New NASA Data

[skierinvermont]

Well this is a surprisingly stupid post.

1) An atmospheric science degree is just that, whether it be climate, weather, etc, just to clear that up whether or not it applies in this circumstance. There is no "climate degree" sepcifically, and you don't need a "PHD" in a certain area to understand the science at hand here.

2) Realclimate is a Blog...and As is usually the case with blog rebuttals, there were blatant errors invloved that Roy Spencer Addressed.

3) If you are going to play the Education game, I'll say that I have more"education" in climate science than you happen to have, as I am currently a Particle Physics and Atmspheric Science student.

See the nonsense involved? I don't care who runs Realclimate, and frankly I've read enough misconception and scientific mis-analysis within that blog to know it is for the most part superficial.

1. Some areas of formal education are much more relevant to climate studies than others. For example, in paleoclimatology, relevant areas of study would be geology, and physics. Not your typical meteorology degree. In climate modeling, relevant areas of study would include mathematics and again physics.

2. Roy Spencer hasn't addressed them. The errors are glaring to all but the most stupid and intellectually twisted individuals.

3. Doubtful.

[skierinvermont]

As an aside, it's unfortunate that informative posters with relevant career experience to this subject, like chirs, have to deal with garbage attacks from Bethesda. I strongly suspect that he has driven off many other informative posters and that people like chris would post much more if they didn't have to respond to this nonsense.

[The_Global_Warmer]

As an aside, it's unfortunate that informative posters with relevant career experience to this subject, like chirs, have to deal with garbage attacks from Bethesda. I strongly suspect that he has driven off many other informative posters and that people like chris would post much more if they didn't have to respond to this nonsense.

I guess it's this forums equivalent to Doogie Howser. A 19 yr old telling everyone how much of a genius he is while completely disrespecting professionals.

I have worked in multiple "professional" industries. As an equal in photography and as "right" hand man for a Regional Supervisor of Quik Trip when I was 19.

I have never seen anything like this. I have some decent connections in Transocean. I could probably help him out with funding when he starts his professional blog in a few years.

[tacoman25]

The comparison between WUWT and RealClimate is laughable. WUWT is written by a weatherman with no formal education or published work in most of the relevant areas upon which he is commenting. RealClimate is written by experts in the field with a high level of formal education and publication of well-respected articles in the relevant subject areas.

It's like using a blog written by me to rebut a blog written by Steven Hawkings on astrophysics.

All the education in the world does not eliminate inherent bias.

[tacoman25]

What I don't understand is why it matters if Remote Sensing is considered a major journal for climate studies. If it is a reputable scientific journal, they should be able to discern between good scientific research and that of lower quality. The peer review process is supposed to exist to ensure published research is of high scientific quality, whether the conclusions in the research agree with the "general consensus" in a certain field or not.

[chris87]

What I don't understand is why it matters if Remote Sensing is considered a major journal for climate studies. If it is a reputable scientific journal, they should be able to discern between good scientific research and that of lower quality. The peer review process is supposed to exist to ensure published research is of high scientific quality, whether the conclusions in the research agree with the "general consensus" in a certain field or not.

Peer review is better than no peer review but it is far from a perfect system. Take MPDI, the publisher of Remote Sensing, it is an open-source, for profit outfit. That doesn't mean it doesn't publish good research, but as a scientist who publishes regularly, these journals are for those who want to get things out as fast as possible.

As a scientist this is all the proof I need that this paper did not receive a proper peer review...

"Regarding uncertainties, it is another lame excuse. The reviewers did not feel like that was needed." - quote by Spencer himself, in response to not addressing any of the uncertainties of his analysis. Some may look at this and be like what's the big deal but to a scientist it's just a giant red flag.

[skierinvermont]

What I don't understand is why it matters if Remote Sensing is considered a major journal for climate studies. If it is a reputable scientific journal, they should be able to discern between good scientific research and that of lower quality. The peer review process is supposed to exist to ensure published research is of high scientific quality, whether the conclusions in the research agree with the "general consensus" in a certain field or not.

Not all peer-review is equal. It's pretty basic. If you can't understand that you're just sticking your head in the sand. The rigor of some peer-review is greater than that of others. The fact that Spencer got it 'peer-reviewed' is better than completely un-reviewed, but only slightly.

