Climate scientists respond to flawed, right-wing paper - Roy Spencer is a nut-job

[shira]

The 7/26 paper by Roy Spencer has attracted a lot of attention from climate-change deniers. Looks like the paper is rubbish.

http://www.grist.org/climate-skepti...blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideolo

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct.

Pappas interviewed climatologists Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andrew Dessler, who eviscerated Spencer's shoddy science:

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to -- data processing, errors in the data, or real problems in the models -- is completely unclear."

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In his paper, Spencer relies on a toy model of the climate system which geochemist Barry Bickmore (a Republican) had previously exposed as being one that could "give him essentially any answer he wanted, as long as he didn't mind using parameters that don't make any physical sense."

This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is "very important" on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using "alarmist" or "alarmism" 15 times in nine paragraphs.

Then there's this interesting background information about Roy Spencer:

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

Thought you might be interested in the charter of the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance:"

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.


WHAT WE DENY

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

A CALL TO ACTION

In light of these facts,

We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

But to continue Spencer's bio:

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

He's listed on the Heartland Institute website, on their "List of Experts":

http://www.heartland.org/experts?page=7

And it's not as if this is the first time Spencer is guilty of bad science. From 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/s...1b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Dr. Christy said. "We still have this modest warming."

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

But hey, when a hack scientist, driven by his faith in God's Intelligent Design, produces junk science, it must be the last nail in the coffin of manmade climate change.

 

[NeoV]

I really doubt that this will generate the 'see I told you global warming is a hoax circle-jerk' that the article started in the first place...

anyone surprised at this is a fool

does Exxon really have that much money that they are funding this idiot?

 

[Craig234]

I really doubt that this will generate the 'see I told you global warming is a hoax circle-jerk' that the article started in the first place...

anyone surprised at this is a fool

does Exxon really have that much money that they are funding this idiot?

Are you kidding? The most profitable corporation ever?

I can't find a great chart I've seen before showing their network of funding of groups with millions, but here's one study's list:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank

Part 2:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/put-tiger-your-think-tank-part-ii

A good article saying what you should know about how Exxon is propagandizing from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

 

[halik]

Center for Tobacco studies, anyone?

 

[Double Trouble]

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to -- data processing, errors in the data, or real problems in the models -- is completely unclear."

No matter what the mismatch is due to, the fact is that the models being used are proving terribly inaccurate in terms of predictive value and in terms of matching the reality. Why that's the case is up for discussion, but as long as science can't create a model that even remotely matches reality, there's no point in using flawed models as the basis for economic and social policy.

Spencer is likely a tool, as are many of those who decry him as a tool, they're just pushing their side for their agenda as well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Let me get this straight... People dedicated to furthering the cause of man-made global warming disagree with those of people dedicated to furthering skepticism of man-made global warming? I'm shocked!

 

[Blackjack200]

[/B]No matter what the mismatch is due to, the fact is that the models being used are proving terribly inaccurate in terms of predictive value and in terms of matching the reality. Why that's the case is up for discussion, but as long as science can't create a model that even remotely matches reality, there's no point in using flawed models as the basis for economic and social policy.

Spencer is likely a tool, as are many of those who decry him as a tool, they're just pushing their side for their agenda as well.

Let me get this straight... People dedicated to furthering the cause of man-made global warming disagree with those of people dedicated to furthering skepticism of man-made global warming? I'm shocked!

lol

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Let me get this straight... People dedicated to furthering the cause of man-made global warming disagree with those of people dedicated to furthering skepticism of man-made global warming? I'm shocked!

I get the cheeky comment but one must differentiate between those who draw a conclusion then go searching for the science (denialists) and those who did it the normal scientific way ie the climate scientists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I get the cheeky comment but one must differentiate between those who draw a conclusion then go searching for the science (denialists) and those who did it the normal scientific way ie the climate scientists.

lol, yeah because they didn't have a conclusion they wanted to find the data for...


lol, some of you are just suckers... blind faith in man never seems to work out well as history shows...

 

[monovillage]

Here's an article on the Spencer/Braswell paper by climate scientist Roger Pielke sr. In the OP instead of having a rebuttal peer reviewed paper, Trenberth, Schmidt and Dessler go all out for personal attacks.... sounds like climate scientists at their best.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...alance%E2%80%9D-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

In it he disagrees with some points of the paper, but also says.

