Spencer and Braswell must have hit a big soft spot in warmer’s models (Or maybe it is more of a connection)

Russ Steele

Editors Note:  See the update below from a post at Watts Up With That, the critics and the editor may have a business and academic relationship.  See the rest of the story below.

Roy Spencer and John Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing, a peer- reviewed journal which is the litmus test for valid science by Nevada County’s local left.  This paper would force some re-thinking and re-calculation of the existing climate models, thus reducing the amount of warming projected by these climate models.  Therefore they have declared it is bad science, and even worse yet done by a bad scientist. The reaction by the warmer’s was brutal. The full paper On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance can be found HERE.

I wrote about the issues HERE, when James Taylor wrote in Forbes Magazine: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. Which in retrospect the article was a bit over the top, but the finding by Spencer and Braswell will required revision to the warmer models unless they can discredit them as scientist.

And that is exactly what the warmers are trying to do, as they wrote in the Climategate e-mail they are redefining climate science peer-review process.

  • They have force the Remote Sensor Journal editor Wolfgang Warner to resign, and commanding an apology for publishing the paper in the first place.
  • Forcing the resignation, rather than publishing counter paper in the Remote Sensing, demonstrating the mistakes in Spencer and Braswell, they chose to attack them in the blogs, which is not how good science is done. The place to refute a published paper is in peer-reviewed papers, not in blogs or the media.
  • Those who are demanding resignations and apologies, Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick have written a personal attack on John Spencer in The Daily Climate.

Dr Roger Pielke writes at Climate Science about the historical fabrications and ad hominem attacks by this trio in: Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

I do not think that Peter Gleick is much of a scientist, more a political hack. He wrote a study on Sea Level Rise for the California Energy Commission’s Climate Change Center Report Series. I took exception to Dr Gleick truncating his sea level rise data in 2006, when the data beyond 2006 showed a sea level decline. My full exchange with Dr Gleick is in: Pacific Institute truncates sea level rise data. Why?

But, now after reading Dr. Gleick in Forbes, I now understand where I went wrong.

“[T]his is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models.” – Peter Gleick at Forbes; emphasis added. 9/2/2011

The real world data that I presented to Dr Glick did not fit the model, so it could be ignored. This is appears to be the case with the Spencer-Braswell paper. The real world satellite data does not fit the warmers models, thus it must be wrong and Dr Spencer must be attacked for presenting data that did not fit the warmers model.

The strength of this attack tells me that Dr Spencer and Dr John Christy are on to something that will destroy the warmer’s assertion that we must stem the flow of CO2 or fry.  However, I think the real issue is that Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick will lose their global warming research revenue stream if Spencer and Christy are right.

Anthony Watts has pointed out that this whole issue has gone viral. Details HERE. I also recommend reading Dr Pielke’s exchange with Dr Gleick HERE. This is not going to turn out the way the warmer’s and Wolfgang Warner thought is would. Stay Tuned.

Update from WUWT Post by Les Johnson:

Here comes the interconnected parts; I read Maurizio Morabito’s blog, and discovered that Mr. Wagner may have connections to Mr. Trenberth, to whom Mr. Wagner gives the only scientific reference in his letter. There are also suggestions that his apology is directed right at Trenberth, which seems odd, doesn’t it?

I went to Bishop Hill’s site, to link Maurizio’s site. While there, I noted similar work done by Robert Phelan, who mentions davidhoffer.

David Hoffer speculates that Wagner is upset that SB2011 will interfere with the modeling gravy train, of which Mr. Wagner is part of. This is pure speculation of course, but it is logical. Mr. Wagner hints at this, in his letter:

“ Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data.”

On this side of the story, that is the connection: myself, to Maurizio, to Bishop Hill, to Robert Phelan, and finally to davidhoffer, who apparently started the whole thing, then back to WUWT.

The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).

GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus it’s worse than we thought.

In the conclusion of this cloud albedo discussion, is some boot licking directed at the new Chairperson.

Thus, the circle of climate is complete.

Here again, we learn there are more connection on the Warmer’s Team, than ever imagined.  As they said in their Climategate e-mails, they would redefine the peer-review process is they have to, all to keep the skeptics from publishing.  They have surely bastardized the process in this case, to damage the reputation of Dr. Roy Spencer and his colleagues.

4 thoughts on “Spencer and Braswell must have hit a big soft spot in warmer’s models (Or maybe it is more of a connection)

  1. Wayne Hild September 18, 2011 / 8:45 pm

    …a couple of questions…
    1-why only look at 8 months of a year? Why not the whole year’s worth of data?
    2-looking at regional conditions (i.e. the U.S.) says not much about GLOBAL warming or cooling.
    3-you have an uphill battle, since 98% of climate scientists are confirming warming (& more every year). It’s kinda’ like going to 100 doctors and 98 of them say there’s a problem, but you decide to listen to the two (& the least competent two, at that) that say don’t worry about it.
    4-the numerous editing mistakes don’t help make your point.
    otherwise a very interesting site.

  2. Russ September 19, 2011 / 7:24 am

    One — the year is not up yet.
    Two — True but most to the temperature senors are in the US, and most warming and cooling is regional. Hard to measure the global temperature except by satellite, which we track.
    Three — This claim arises from a June 2010 PNAS study. The bottom line on the study is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do. If you ask those who are not on the government dole you get a very different story. Science is not about consensus it is about proven facts. One can believe in many things and not know anything. This is true of global warming as well. You will find a list of credible scientist that are not believers here: http://tinyurl.com/635l93c
    Four — Sorry about the editing errors. Let me know if you find any huge errors.

  3. jim September 20, 2011 / 9:47 am

    Typo: ‘If you ask those who are not OFF the government dole you get a very different story’

    Russ Replies: Jim thanks for the heads up on the typo.

  4. J Martin September 22, 2011 / 12:23 pm

    @ Wayne

    The oft quoted 97% figure is fraud. The outfit that produced that figure polled some 1200 scientists but chose the answers of just 67 of them. An honest result would have been the answers of all those polled. Presumably most of the answers they received were not to their liking. If I find the link to the article I’ll post it here.

    Also there is a poll published by the IPCC themselves which showed that a narrow majority of scientists thought that the science of global warming is NOT settled. Again if I find the link I’ll post it here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s