There are 1000s of 'peer-reviewed' journals out there. You can get almost anything published if you journal shop. Which is why you see so many professors with padded CVs by publishing poor or unimportant work in minor journals. If you have something important to say, you make the effort to get it through the rigorous peer-review of a reputable journal like the Journal of Climate, Nature, Science etc. This is what we saw O'Donnell do with his review/rebutal of Steig. O'Donnell took the time and effort (and possessed the training and intelligence) to produce and edit a high-quality paper and get it through the rigorous peer-review process of the Journal of Climate. Even though the paper flew in the face of an influential paper by an influential scientist, the paper made it through the review process. One of the reviewers was actually Steig himself, whose work was being rebutted by the very paper he was reviewing.

Spencer's claim that he has been black-balled is rubbish. The fact is, outside of his work on the UAH temperature record, he has rarely produced high-quality work which passes rigorous review.

[AtticaFanatica]

What I don't understand is why it matters if Remote Sensing is considered a major journal for climate studies. If it is a reputable scientific journal, they should be able to discern between good scientific research and that of lower quality. The peer review process is supposed to exist to ensure published research is of high scientific quality, whether the conclusions in the research agree with the "general consensus" in a certain field or not.

Honestly, it matters quite a bit, particularly to the quality of the reviewers.

The difference in the quality of the reviews in a paper I published to a highly regarded journal and one I published to a lesser (though appropriate) journal was staggering.

[chris87]

Honestly, it matters quite a bit, particularly to the quality of the reviewers.

The difference in the quality of the reviews in a paper I published to a highly regarded journal and one I published to a lesser (though appropriate) journal were staggering.

couldn't have described my experience better...

[tacoman25]

Peer review is better than no peer review but it is far from a perfect system. Take MPDI, the publisher of Remote Sensing, it is an open-source, for profit outfit. That doesn't mean it doesn't publish good research, but as a scientist who publishes regularly, these journals are for those who want to get things out as fast as possible.

As a scientist this is all the proof I need that this paper did not receive a proper peer review...

"Regarding uncertainties, it is another lame excuse. The reviewers did not feel like that was needed." - quote by Spencer himself, in response to not addressing any of the uncertainties of his analysis. Some may look at this and be like what's the big deal but to a scientist it's just a giant red flag.

It's just funny how some on here preach "peer review, peer review" but then when peer-reviewed papers that go against the mainstream are published, that peer review isn't enough - now it has to be the right kind of peer review. Certainly doesn't put to rest the notion that some scientific fields are like a good ol' boys club.

[tacoman25]

Not all peer-review is equal. It's pretty basic. If you can't understand that you're just sticking your head in the sand. The rigor of some peer-review is greater than that of others. The fact that Spencer got it 'peer-reviewed' is better than completely un-reviewed, but only slightly.

[Sunny and Warm]

Apparently you equate mainstream science with liberal science. In science there are no "anti" or "pro". The data and the evidence is supposed to speak for itself. You politicize science with your attitude. You're correct, it is not alright for a group with an agenda to politicize science and fund science with the intention of creating a specific outcome. Why then do you support that type of activity?

Did Climategate teach you nothing about AGW advocacy at the highest levels of the scientific community, and their ongoing attempts to prevent anti-AGW papers from being published? Are you willing to say on the record that this does not occur at a major level in that crowd? Do you support that type of activity?

[tacoman25]

There are 1000s of 'peer-reviewed' journals out there. You can get almost anything published if you journal shop. Which is why you see so many professors with padded CVs by publishing poor or unimportant work in minor journals. If you have something important to say, you make the effort to get it through the rigorous peer-review of a reputable journal like the Journal of Climate, Nature, Science etc. This is what we saw O'Donnell do with his review/rebutal of Steig. O'Donnell took the time and effort (and possessed the training and intelligence) to produce and edit a high-quality paper and get it through the rigorous peer-review process of the Journal of Climate. Even though the paper flew in the face of an influential paper by an influential scientist, the paper made it through the review process. One of the reviewers was actually Steig himself, whose work was being rebutted by the very paper he was reviewing.

Oh really? Where were these claims when you and others were championing the peer review process on other occasions? I never heard you mention "journal shopping" ONCE in those instances.

[Sunny and Warm]

The comparison between WUWT and RealClimate is laughable. WUWT is written by a weatherman with no formal education or published work in most of the relevant areas upon which he is commenting. RealClimate is written by experts in the field with a high level of formal education and publication of well-respected articles in the relevant subject areas.

It's like using a blog written by me to rebut a blog written by Steven Hawkings on astrophysics.