"First, their paper is a major, constructive addition to the discussion of climate forcings and the climate response. A major strength of their study is that is based on real-world observations!"

"It is also important to realize that this study is with respect to a relatively short time period (2000-2010). It does not directly show that climate models are in error on longer time periods.

Nonetheless, the Spencer and Braswell is a very major contribution to the climate science debate. If, as they have shown, the models are unable to properly represent how the climate system responds to radiative imbalances on short time periods, it certainly raises serious questions on the robustness of the models in terms of their modelled physics which necessarily would result in flawed model simulations on multi-decadal time scales. "

"Nevertheless, this new paper by Spencer and Braswell challenges the climate community to explain a more dynamic behaviour of the climate system than concluded in the 2007 IPCC report. Their use of a simplified model is an effective way to discuss and examine this issue.

The next step is for those we disagree with their conclusions to publish in the peer-reviewed literature. I look forward to following this debate. I am pleased there are quality peer reviewed journals that provide venues to present scientifically rigorous studies such as the provided by Spencer and Braswell"

 

[umbrella39]

RemoteSensingLolz

 

[PokerGuy]

Quick, all ye true believers of the faith, we must decry this Spencer heathen as a non-believer, smear him, quickly! Perhaps we can obfuscate the fact that he blew a hole in our precious belief system.

 

[ProfJohn]

It is amazing how all the anti-religion folks buy into the global warming religion.

And just like religious types any time someone questions their beliefs they rise up and call them bad names and attack their character.

And every time one of the tenants of belief is question they change their narrative so that the new information can still fit within their broader belief system.

Religious nuts:
During the Eucharist the wafer changes into blood... ok, actually it is just symbolic...

The earth is the center of the universe... well actually it's not, but that doesn't change the fact that god created it!!

God created adam and eve... oh evolution... well... you see... ummm... intelligent design!! yea that's the ticket!

Global Warming nuts:
The ice on Kilimanjaro is melting due to the industrial revolution... the ice has been melting since BEFORE the industrial revolution... yea, but it is still melting!!

All the ice on Mt Everest will be gone in a century.... oh... someone made a math error... well the ice is still melting!

The ice in Greenland is melting like never before!!! the melting ice is exposing villages that were buried in the ice suggesting that greenland may have actually been green in the past... yea, but the ice is melting!!

This hockey stick graph proves that world temperatures are rising!!! dude, I erased your numbers and plugged in the scores from last night's baseball games and got the same result as you... You're not a scientist!! You're a sports writer!!!

 

[NeoV]

PJ - I love how the anti-GW crowd calls the science a 'religion', as if that is supposed to devalue scientific data.

If you can't even admit that we are in a period of warming, it's pointless to discuss this, ever, with you.

If you want to debate the part man is having on this warming, or what, if any, changes we should make - that's constructive and useful. This 'zealotry' and name-calling, not to mention supporting nuts like the writer of the article this thread is about - that's nothing but a distraction.

You can keep citing the 'hockey-stick', but the fact remains that the trend that graph shows has been basically reproduced by dozens of other studies/teams.

So Greenland was green in the past - what exactly is that supposed to prove? No one on the side of 'man is having an impact on our climate' is saying, or has ever said, that Earth doesn't have or has experienced any type of climate change before man was on the planet.

You just look ignorant when you make posts like this, and for the most part you aren't an ignorant person, just too partisan!

What's bad about lessening our dependence on foreign oil?

What's bad about creating less pollution in our air?

What's bad about increasing the fuel economy, whatever that fuel might be, of our cars/trucks?

What's bad about putting less money in the pockets of the oil-producing countries of the world - most of whom don't exactly care for us?

 

[Jaskalas]

PJ - I love how the anti-GW crowd calls the science a 'religion', as if that is supposed to devalue scientific data.

Speaking of the data...

CO2 VS Temperature

 

[ProfJohn]

Facts:

1. We are in a period of warming.

2. The earth was WARMER in the past, including just a thousand years ago.

3. The fact that the earth was warming in the past and that said warming occurred without man made involvement means that this warming could all be occurring without man made involvement.

