Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

Piggy said:
So what you're saying is that the author has been attempting for a couple of years to have it accepted?
Click to expand...
A two-year delay between submission and publication isn't particularly unusual, and no adverse conclusion should be drawn from it.

I don't see why any adverse conclusion should be drawn from the first author's creationism either; it's irrelevant to this paper. If we were to disregard all publications by scientists who exhibit even the slightest sign of irrationality, we'd be disregarding all science.
 
A good example of how Spencer operates

How to cook a graph in 3 easy lessons

Obviously, rubbish like this wouldn't make it past review and one hopes his AGU paper won't be this bad, but it is instructive on the way he willfully misleads his fans, like the Wattards.

And on the lighter side, Tim Lambert exposes The Great Photoshop-gate Scandal currently engulfing Dr. Spencer and the denial industry :D
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
I don't see why any adverse conclusion should be drawn from the first author's creationism either; it's irrelevant to this paper. If we were to disregard all publications by scientists who exhibit even the slightest sign of irrationality, we'd be disregarding all science.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

I'm not drawing any conclusion at all. I'm pointing out his creationism and assert that creationism is evidence against his ability for critical thinking, which should make anyone of a skeptical persuasion think twice before they take anything he has to say at face value. If the printed article puts forth what is hinted at over on Wattsuphisass, I have doubts as to whether it's going to be taken seriously, as posters here have already pointed out several problems with it. Then again, it might be the case - as has happened before - that denialist blogs like Wattsuphisass are simply discussing parts of the paper that didn't pass peer-review and treat it as if it did.

Creationist doesn't equal wrong. Creationist equals untrustworthy when it comes to science.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
A two-year delay between submission and publication isn't particularly unusual, and no adverse conclusion should be drawn from it.

I don't see why any adverse conclusion should be drawn from the first author's creationism either; it's irrelevant to this paper. If we were to disregard all publications by scientists who exhibit even the slightest sign of irrationality, we'd be disregarding all science.
Click to expand...

I was simply trying to tease out the actual status of things. If I read him correctly, mhaze first implied that the paper had been accepted and was going to be published. He then backed off of that, so that the status of the paper was less clear.

And if you look at the links provided by other posters, I think you'll see that the author's position on creationism indeed makes his bona fides rather suspect.
 
Piggy said:
And if you look at the links provided by other posters, I think you'll see that the author's position on creationism indeed makes his bona fides rather suspect.
Click to expand...
Looking beyond the evidence cited within this thread, he appears to be a creationist who is also a bona fide scientist with a PhD in meteorology and particular expertise with satellite instrumentation and data.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Looking beyond the evidence cited within this thread, he appears to be a creationist who is also a bona fide scientist with a PhD in meteorology and particular expertise with satellite instrumentation and data.
Click to expand...

Meteorology, yes.

But he is both ideologically questionable, and there is evidence that he is willing to suspend scientific discipline in the interest of ideological expedience.

Which doesn't mean he's wrong, but in the larger context of these threads, it's the same thing we see over and over.

Why a creationist meteorologist? Why an unpublished paper?

That's what we're on about. It's the continual dredging up of less-than-rigorous non-publications from questionable people, and the corresponding lack of any bona fide publications.
 
Piggy said:
Why a creationist meteorologist?
Click to expand...
You might as well ask why Alfred WegenerWP, a meteorologist with a background in astronomy, developed the theory of continental drift.

Why an unpublished paper?
Click to expand...
To paraphrase a well-known senator: Most papers are unpublished before they're published.

The paper was presented (as an invited paper, no less) at the fall 2009 meeting of the American Geophysical Union:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2009AGUFM.A32A..03S

The paper has been accepted for publication in the Atmospheres section of the Journal of Geophysical Research:
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/papersinpress.shtml

That's what we're on about. It's the continual dredging up of less-than-rigorous non-publications from questionable people, and the corresponding lack of any bona fide publications.
Click to expand...
If that's your point, then this particular paper and this particular author do not appear to support your point very well. Just sayin'.
 
Piggy said:
Meteorology, yes.

But he is both ideologically questionable, and there is evidence that he is willing to suspend scientific discipline in the interest of ideological expedience.

Which doesn't mean he's wrong, but in the larger context of these threads, it's the same thing we see over and over.

Why a creationist meteorologist? Why an unpublished paper?

That's what we're on about. It's the continual dredging up of less-than-rigorous non-publications from questionable people, and the corresponding lack of any bona fide publications.
Click to expand...
Huh?

I stated in the OP it was "in press", which is a clear statement of status. Well I guess some might not know the meaning, come to think of it.

I was simply trying to tease out the actual status of things. If I read him correctly, mhaze first implied that the paper had been accepted and was going to be published. He then backed off of that, so that the status of the paper was less clear.

What happened is you fell prey to the misinformation of some Warmers and their misrepresentation of my statements. I had it correct in the OP, of course, and then simply refused to engage in their silly little games. Spencer has a number of publications in respectable journals, I must say to the zealotry of a different flavor.