See my reply to Rusty. Do you feel it acceptable for scientists on the front lines of AGW to have an advocacy website (RC) devoted to smearing anyone not in the cult? Besides, WUWT is much more than a weatherman writing a blog. Many, many of the blog articles are from scientists in the field.

[chris87]

It's just funny how some on here preach "peer review, peer review" but then when peer-reviewed papers that go against the mainstream are published, that peer review isn't enough - now it has to be the right kind of peer review. Certainly doesn't put to rest the notion that some scientific fields are like a good ol' boys club.

valid concern, any peer review > no peer review

Spencer will claim he's been blackballed by the community, and I'm sure he has made his fair share of enemies but instead of engaging them by doing some awesome analysis, he continually chooses to cut corners in his analysis (in this case, not even bothering to address any uncertainty in his analysis, attaching some error bars and testing for significance would have addressed one of my major concerns with this paper, and it would had been so easy) and fight his battles in the blogosphere.

You can't blame him, he's made quite a name for himself, a folk hero for some, and pure evil to others.

[tacoman25]

Honestly, it matters quite a bit, particularly to the quality of the reviewers.

The difference in the quality of the reviews in a paper I published to a highly regarded journal and one I published to a lesser (though appropriate) journal was staggering.

Ok, I can understand that.

But there seems to be some assumptions being made here about this particular journal and its reviewers, and I'm not sure that same level of criticism is applied to every peer-reviewed paper that is published.

[chris87]

Ok, I can understand that.

But there seems to be some assumptions being made here about this particular journal and its reviewers, and I'm not sure that same level of criticism is applied to every peer-reviewed paper that is published.

It's a level of criticism I apply to any peer review paper (in this case, for or against AGW or even in my field of study)....and most other scientists apply it too.

[tacoman25]

valid concern, any peer review > no peer review

Spencer will claim he's been blackballed by the community, and I'm sure he has made his fair share of enemies but instead of engaging them by doing some awesome analysis, he continually chooses to cut corners in his analysis (in this case, not even bothering to address any uncertainty in his analysis, attaching some error bars and testing for significance would have addressed one of my major concerns with this paper, and it would had been so easy) and fight his battles in the blogosphere.

You can't blame him, he's made quite a name for himself, a folk hero for some, and pure evil to others.

I agree, that would have been a good move on his part.

Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the paper, and I know I've read a number of other peer-reviewed studies that did not include much of an uncertainty analysis. Again, my problem is that I see people on here applying uneven standards in regards to the peer review process. Not every peer-reviewed paper is scrutinized as much as this one has been, or every publisher for that matter. Instead of focusing on the real content of the study and the important implications within, the focus is shifted to whether or not it was "properly" peer-reviewed.

[tacoman25]

It's a level of criticism I apply to any peer review paper (in this case, for or against AGW or even in my field of study)....and most other scientists apply it too.

I'm just talking about the responses to other peer-reviewed papers posted on this forum. And references to the peer-review process in general. See my response to skiier up the page.

[chris87]

I agree, that would have been a good move on his part.

Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the paper, and I know I've read a number of other peer-reviewed studies that did not include much of an uncertainty analysis. Again, my problem is that I see people on here applying uneven standards in regards to the peer review process. Not every peer-reviewed paper is scrutinized as much as this one has been, or every publisher for that matter. Instead of focusing on the real content of the study and the important implications within, the focus is shifted to whether or not it was "properly" peer-reviewed.

As someone who holds a PhD in atmospheric science, it comes very close to invalidating the paper because if you can't prove that your results didn't occur by chance then you don't have much in the way of science in your paper. And that goes for any study.

There are other structural problems with the methodology which aren't addressed, mainly the use of his "toy model", which is used to validate the satellite findings, which in fact is as crude of a representation of the climate system as possible, and is highly tunable to allow the user to get just about any result he/she chooses. Once again, if he could had show that the differences between the CERES dataset and the climate models were significant, the use of this "toy model" wouldn't had been as heavily scrutinized.

In general, when I'm reviewing a paper, and someone makes a claim about the significance of their findings without the necessary evidence, I have to assume they did and chose to omit it from the paper.

[Sunny and Warm]

As an aside, it's unfortunate that informative posters with relevant career experience to this subject, like chirs, have to deal with garbage attacks from Bethesda. I strongly suspect that he has driven off many other informative posters and that people like chris would post much more if they didn't have to respond to this nonsense.