4. The global warming models are a disaster. If they really worked then they could plug in data from 30 years ago and get results similar to what we are seeing today, but I don't think they can even do that.

non-facts:
Improving then environment and using less oil and all is a great thing, but I am not ready to destroy our economy in order to do so.

The earth has a mass of:
5,972,190,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
The mass of every human on the planet is:
474,266,499,000

Notice the size difference between the two numbers?
It is awfully arrogant of us to belief that in just 50+ years we can damage the earth weather system by driving a few cars and burning a few trees.

Read up on the effects of one volcano:
In the spring and summer of 1815, a persistent dry fog was observed in the northeastern United States. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the "fog". It was identified as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.[6] In summer 1816, countries in the Northern Hemisphere suffered extreme weather conditions, dubbed the Year Without a Summer. Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[4] enough to cause significant agricultural problems around the globe. On 4 June 1816, frosts were reported in Connecticut, and by the following day, most of New England was gripped by the cold front. On 6 June 1816, snow fell in Albany, New York, and Dennysville, Maine.[6] Such conditions occurred for at least three months and ruined most agricultural crops in North America. Canada experienced extreme cold during that summer. Snow 30 centimetres (12 in) deep accumulated near Quebec City from 6 to 10 June 1816.

We are insignificant compared to that.

 

[PokerGuy]

What's bad about lessening our dependence on foreign oil?

What's bad about creating less pollution in our air?

What's bad about increasing the fuel economy, whatever that fuel might be, of our cars/trucks?

What's bad about putting less money in the pockets of the oil-producing countries of the world - most of whom don't exactly care for us?

Because you nitwit, there's a cost to those actions. Nothing is free. The MMGW zealots know that people are not willing to pay the price (in freedom and money), so they've resorted to "the sky is falling" ...errrr.... "the earth is warming" zealotry to try and push the agenda. When someone exposes the problems with the supposed science, they get all defensive and try to attack the source rather than the conclusion.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Riiiigght! We have not gone through the warmest years on record while the sun was in the cool part of two sun spot cycles. Riiiggght!

 

[ProfJohn]

And the earth is colder now than it was in the past...

 

[GaryJohnson]

Speaking of the data...

CO2 VS Temperature

That chart only goes back to 1996. The temperature data set used for the chart goes back to 1850:

 

[PokerGuy]

Riiiigght! We have not gone through the warmest years on record while the sun was in the cool part of two sun spot cycles. Riiiggght!

Riiiiiiight, because we should base our policies on one year or even a subset of years. All hail the great Goron!

 

[Jaskalas]

That chart only goes back to 1996. The temperature data set used for the chart goes back to 1850:

And the history of our rise out the Little Ice Age is supposed to tell us what? Doesn't change what I'm saying. CO2 continues to rise, temperature is leveling off and NOT accelerating.

Hard to feel threatened by something that is not spiraling out of control.

 

[Todd33]

And the earth is colder now than it was in the past...

How is that relevant?

How is the mass of all human relevant?

The fear with all climate science is a small change made in part by humans (releasing CO2 trapped in forms like coal, oil, etc. into the atmosphere) creates a much larger change in the measured temperature. With a positive feedback system like you have with ocean currents, reflected energy from the ice caps, etc. it's not hard to imagine extra CO2 causing a 1 degree increase which leads to a larger increase over time.

Taking a naive stance that us petty humans can't possible change the climate is silly. We have technology to do our dirty work. We can wreak havoc either instantly with a nuclear winter or over time like with fossil fuel burning.

 

[GaryJohnson]

temperature is leveling off and NOT accelerating

Here's the same chart with a 3 order trend line instead of 2 order:

How do you get "leveling off" out of that?

 

[NeoV]

wow PJ - you know much less about this than you think

read actual facts on volcano output vs man-made output, it's not even in the ballpark

So the mass weight of humankind, compared to the mass weight of the planet, means we can't impact the climate? You are kidding, right?

I'm a nitwit for saying that? It's called - get ready - progress. Should we not put any research into better/more efficient fuel technology because it's going to cost something?

I'm not saying crash our economy in the name of fuel efficiency - but does it really seem like we are that far off from some of these things?

Nice work on the graph Jaska - if you cherry pick chart segments it's amazing what you can get a graph to say..