~1 C) that they have only managed to arrive at that conclusion using faulty methodology or interpretation of the data or cherry picking (e.g., LC09).  You do this at the beginning, but it may be worth repeating/emphasizing at the end. Maybe emphasize that the best estimates of CS fro doubling CO2 still suggests a value near +3 C in the Conclusions, and place somewhat emphasis on him acknowledging his errors in the conclusions. Anyhow, my two cents worth.

2011-05-21 05:39:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.108.120

Sure,a great deal of the general public won't understand it, but you've done an excellent job in explaining this. Thumbs up from me too. 

2011-05-21 05:56:07
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dear Dr. Bickmore (from the 'General Chat' forum),

Many thanks for this.  It must have taken you quite some time complete this undertaking.  

To be honest this subject is well beyond my area of expertise, but your response reads well and is internally consistent.  It also appears to robustly highlight yet more problems with Dr. Spencer's efforts to arrive at a low value for CS.

It is quite remarkable how many independent lines of evidence arrive at the +3 C number. Is there potential for a paper on using OHC data to estimate/constrain CS?

2011-05-21 06:26:34
bbickmore

bbickmore@comcast...
67.182.217.158

Ok, made a couple more corrections and went live with it.

Thanks!

Barry

2011-05-21 06:47:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Cool, we'll post it here tomorrow morning Barry.

2011-05-21 14:34:03
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.66

"Spencer posted an update to his blog entry that says he took into account heating down to 2000 m, and he came up with a climate sensitivity of 1.3 °C, which is a bit larger than his original estimate of 1 °C."

"These errors include:  inconsistent  initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m.  (He fixed the last one in an update.)"

Spencer still ignores the heat that went to very deep ocean. Recent research shows that significant amount of heat has gone to deep ocean (below 2000 m). So I think Spencer's correction is only a pseudo-one.

2011-05-21 15:09:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Fair point Ari, maybe amend the text to say "he partially fixed the last one"?

2011-05-21 19:37:50
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Can you put the equations through <a href="http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php">this</a>? It would add an extra touch of professionalism and it's easier to read. You put in TeX and it gives you the html to copy and paste straight into the blog editor.

I'm still uncomfortable with Figure 4, it looks like a potential cherry pick - has this been checked?

 

Except for that, it's an excellent post. Thanks Dr Bickmore!

2011-05-22 14:29:47
bbickmore

bbickmore@comcast...
67.182.217.158

Hi Mark,

I don't know how to do TeX, so i didn't bother.  It's a good suggestion, though.

Re: Fig. 4, if you take both curves and divide them by 4 W/m^2/K, you get the sea surface temperature.  Does Spencer's curve follow the real temperature evolution since 1955?  No.  The real temperature drops precipitously right after the beginning of the series, but there are any number of similar jumps--both up and down--throughout the series, so I don't think the choice of start year affected the overall trend.  Also, I wasn't the one who decided to pick 1955 as the zero point for the temperature.  Roy did.  My purpose wasn't to do Roy's analysis right--I said repeatedly that I didn't think a 1-box model was up to the task.  I just wanted to show that if he hadn't made some obvious errors, he would have come up with a much different answer.

2011-05-23 00:24:07
bbickmore

bbickmore@comcast...
67.182.217.158

Mark,

I smoothed the temperature data over 10 years, and the curve is still way below Spencer's, so I don't think the choice of start year made much difference.  Thanks for bringing it up.

2011-05-23 00:25:24
bbickmore

bbickmore@comcast...
67.182.217.158

Also, i didn't see that you had provided such an easy way to do the TeX code.  Maybe I'll give it a try.

2011-05-23 01:22:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
I did the LaTeX code for the SkS version of your post.
2011-05-23 01:40:58
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.189

Barry

it's just to make forumlae look pretty. But just in case you want to give it a try I'll give you some basic commands to write simple equations.

subscript:
_{something}
example: T_{700}

superscript: ^{something}
example: T^{4}

both sub & superscript: _{some}^{thing}
example: T_{0}^{4}

fraction: \frac{num}{den}
example \frac{dT_{700}}{dt}

greek letters: \alpha to \omega and \Alpha to \Omega

square root: \sqrt{something} or you can specify any root n with \sqrt[n]{somenthig}

automatically adjusted large left and right parenthesis: \left( or \left[ and ˙ ight) or ˙ ight]

integral: \int or \int_{low}{up}

When you type the equation spaces are irrelevant and latex decides how much space leave between characters. In case you want to add some extra space you can use one or more of \, or \: or \; for small, medium and large spaces respectively.

Online latex equation editors let you choose the background. The default is transparent, but you may want to choose a different color if the background of the web page is dark.

Your equation can be written as:

C_{p} \, \frac{d \, T_{700}}{dt} = F - \lambda \, T_{s}

and the result is