Chris87 is too AGW biased to have a rational conversation with on this forum, no matter what he brings to the table.

[chris87]

Chris87 is too AGW biased to have a rational conversation with on this forum, no matter what he brings to the table.

I'm neither an alarmist for AGW or a denier of AGW....My personal opinion is that too much attention is focused on the warming component of climate change, where more attention should be place on the role of climate change on water availability, food security and an increase in drought occurence/severity. Water-related issues associated with climate change have human influences well beyond any influence from increased CO2. Humans can adapt to increased temperatures, humans (especially those in developing nations) don't adapt well to famine and a lack of water.

Send me a good example of a pro-AGW article and I'll give you my opinion...find one without a good statistical analysis and I'll be just as hard as I was with the Spencer paper.

[BethesdaWX]

As an aside, it's unfortunate that informative posters with relevant career experience to this subject, like chirs, have to deal with garbage attacks from Bethesda. I strongly suspect that he has driven off many other informative posters and that people like chris would post much more if they didn't have to respond to this nonsense.

Garbage attacks? Yeah like you can talk about "garbage" attacks Mr. Hansen Jr. Your career isn't relevant to climate science Mr Hypocrite, nor do you have education in atmospheric science/particle physics to play the Hypocritical game of "you're not a climate scientist"...blah blah blah.

Calling someone one for posting blog science refuted by the Author of the paper itself...yeah, thats gotta irk you dude.

Every post of yours here is garbage attack in this case.

Point is you linked a Blog Post to attempt to refute a peer reviewed study, you just don't do that, and you know it too. The blog post you referenced was not only a massive double standard in this case, but also mis-interpreted the data/message spencer displayed, as Spencer Explained in hos own blog post.

His "model" is not trying to analyze what is going on within the oceans, simply measuring the forcing and how much radiative energy is escaping into space from the climate system as a whole in an applied dataset. If there is something wrong with the IPCC's models within the oceans/ENSO cycle, it will show up in Spencer's model whether or not the Oceans are taken into account. So it is a strawman argument. Radiative release is determined by mechanisms within the climate system, so if there is a Disconnect within the IPCC models it is detectable, it is detectbale in satellite data,and the deviations are plotted in Spencer's model through the applied dataset.

Obviously satellite data is never perfect, there are atmospheric factors that need to be calibrated for, orbital issues (This is not on the NOAA15 network FYI), etc. In this case drift is not a major issue, and while there will are error bars on the TERRA satellite, they are not large enough to affect the conclusion of the analysis

I'm sure you know that reviewers are chosen by journals based on their qualifications...right?

From you I get

- This Blog Post says...

- The Journal is Not Good

- Spencer is Oil funded

Yeah that is not science. We debate science by reading the paper, analyzing the paper, and then debating it. I have enough education to where I can understand the paper, methods, and mathematics involved.

And I'll say that the main point of the paper is deciphering feedback mechanisms through changes within the climate system, rather than trying to disprove the IPCC models long term.

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those WERE Observations that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations?

Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.

[skierinvermont]

Oh really? Where were these claims when you and others were championing the peer review process on other occasions? I never heard you mention "journal shopping" ONCE in those instances.

Educating the (deliberately) ignorant on how science is and should be conducted is a step by step process. One step at a time.

Your continued games of "gotcha" are tiresome and unproductive as always.

[chris87]

Garbage attacks? Yeah like you can talk about "garbage" attacks Mr. Hansen Jr. Your career isn't relevant to climate science Mr Hypocrite, nor do you have education in atmospheric science/particle physics to play the Hypocritical game of "you're not a climate scientist"...blah blah blah.

Calling someone one for posting blog science refuted by the Author of the paper itself...yeah, thats gotta irk you dude.

Every post of yours here is garbage attack in this case.

Sorry,

I haven't had time today to address your post from last night. I will later tonight, a preview, somehow I was the one who refuted Spencer's paper and then you manage to accuse him of "tuning" his model to match his satellite observations...

I almost fell out of my seat this morning...you went somewhere I wouldn't had even gone...accusing a scientist of directly "tuning" a model to bolster his research, I only said the problem with his "toy model" was that is was highly tunable...and the lack of transparency was a problem for me.

[tacoman25]

Educating the (deliberately) ignorant on how science is and should be conducted is a step by step process. One step at a time.

Your continued games of "gotcha" are tiresome and unproductive as always.

It would be nice if I didn't have to always point out your inconsistencies. That is what's tiresome.

Don't try to tell me you had this planned all along..."now it's time for Step 3 of Educating the Ignorant On Peer Review: journal shopping!"

Your smug and condescending attitude does little to further your points.

[tacoman25]

As someone who holds a PhD in atmospheric science, it comes very close to invalidating the paper because if you can't prove that your results didn't occur by chance then you don't have much in the way of science in your paper. And that goes for any study.

There are other structural problems with the methodology which aren't addressed, mainly the use of his "toy model", which is used to validate the satellite findings, which in fact is as crude of a representation of the climate system as possible, and is highly tunable to allow the user to get just about any result he/she chooses. Once again, if he could had show that the differences between the CERES dataset and the climate models were significant, the use of this "toy model" wouldn't had been as heavily scrutinized.

In general, when I'm reviewing a paper, and someone makes a claim about the significance of their findings without the necessary evidence, I have to assume they did and chose to omit it from the paper.

Which is why we have the peer review process to ensure that only truly scientific papers get published to scientific journals.

This is the mantra that has been oft-repeated in these climate threads. I am sure that this isn't the first peer-reviewed paper that has methodology issues. If this one snuck through the peer review process (you are suggesting maybe it shouldn't have?), who knows how many other faulty research papers have been published and accepted by the scientific community?

[WeatherRusty]

Did Climategate teach you nothing about AGW advocacy at the highest levels of the scientific community, and their ongoing attempts to prevent anti-AGW papers from being published? Are you willing to say on the record that this does not occur at a major level in that crowd? Do you support that type of activity?

Climategate was a trumped up, fabricated, unethical if not illegal theft of confidential correspondence by the unscrupulous . I take nothing from it other than the fact that the skeptics will not hesitate to stoop to any level of impropriety to dig up dirt on climate scientists and by extension the integrity of the science.

The Baliunas - Soon paper never should have see the light of day, it was garbage then and is regarded as garbage today.

The type of activity you allude to is the response climate scientists have made in trying to protect themselves from the vicious attacks and unreasonable, relentless demands on their time and the misuse of their materials by those known to be hostile.

[WeatherRusty]

Chris87 is too AGW biased to have a rational conversation with on this forum, no matter what he brings to the table.

Is being convinced by the science the same as being biased?

[BethesdaWX]

Most of this debate is irrelavent crapola in my eyes, and would be so in the eyes of any objecitve scientist.

1) Climategate is irrelavent to everything in this thread, in controversial threads always seem to fall apart onto this stuff.

2) This is a science board, that means we debate the science within a paper, like logical scientists do. We don't link blog posts, claim the author oil funded, or critisize the journal because it is not predominately climate science related...reviewers are chosen by journals based on their credentials/qualifications in such fields of sciences, and we DO NOT know who reviewed the paper, so such speculation can be solved through the actual scientific debate within the paper itself. And when those making these hypocritical contrarian arguments have not even read the paper, it simply classifies anyone in this case doing such (Skierinvermont, for example), as a giant, unscientific blowhard who has no business debating science if he/she cannot get a valid understanding of it, and/or are unwilling to. I have a feeling that I am the only one here who has thorougly read through the paper, as well as the realclimate blog post, and can see the disconnect and irrelavency right from the get-go.

Any arguments deliberately avoiding the science are made when one is lost for words, and ideology trumps common sense. I say if one is not willing do debate scientifically, and will resort to linking blogs, screaming of oil funding, etc, then they should not participate in the thread. It is stupid irrelavent banter that would not be tolerated by objective scientists. And that is being kind.

Educating the (deliberately) ignorant on how science is and should be conducted is a step by step process. One step at a time.

Your continued games of "gotcha" are tiresome and unproductive as always.

Deliberately Ignorant = You. I try to take the "step-by-step" process with you, as you suggest (You are ignorant, and likely it is deliberate based on your avoidence of scientific debate with me) but you either ignore me or yelp manipulative/false fantasies that are non existant, irrelavent and/or wreak of hypocricy.

Here, if you want to demonstrate that you are not a deliberately ignorant blowhard with pompous attitude and ridiculous ideological views, lets begin debating the systematice release of radiative energy by the climate system in response to radiative and non-radiative forcings/feedbacks, where TERRA satellites inferior error bars invalidate the study, and why satistical analysis of such large standard deviations from the Model Mean Actually would mean anything.