Bishop Hill Dessler on Spencer and Braswell
Sep 6, 2011 Climate: Models Thanks to Anthony for forwarding me the Dessler comment on response to Spencer and Braswell. I'll post the same excerpts as AW has so that readers here can discuss.
Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget
A.E. Dessler
Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TXAbstract: The question of whether clouds are the cause of surface temperature changes, rather than acting as a feedback in response to those temperature changes, is explored using data obtained between 2000 and 2010. An energy budget calculation shows that the energy trapped by clouds accounts for little of the observed climate variations. And observations of the lagged response of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) energy fluxes to surface temperature variations are not evidence that clouds are causing climate change.
Introduction
The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change [e.g., Stephens, 2005]. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereafter SB11] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.…
Conclusions
These calculations show that clouds did not cause significant climate change over the last decade (over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming). Rather, the evolution of the surface and atmosphere during ENSO variations are dominated by oceanic heat transport. This means in turn that regressions of TOA fluxes vs. ΔTs can be used to accurately estimate climate sensitivity or the magnitude of climate feedbacks. In addition, observations presented by LC11 and SB11 are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by NSF grant AGS-1012665 to Texas A&M University. I thank A. Evan, J. Fasullo, D. Murphy, K. Trenberth, M. Zelinka, and A.J. Dessler for useful comments.
Dessler, A. E. (2011),
Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2011GL049236, in press. [Abstract] [PDF paywalled] (accepted 29 August 2011)
Bishop Hill
A copy of the paper has been posted here.
Reader Comments (69)
Roger Pielke Snr raises a very pertinent issue: "If the Editor did not include Roy Spencer as one of the referees, they were derilict in their responsibilities. I encourage Roy to let us know if he was one of the referees. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
Does anyone know what the protocol is when a paper directly critiques another paper?
Atomic - what's next..."Dancing with the scientist"? "The Kev Factor"? "IPCC's got talent"?
Or perhaps a docufiction on Strauss Kahn in New York, with Pachauri playing the main character.
Bernie, the protocol would normally be that one of the criticised persons (Spencer Braswell Lindzen Choi) should be one of the reviewers, as Pielke says.
Then the editor needs to interpret the comments of this reviewer carefully in the context of their lack of neutrality.
This is what happened with the O'Donnell et al paper criticising Steig et al.
Steig was a reviewer, had his say, made a lot of objections, but the editor published the paper. Steve Mc and Jeff were not happy about Steig being a reviewer but this is the best way.
In this case my bet is that none of the criticised authors were reviewers.
At the time of O'Donnell and Steig some said it was customary if not mandatory for an author of the original paper to be called in as referee.
But in this case they couldn't, Rupert Murdoch was busy with other problems.
Here's a telling interview with the man himself on a green activist site with the open-minded sort of title - "Global Warming is Real"
Prize quote (paraphrased) ".........I used to teach my class science but they'd just glaze over - then I mixed in a bit of politics and they started taking notice......."
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2011/03/24/the-reality-of-climate-change-dr-andrew-dessler-interviewed/
Yet another dyed in the wool activist masquerading as a Climate Scientist.
Steve McIntyre has his hands on Dessler's data;
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/
"Given that the even the lagged relationship is weak, I’m reluctant to say that analysis using the methods of Dessler 2010 established a negative feedback, but it does seem to me that they cannot be said to have established the claimed positive feedback."
I'm personally torn on how this should work. I think if the criticized author is allowed to see the work as it progresses, giving him the opportunity to put together a reply, then it is OK. I do not necessarily think it is customary to have him serve as one of the reviewers, or at least, I do not think it is really a good idea unless the editor has enough of a command of the material to accurately judge his bias. In the case of the rebuttal to Steig, it was very clear that Steig was not offering legitimate improvements to their work, he was trying desperately to steer their results to support his or get their work tossed out. He failed on both accounts.
I've seen comments like this frequently over here. Does everyone realize that Murdoch is a pretty hard-core conservative by US terms which would likely put him far to the right of God himself (should such an entity exist) in European terms.
Mark
A cut and paste of a comment on WUWT. Other posts following this asked if it was a joke but Dr Leif Svalgaard replied later that it was not. So we have had pal review and now it looks like we are no to no review.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2011 at 5:03 am
Sometimes GRL can be really fast:
2011GL049472
Manuscript Accepted 2011-08-29 10:00:18
Manuscript Ready for Production 2011-08-29 09:55:34
Decision Made 2011-08-29 09:54:55
With Editor for Decision 2011-08-29 09:53:15
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2011-08-29 09:43:37
Initial Quality Control Complete 2011-08-29 09:43:36
Initial Quality Control Started 2011-08-29 09:36:13
Author Approved Converted Files 2011-08-29 09:36:12
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2011-08-29 09:17:37
Ross -
I think Dr Svalgaard is having a little joke here. The particular entry is a Correction which he wrote to his own paper. Obviously the emendation was minor and there was no need to review.
However, I noticed two abnormally fast review cycles for what appear to be substantive articles.
This one was turned around in one day: "Received 24 August 2011; accepted 25 August 2011."