Some of his comments about the long road this paper went through. It's with a chuckle-chuckle-snicker-snicker I quote form this link:

The issue we address in this paper is not even new!

Which was said early in this thread (#4 etc), wasn't it?:)
 
Last edited:
The reason I am reacting the way I am about this "paper" is because Spencer has a history of misrepresenting his own papers, inflating their claims, on blogs and in press-releases. The paper itself usually says nothing that can be interpreted as going against the scientific consensus on AGW, but Spencer instead moves further on internet blogs and in press releases, making a bunch of assertions that weren't in the paper, thus circumventing peer-review.

It's clever, and it allows him to keep lying and still maintain a respectable, albeit fairly small, publication standard.
 
At In To said:
I made some criticisms of his work, based on Spencer's brief comments in his blog post. I imagine the real work is of better quality, or rather expect it to be better.
Click to expand...

His real work tends to be less controversial, but ends up being so watered down or inconclusive it doesn't have much impact on his peers.
 
BenBurch said:
Looking at his history, his recurrent theme has been that '75% of observed warming is not real/caused by variations in clouds' - and he has set out to prove that.
Click to expand...

note quite. His published work is more along the lines of that being within the distribution, but he ignores the other tail of the distribution and gives nothing constructive to show any real problem with the mainstream view.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Looking beyond the evidence cited within this thread, he appears to be a creationist who is also a bona fide scientist with a PhD in meteorology and particular expertise with satellite instrumentation and data.
Click to expand...

The issue I have is that he claims his science background led him to conclude ID has merit. To me this seriously calls into question the way he practices science. His partner on the UAH satellite analysis, Steve Christy, is almost certainly a creationist but doesn’t bother me nearly as much because he isn’t going around saying science proves his religious views are correct.
 
lomiller said:
he was encouraging his readers to vote as many times as possible, and eventually someone wrote and distributed a voting bot.
Click to expand...

The sort of intellectual honesty I've come to expect from that site
icon14.gif
 
lomiller said:
The issue I have is that he claims his science background led him to conclude ID has merit. To me this seriously calls into question the way he practices science. His partner on the UAH satellite analysis, Steve Christy, is almost certainly a creationist but doesn’t bother me nearly as much because he isn’t going around saying science proves his religious views are correct.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to be charitable...
 
It's John Christy, not Steve, just for the record, and yeah the man is a total flog of epic proportions. Although, probably one of the brighter sparks in the denialiti, saw him at a Heartland conference telling the audience that the 'no warming since 1998' was a stupid argument because it will come back to bite them on the arse just as soon as temps begin to rise again (which, according to UAH, they have done dramatically so far during 2010).
 
The AGU presentation.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-cont...rcing-Feedback-AGU-09-San-Francisco-final.pdf

Looping and linear patterns are shown to exist in the raw data of radiative forcing vs. temperature. A feedback signal is obscured by these. So how to extract the actual feedback when it is mixed up with "radiative noise"? By taking a subset of the data.

Previous analysis have ignored the two way street:

clouds <===> temperature

Looping and linear patterns in radiative feedback was described by Spencer in a previous paper published in 2008. Here he found that all errors in the model runs for cloud feedback were in the direct of exaggerated positive feedback, to the order of 0.3 to 0.8 w/m^2 erroneously ascribed.

What that would mean is that actual climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - eg a so called "forcing" - would be amplified by a much lower number for the "feedbacks".

My opinion: IPCC has a confidence range of 1.5 - 6.0C for one of the scenarios for next century temperature change. The midpoint which is commonly used is 3.0C,while alarmists love to focus on the 6C number.

More negative feedback not only lowers the 3.0C midpoint down to less than a degree, but much more importantly it cuts the 6.0C completely out. (Boatloads of positive feedback were required to get up to 6.0C.)

Were this scientific work (or follow on articles and work on this "unsettled" science) to completely cut out the 6.0C "edge of the envelope" warming, that seems quite significant. Then you have a 2x co2 climate sensitivity of say 0.6C (take that with a grain of salt, this is crude speculation) and an upper edge of the confidence interval of 2.0C or so.

EG, tightening the confidence intervals in prediction of climate change by lowering the uncertainties in the calculations is a major scientific accomplishment...IF AS ABOVE DISCUSSED the result is a change in the uncertainty from 6C-1.5C = 4.5C to some 2.0C-0.2C = 1.8C.

That's a third of previous uncertainty in the range of man's possible detrimental effects on the planet.

Well, that's just as stated my opinion, so don't pay any attention to it.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
The issue I have is that he claims his science background led him to conclude ID has merit. To me this seriously calls into question the way he practices science. .....
Click to expand...
I know this pattern of your responses quite well, Lomiller. But I'm actually a bit curious about something.

How would those at the AGU conference respond to your raising this point at Dr. Spencer's presentation? I'm sure you could take off a few days and go to the 2010 conference. You'd have no problem raising your hand and voicing that opinion right there in the question and answer after Spencer's presentation, would you?

You strongly hold your views and you are not an intellectual coward, right?

Your views are shared by that wider and professional scientific community, aren't they?




Aren't they?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom