2011-07-28 22:45:33Spencer Paper
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.17.242

Not sure if people have seen it yet but here it is:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

2011-07-28 23:20:34
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Why do Spencer and Braswell use a lambda value of 3.0 for their model?  It's unclear to me their justification for that, does that not assume a low feedback response to start?  How do the results change with the adjustment of that variable?

2011-07-29 02:05:53
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Great, another Trojan paper by "skeptics".  They are getting good at this.

2011-07-29 04:56:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

From the press release:

"A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle."

Surely they are referring to the water vapour feedback!  Roy is playing games, or at least the perosn who drafted this press release is.

2011-07-29 05:04:14
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Roy's paper explicitly addresses Dessler's (surprise surprise), and attempts to discredit the notion that non-radiative mechanisms were responsible for the temperature trend over the past decade.  That cloud cover feedback is deemed to be slightly positive, as per Dessler's paper, is hardly a "major underpinning."  The water vapor feedback is much more important, yes.  What do you expect though?  I assume you're reading the story put out by Taylor, he works for Heartland.

2011-07-29 05:33:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

AlexC,

OK that is why I was confused, b/c to my knowledge the cloud feed back is not a big player, and certainly not understood by those in the know to be a "major underpinning of AGW theory".  I read about the press release at WFUWT.  Chrsit Alex, do you mean this diatribe at Forbes?

From Spencer's blog:

"Given the history of the IPCC gatekeepers in trying to kill journal papers that don’t agree with their politically-skewed interpretations of science (also see here, here, here, here), I hope you will forgive me holding off for on giving the name of the journal until it is actually published."

Oh dear, dear dear.....a paranoid conpsiracy theorist.

2011-07-29 05:43:46
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Yeah, that's the one.

This story is getting HUGE coverage.  The echo chamber is at its top game, everyone is reposting the story.

2011-07-29 05:45:16
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Speaking of stories getting coverage too, the Monnett one is in full swing too.  If I had a dime for every "skeptic" I've seen say "fraud" in the past three hours, I could probably buy myself a nice dinner.

2011-07-29 06:27:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

FWIW I posted this, it is in moderation:

 

"Mr Taylor,

You make what seem, on the surface at least, to be some compelling and assertive claims.  Sadly some readers may be duped by your grossly misguided and skewed understanding of the climate system.

You say "1.Sea level rise has been decelerating and has barely risen at all since 2006"

Note that you say "barely"-- how scientific and how easy to make that vague term fit your claim.  There are other problems with this assertion.  One, it is a cherry-pick, something "skeptics" like you are very good at doing.  Why focus on a trend during a time frame (2006-2011)hich is too short to discern a statistically significant trend?  Two, the satellite data show that the sea level has risen since 2006 (see link below).  Additionally, it is misleading to insinuate that the increase in sea-level and temperature should be monotonic.  The data are noisy, hence the reason for a long period to arrive at a statistically significant trend. Here is the link to the satellite data:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Trend is +3.2 mm/yr, at the upper range of the projections presented in the IPCC reports.  And I'll save you the trouble of trying to further muddying the waters by providing these links for readers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Cooling-Corrected-Again.html

2) You claim "Arctic sea ice has indeed declined of late, due largely to changes in local wind patterns (unrelated to global warming) that have pushed sea ice into the Fram Strait...."

Another misleading statement that doesn't tell the whole story, rather it is deliberately fabricated to mislead (I know you may feign being affronted at this serious statement, but save us the duplicity please).  Yes, winds and ocean currents are important, scientists studying Arctic sea ice are aware of that thanks. What you fail to share with others is that scientists have determined that the length and duration of the melt season is increasing in response to the warming (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42456), and that the warming is in turn being amplified (i.e., polar amplification, see Screen and Simmonds 2010)...what you also fail to tell people is that the Arctic is losing multi-year ice and ice volume, and that this is also consistent with the continued loss of ice from ice sheets and glaciers from around the globe.

3) "For most of the past 10,000 years (since the last ice age epoch ended) temperatures were warmer than they are today."

No supporting citations, but appears to be based on a distortion and fudging of Dr. Alley's Greenland ice core data (that are not even representative of global temperatures) by Easterbrook, another Heartland fan.  This red herring has been addressed at SkepticalScience-- please read the citations therein.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

What both you and Dr. Spencer ignore and conveniently forget to share with people is that one does not necessarily need a model to estimate climate sensitivity.  Multiple, independent lines of evidence point to a sensitivity to doubling CO2 (and we will easily double it) of near +3 C.  Again feel free to dismiss SkS, but you cannot so easily dismiss the works by eminent scientists and experts in the field which are cited therein:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

You allege "deserts are shrinking, forests are expanding, growing seasons are lengthening, soil moisture is improving, crop production is setting records, etc., etc."
That is a nice example of "Gish Gallop", not to mention full of unsupported assertions.  Dr. Gish would be proud.  Please provide a legitimate source (peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal) which states that globally soil moisture in agricultural areas is increasing or improving crop production.

I encourage readers here not to accept at face value the bold (and unsubstantiated) assertions made by Mr. Taylor here.  Be true skeptics and fact check.  When you do, you will quickly realise that Forbes and the likes of Taylor have a callous disregard for facts, truth and science.  You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.  And you can cherry-pick and distort all you want, but that does not change the reality and facts either.

I should know better than to engage someone who engages in the same tactics as the discredited Lord Monckton (you cannot "win" against someone who is not bound by telling the truth or ethics), but your willful distortion of the facts and deception needs to be addressed by someone."

2011-07-29 08:58:49
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Interesting, you stated:

"Please provide a legitimate source (peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal) which states that globally soil moisture in agricultural areas is increasing or improving crop production."

A new paper published in Science says that the case may be the other way around, with corn and wheat production experiencing falls in production of ~3-6% over the last 30 years.

I thought the connection was coincidental.  OT a bit, there is another paper detailing southern GIS cover during the last interglacial, seems that the southern GIS did not deglaciate fully then.  They also discuss the contribution of its melting to sea level rise then as well.

2011-07-29 09:31:20
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Alex et al.,

Please feel to join the fray at Forbes.  Taylor is spining his wheels and the more people refuting him the better-- this could back fire for them big time.

Registration is easy.

The man is a liar, plain and simple.

 

2011-07-29 12:46:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I need second opinions on whether my breakdown of his model is correct, please.  I'm A Modest Proposal.

2011-07-29 13:28:27Denier drones are having a picnic with Spencer's paper
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The following two posts are from the comment thread to the Huffington Post article, "Climate Change And Forest Fires Linked In New Study" posted July 27.


AlbanyConservative

Always right!!

http://new­s.yahoo.co­m/nasa-dat­a-blow-gap­ing-hold-g­lobal-warm­ing-alarmi­sm-1923349­71.html

This report is on DRudge today. It says that almost every climate model being run is using faulty data about heat being trapped within our atmospherr­e. This is a NASA data report that should get more attention than it is.

Real-world measuremen­ts show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

I htink it is time to reprogram the computers.


BluePhantom2

Counting the days to Nov 2012
Not wrong you just had better dates! And yea the study is more BS. Check this out I just read it today and it kind of puts the whole global warbling deal to bed.
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-revie­wed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheri­c carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed
2011-07-30 07:59:17
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

Climate Scienists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

By Joe Romm on Jul 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article. ......

In fact, as Dessler emailed me, Spencer’s “paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).” Here are his full comments:

Quote:
To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon, dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an, imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a, feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface, temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water, vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse, gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as, the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the, initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a, feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this, argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the, conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they, show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak, until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right., However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between, the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at, the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is, obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be, a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to, any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants......

Climate Scienists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer | ThinkProgress

I recall Spencer did this tweaking and overfitting of models before somewhere

2011-07-30 08:14:30
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190

Well said by Dessler.  We'll have to do a post on his paper once it comes out.

This is typical Spencer - use a simple model with unconstrained parameters to fit a curve and then claim you've proven something once you do.  Loehle and Scafetta did exactly the same thing in their recent paper (which I'm about to start drafting a post about).  I think we need to focus on this "skeptic" habit of doing simple curve fitting and claiming they've arrived at some robust result.  They seem to be using this strategy more and more often.

I wonder if Dessler would be willing to do a blog post on the paper (I just sent him an email asking).

2011-07-30 09:32:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good idea Dana re contaacting Dr. Dessler.  The rebuttle at RC by Trenberth and Fasullo is damning, as is the ThinkProgress piece.  Maybe Kevin and Andy Dessler and Fassullo could do a group post here at SkS?  But just one of them would be brilliant.

One of my fav lines from the RC post:

"It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”)"

Too true.

Maybe we ought to wait a little while , as it looks like they are doing more digging-- thepape ris so badly written that they cannot even properly replicate their damn method for goodness' sakes!

Desperate, desperate times for those in denial, and it is showing big time.

2011-07-30 11:33:35Another rebuttal
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Climate change debunked? Not so fast by By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer and posted on MSNBC News.

2011-07-30 15:31:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190
Dessler declined, saying he's focusing on writing the response paper. He suggested he might be willing to do a post after it's published though. I linked to the ThinkProgress post in my post on Loehle and Scafetta, since the behavior in the two papers is so similar.
2011-07-30 19:24:07
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

 

2011-07-31 01:07:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190
Fasullo, however, gave permission to use his and Trenberth's RC post as a rebuttal and re-post here (and said he's an SkS fan). So that should work nicely.
2011-07-31 02:24:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.108.84

Are we getting into a "re-post it" mode of operation? I think SkS offers a platform in which the RealClimate level of discussion can be unpacked for the less-technical reader. If all we do is to re-post their article, we aren't adding any value.

After all, if what the experts wrote were so effective with the public, we wouldn't even need an SkS.

2011-07-31 02:37:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  I would say reposts are okay as long as SkS is also offering the same quantity and quality of original posts.  The additional name recognition having posts from Trenberth and others lends a great deal of legitimacy to SkS.  And for SkS readers it's quite likely many do not always see the original posts, so in that SkS is helping to further disseminate the information to a wider audience.

But I agree with you, we should be careful about simply reposting stuff that is too technical.  SkS plays an important role in helping to make the technical aspects of climate change more comprehedable for the average non-science reader.  We don't want to lose that.

2011-07-31 02:46:07Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.17.242

Maybe when we have a repost we should do a "Discussion" underneath. We repost the article then we have a discussion heading where we summarize and speak in layman's terms about what it means

2011-07-31 04:31:45Every SkS article...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

has a discussion thread. If people don't understand something in the article, they can easily ask for clarification.

Re re-posts, only a handful of SkS authors are ready, willing, and able to crank out articles in a 24-48 hour window.

In addition, very few SkS authors play reporter and get quotes from authoritative individuals. Many of the articles that are, and/or should be, re-post do contain relevant quotes from the experts.

2011-07-31 07:14:31
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.82.58

I'm with Rob Way and Nealstradamus - a lot of this is too technical, it needs to be translated for a lay audience. 

2011-07-31 08:22:57Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.17.242

I actually find some of the work at real climate too technical for me and i work in the field. I think its good to be able to translate it a bit... maybe we do like I said, we post the article in its entirety then we have a section right afterwards explaining it a little bit...

2011-07-31 08:39:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190

I didn't think the Trenberth and Fasullo post was terribly technical - it was pretty quickly drafted up from the looks of it.  But the backbone of SkS is the rebuttal database and basic/intermediate/advanced levels.  I probably won't have time, but if somebody else can simplify the post to a more understandable level, we can add that to the database as well.

2011-07-31 09:11:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.108.84

To be honest, I don't see much point in re-posting an article if we're not going to add value by explaining it. We are NOT competing with scientific journals, so we DON'T need to be "firstest with the mostest". We CAN be "firstest with the clearest", but only if we make that a priority. Adding articles that even someone like Robert, who is professional-in-training, does not fully understand, just clutters up the reader's experience and diffuses our impact.

In other words, if we don't have time to post an article that can reach our audience, we don't have time to post the article.

2011-07-31 11:48:52comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Hey all,
It's not that I don't understand what is said in this particular posting but there have been ones that we have re-posted that really are quite intense. The current one from real climate is okay but when there are texts such as these

"SB11 appears to have used the full 100 year record to evaluate the models, but this provides no indication of the robustness of their derived relationships. Here instead, we have considered each decade of the 20th century individually and quantified the inter-decadal variability to derive the Figure below. What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, using the EBAF dataset (in black). Then we show results from 2 different models, one which does not replicate ENSO well (top) and one which does (second panel). Here we give the average result (red curve) for all 10 decades, plus the range of results that reflects the variations from one decade to the next. The MPI-Echam5 model replicates the observations very well. When all model results from CMIP3 are included, the bottom panel results, showing the red curve not too dis-similar from Spencer and Braswell, but with a huge range, due both to the spread among models, and also the spread due to decadal variability."

"Figure: Lagged regression analysis for the Top-of-the-atmosphere Net Radiation against surface temperature. The CERES data is in black (as in SB11), and the individual models in each panel are in red. The dashed lines are the span of the regressions for specific 10 year periods in the model (so that the variance is comparable to the 10 years of the CERES data). The three panels show results for a) a model with poor ENSO variability, b) a model with reasonable ENSO variability, and c) all models. "

I can see how people who aren't big on statistics would find it a bit difficult. Realistically posting the article could be okay. But we have to have something summarizing the main points. Start with the discussion where we unpack the issue and then say something like "below is a reposting from Real Climate for those who are interested"

2011-07-31 11:51:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190

I think the value is that it's in our database (which it is now, by the way).  Ideally we want SkS to be a one stop shop for this sort of skeptic myth debunking information.  But I do agree that there would be a lot of added benefit if we can simplify the post.  Re-reading it, it was more technical than I remembered.  That's why we have Basic/Intermediate/Advanced levels though.  It's in the database as the Advanced version, so if anyone has the chance to simplify it to Basic/Intermediate, go for it.  I'll try to do it eventually if I have time, if nobody else has done it.

2011-08-01 02:12:17While Nero fiddles, Rome burns...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

By the time that SkS gets around to posting an original rebuttal, this particular controversy will be old news. In the meantime, SkS users will have to find their rebuttal ammunition elsewhere. I'll provide some links in this week's issue of the Weekly Digest.

2011-08-01 02:30:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.119.110

By definition, if SkS is considering re-posting, the orginal post is already available.

2011-08-01 05:50:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.190

Here, I threw together a basic version too.  I tried to keep it as simple as possible - hopefully it's okay.

2011-08-01 07:50:05
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.93.45

Advanced veresion = version.

Looks good. Short and sweet.