And this one needed only two days: "Received 24 August 2011; accepted 26 August 2011."
I have no idea how any sort of review can be accomplished so quickly. Unless the reviewers had seen the article before it was submitted.
Point taken HaroldW. I see that I miss read Liefs reply.
There are two side-issues here that I'd like to comment on from the point of view of a research-active scientist: the practice of getting a scientist whose previous work is being criticized in a new paper by others to referee that paper, and the speed of review in the case of Dessler's paper. I was one of the people who commented here when the Steig/O'Donnell et al. story came up, saying that it was common practice to allow someone to referee a paper that criticizes their work, provided the editor kept a firm hand on things - and I think the editor only just about managed to do so in the Steig case. What I did not say is that the criticized author was considered to always need to be a referee - probably this will depend on the editor, the author, the academic and scientific politics of the case, etc. Here clearly the scientific politics of the Dessler/Spencer disagreement are such that the editor will view this with consensus-tinted spectacles and consider that Spencer does not need to be a referee.
Speed of review: like many research-active scientists, I get asked to do a lot of refereeing. Even after turning down many invitations, I probably referee about one manuscript per week. Given that I have a few other things to do, I can spend about 1-2h a week maximum on refereeing, so in practice, that is how much time I spend on a given manuscript, on average (some will require more time). Generally, I will read the manuscript, look through the literature for related work, and think carefully about the key aspects of the presented work. Then I'll leave it for a day or two while I mull it over, then write a report. So in practice I can get it done in 2-3 days if needed. The editor can assign referees within minutes of submission, and in journals such as GRL, which publishes 'Letters' i.e. short papers on topical matters for rapid publication, he or she may well ask referees not to dawdle. So there's no fundamental reason why, if the paper does not contain major flaws that require lengthy revision, it should not get accepted within a week or so of submission. Publication as a 'Paper in Press' can occur immediately after acceptance. So the speed of time from submission to acceptance here does not strike me as abnormal, at least for the field I work in (I know that refereeing in some areas of e.g. maths or economics can be a much more protracted business).
Once again, peer review is not, at least not in practice, a very stringent quality-testing procedure. The referees do not repeat all the work in the manuscript - they simply look at the manuscript, evaluate whether it seems to be roughly right, whether it gives appropriate credit to previous work, whether it is novel enough, and whether it is of sufficient interest to warrant publication in the journal to which it was submitted. So it is a very rough filter. It is also a subjective filter, as shown time and again in these climate cases: pro-consensus papers, on average, appear to get a much easier and much faster ride than papers that are construed as anti-consensus. So the latter papers, on average, have a much higher chance of being mangled to distort their initially stated conclusions, and/or of being delayed, and/or of being pubished in less prestigious journals than initially submitted to. But because the rules of peer-review are in some senses quite loose, and allow for quite a lot of subjectivity, I don't see any evidence of the rules being hugely bent in the case of this paper.
Excellent post from the comments section of this blog:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/andrew-dessler-clouds-dont-reflect.html
"chris y
This paper by Spencer and Braswell will need to be addressed in AR5 unless the following pre-emptive steps are taken:
1. Use IPCC-certified blog sites to condemn the paper as having more errors than an early Mets game.
2. Quickly fire off a rebuking placeholder in the peerreviewedliterature, the contents of which do not matter.
3. Blast press releases through the reliable media conduits to soundly dismiss the S&B paper, using Climate Change Cult Propaganda (CCCP).
4. If S&B decide to respond with a submission, circle the wagons and delay publication until after the AR5 cutoff date.
5. In AR5, only reference the placeholder rebuttal paper.
Mission accomplished, comrades. The climate change cult remains intact."
This all reminds me of the debates the clergy had on such critical topics as "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?"
Clearly this debate is a theological one. Scientific method is totally ignored and those who try to inject it are vilified.
Hey guys
Are you aware of that Andrew Dessler now is promoting his newest GRL-publication on youtube as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ngavUkmis
Jeremy Harvey
Thanks for you comment. Its always good to hear from people with first hand experience of the subject under discussion.
@Jeremy Harvey
"So there's no fundamental reason why, if the paper does not contain major flaws that require lengthy revision, it should not get accepted within a week or so of submission."
Appears that the paper is now to be modified before official publication, but after peer review due to "blog review."
Spencer has updated his post:
UPDATE: I have been contacted by Andy Dessler, who is now examining my calculations, and we are working to resolve a remaining difference there. Also, apparently his paper has not been officially published, and so he says he will change the galley proofs as a result of my blog post; here is his message:
“I’m happy to change the introductory paragraph of my paper when I get the galley proofs to better represent your views. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Also, I’ll be changing the sentence “over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming” to make it clear that I’m talking about cloud feedbacks doing the action here, not cloud forcing.”
Am I the only one under the impression things aren't looking good for Abbott Gleick, Costello Abraham and Benito Trenberth? Nevermind minion wagner (spelled hence without capitalization)
Looking at the graph produced by Dessler in his recent paper. The main thing that stands our to me is just how little agreement there is between the 13 Climate models used. I would think that any average or mean of those would be useless.