[Vision2020] July 28, 2011: Spokane KHQ News: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism"

[Ted Moffett]

This news headline, or variations thereof, in the subject heading, is
currently receiving major coverage in various media:
http://www.khq.com/story/15166649/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/

Many people will pay attention to the misleading and biased headline,
and not research the credibility of the science behind the paper
referenced, "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" Spencer and Braswell,
which to some extent is a rehashing of theories and speculations that
have already been scientifically demonstrated to be highly
questionable, as revealed below in published science.

Lower down I discuss the claim that there is bias in science
publishing against skeptics of anthropoenic climate warming

A discussion of some of the climate science relevant (MIT Lindzen's
"Iris" theory) is from NASA below, though given this is from 2002,
significant newer science has addressed some of these issues.  Note
Spencer addressing Lindzen's work in 2009 on well known junk climate
science website by Anthony Watts "Watts Up With That?"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArbitersOfEnergy/

>From website immediately above:

"One team of scientists recently proposed that the Earth has a
built-in mechanism for changing the structure and distribution of
certain types of clouds in the tropics to release more radiant energy
into outer space as the surface warms (Lindzen et al. 2001). Dubbed
the “Iris Hypothesis,” this theory generated considerable buzz among
science and political circles alike because, if true, it would mean
that the Earth’s climate system naturally counteracts global warming
by allowing more heat to escape through the top of the atmosphere."
-----------------------
Briefly below is a critique of this July 2011 paper: "Remote Sensing"
journal: Spencer and Braswell: "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface
Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy
Balance" http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/
from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html and Dr. John Fasullo, also
of NCAR:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/index.html

Note reference to MIT's climate scientist Lindzen:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

>From website immediately above:

"The paper has been published in a journal called Remote Sensing which
is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with
atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did
not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published."

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature
Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is
provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The
basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no
statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are
given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the
description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able
to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been
made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points
of contention. "

And further on:

"To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the
simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things
should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has
gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry
Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no
hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most
of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the
relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s
work on exactly this point."
-------------------
Consider a scientific paper from 2010, referenced at bottom, that
demonstrated flaws in a paper from MIT's Lindzen and Choi (2009), and
is also relevant to a critique of Spencer and Braswell (2011).

In both of these cases, Lindzen and Choi (2009) and Spencer and
Braswell (2011), widespread media coverage of flawed science that was
published in peer reviewed journals is promoted in the media, thus
encouraging doubt in the public about climate change, while the
critiques by competent scientists that indicate these papers have
serious flaws, receive limited mainstream coverage.

Often those who assert human induced global warming is a scientific
conspiracy, or is based on incompetent science, claim that peer
reviewed science publishing is biased to censor papers that contradict
the consensus among currently publishing climate scientists ("Expert
credibility in climate change"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 )
that human impacts on the Earth's climate are the primary driver of
the current warming temperature, and other impacts, such as ocean
acidification.

However, the evidence indicates otherwise.  Surveying science
publishing reveals many published papers that raise questions about
the consensus on anthropogenic climate warming, some that I suspect
were published despite serious flaws, because to not publish them
might result in charges that certain famous scientists, well known
publicly as skeptics of anthropogenic climate warming, were being
censored, such as MIT's Lindzen, perhaps the most often quoted critic
of anthropogenic climate warming, or UAH's (University of Alabama in
Huntsville) Spencer, co-author of the July 2011 paper now receiving
widespread media attention.

There might be a politically motivated bias not to censor prominent
skeptics of the consensus, but to publish flawed science from
skeptics.

For example, Lindzen and Choi (2009), published in Geophysical
Research Letters, was critiqued by scientists with in-depth knowledge
of the science involved, and various problems with this paper were
found:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L16705, 6 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL039628
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL039628.shtml

Serious flaws in this paper discussed below.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/#more-2710

"Very simple attempts to reproduce the LC09 numbers simply didn’t work
out and revealed some flaws in their process."

"The big question of course was, how is it that LC09 did not even
bother to reference FG06, let alone explain the major differences in
their results? Maybe Lindzen & Choi didn’t know about the existence of
FG06, but certainly at least one reviewer should have. And if they
also didn’t, well then, a very poor choice of reviewers was made."
-----------------

"Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and
top-of-atmosphere radiation." Geophysical Research Letters, 2010:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2010etalGRL.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett