Editor of MPDI "Remote Sensing" publishes editorial claiming Spencer and Braswell (2011) should have never been published....

[chris87]

The general theme of his editorial:

"Peer review should "able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims." "The paper by Spencer and Braswell ... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

Link: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

[PhillipS]

The general theme of his editorial:

"Peer review should "able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims." "The paper by Spencer and Braswell ... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

Link: http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/9/2002/pdf

Wow! That is a powerful statement. I can't argue with any of the statement and I do find it refreshing that there are still people with the integrity to accept responsibility and consequences.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

[chris87]

wonder if anyone from here: http://www.americanw...-new-nasa-data/ will rethink their knee jerk positions supporting Spencer.

Probably not...but I'm sure we'll see someone post Roy's response to this editorial or quote it like scripture...

[Strongbad]

Probably not...but I'm sure we'll see someone post Roy's response to this editorial or quote it like scripture...

No different than you accepting the reasoning behind this resignation letter as scripture either?

[chris87]

No different than you accepting the reasoning behind this resignation letter as scripture either?

You should go back and read the thread that was posted above...I had serious issues with this paper, which I laid out in very clear terms...well before this editorial was published.

[Msalgado]

Pretty shocking...

[skierinvermont]

wonder if anyone from here: http://www.americanw...-new-nasa-data/ will rethink their knee jerk positions supporting Spencer.

doubtful

what's even worse is that the problems with the paper were so obvious that this statement and resignation is not at all surprising to those of us who actually read the paper and analyzed it objectively. All of the warning signs of a shoddy paper were there. The people that were dumb enough to be duped by this paper will also likely be dumb enough to ignore this resignation.

[donsutherland1]

IMO, the Editor-in-Chief made a principled and correct decision. His resignation statement also provided a strong defense for scientific rigor and differentiated it from, what some undoubtedly would describe as avoiding discussion of controversial ideas. Instead, as he correctly noted, there are standards that should be upheld. It is those standards, not the controversy associated with various ideas, that are relevant.

[tacoman25]

The general theme of his editorial:

"Peer review should "able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims." "The paper by Spencer and Braswell ... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

Link: http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/9/2002/pdf

Apparently it fails sometimes. Shocker!

[skierinvermont]

I wonder if people will still be citing Spencer and Braswell as a peer reviewed paper 10 years from now the way people still cite Soon and Baliunas 2003 as peer reviewed?

[gracetoyou]

I wonder if people will still be citing Spencer and Braswell as a peer reviewed paper 10 years from now the way people still cite Soon and Baliunas 2003 as peer reviewed?

Scientific papers that turn out to be flawed or fraudulent are usually retracted by the journals that publish them, with editorial resignations a rarity. --Richard Black

I read this & it makes me wonder. I'm sure no one put any pressure on Dr. Wagner.

[gracetoyou]

For whatever reason there is a huge rise in peer reviewed "retractions" the last few years. Here's an overview of an article in The Wall Street Journal a while ago:

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomason Reuters reveal.

Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 201, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide.

… Retractions related to fraud showed a more than sevenfold increase between 2004 and 2009, exceeding the twofold rise in retractions related to mere error, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. … [some] 73.5% were retracted simply for error but 26.6% were retracted for fraud.

http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2011/08/11/30728/surge_in_scientific_retractions_raises_troubling_questions

Dr. Spencer is defending the paper:

Roy Spencer, however, told BBC News: "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com.

"Our university press release necessarily put our scientific results in lay language, and what we believe they mean in the larger context of global warming research. This is commonly done in press statements made by the IPCC and its scientists, too, when reporting on research which advocates the view that climate change is almost entirely caused by humans.

"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."

Dr Spencer is one of the team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that keeps a record of the Earth's temperature as determined from satellite readings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

[tacoman25]

funny how the Hansen hand wringers give Spencer a total ideological pass even though he belongs to a group that puts religion ahead of science.

If you are relating this to Hansen's failed predictions, that's a totally different subject. Whether you agree with his ideology or not, he has had failed predictions. Spencer has had his failures as well, but as far as I've seen, he hasn't had the gall to make the kind of predictions Hansen has. This makes sense, as Hansen has much more certainty about the science, while Spencer's arguments have emphasized the uncertainties.

And most organizations that aren't scientific by nature put their core values ahead of science. Science isn't god to everyone.

[tacoman25]

this post manages to completely not address anything I wrote AND to introduce a slew of strawmen.

congratulations.

Your response says nothing. Doesn't explain what you meant (vague accusations about Hansen hand-wringers?) or why my post fails to address it. In the context of other ongoing threads in this forum, my post makes perfect sense.

But your response does mention "strawmen", that overly familiar and always reliable copout!

[skierinvermont]

If you are relating this to Hansen's failed predictions, that's a totally different subject. Whether you agree with his ideology or not, he has had failed predictions. Spencer has had his failures as well, but as far as I've seen, he hasn't had the gall to make the kind of predictions Hansen has. This makes sense, as Hansen has much more certainty about the science, while Spencer's arguments have emphasized the uncertainties.

And most organizations that aren't scientific by nature put their core values ahead of science. Science isn't god to everyone.

she is referring to the accusations that Hansen is biased because he is an environmental activist.. not his failed ENSO prediction. People are all outraged that Hansen cares about the environment but don't care at all that Spencer belongs to hard-core political anti-science organizations

[tacoman25]

she is referring to the accusations that Hansen is biased because he is an environmental activist.. not his failed ENSO prediction. People are all outraged that Hansen cares about the environment but don't care at all that Spencer belongs to hard-core political anti-science organizations

Well there's a statement full of generalizations.

Hansen is a much more prominent scientific figure. Hello, NASA? He has also used his position to preach to a much larger audience than Spencer has. So I don't think it's any mystery why Hansen has been a bigger target.

As I said, many non-scientific organizations are not going to place "the science" at the forefront of their priorities. Science isn't everyone's god, the driving force behind what they believe is important. Just because a scientist is connected to such an organization doesn't mean the scientist doesn't care about the science. There will always be conflicting ideologies within science as long as humans are involved.

Nobody should get a free pass. But Hansen has been a political activist who has made some pretty extreme (some would say alarmist) predictions from a prominent position. Spencer has not. I think that's a significant difference in some people's eyes.

[tacoman25]

just as I predicted--the anti-Hansen mob has zero problem with the ideological positions espoused by Spencer, even if they put science behind religious teachings, as long as they end up on the same page in the end.

and if Spencer isn't a big deal, why did the thread on this paper garner so much support here?

You missed the main point of my post. I don't have a problem with Hansen's ideology. I do have a problem with him being an activist for his ideology, given the position he is in. And a big part you are missing is that Hansen has been heavily criticized in large part because of some of the extreme/alarmist things he has said, not just because of his ideology. Again, say what you want about Spencer's ideology or what organizations he is linked to, but he has not been an activist like Hansen, and he hasn't made the kind of predictions/statements that Hansen has.

I know these things require you to see subtle shades of gray, not just black and white, but that's life.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Spencer is anywhere near the prominent figure that Hansen has been for the past 25 years?

[WeatherRusty]

You missed the main point of my post. I don't have a problem with Hansen's ideology. I do have a problem with him being an activist for his ideology, given the position he is in. And a big part you are missing is that Hansen has been heavily criticized in large part because of some of the extreme/alarmist things he has said, not just because of his ideology. Again, say what you want about Spencer's ideology or what organizations he is linked to, but he has not been an activist like Hansen, and he hasn't made the kind of predictions/statements that Hansen has.

I know these things require you to see subtle shades of gray, not just black and white, but that's life.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Spencer is anywhere near the prominent figure that Hansen has been for the past 25 years?

Spencer is a denier of mainstream science. One of a very few active climatologists who rail against the consensus, such as the often cited 97% - 3%. Spencer resides in the 3% of opinion. As such, he is an activist for his agenda, which is to refute AGW on his blog, for profit book sales and in his attempts at peer-reviewed science.

He does make predictions. He predicts that AGW is crap science and offers up as of yet unsupported science to back it up.

[tacoman25]

Spencer is a denier of mainstream science. One of a very few active climatologists who rail against the consensus, such as the often cited 97% - 3%. Spencer resides in the 3% of opinion. As such, he is an activist for his agenda, which is to refute AGW on his blog, for profit book sales and in his attempts at peer-reviewed science.

He does make predictions. He predicts that AGW is crap science and offers up as of yet unsupported science to back it up.

1. Where has Spencer "denied" AGW is occurring?

2.You can not compare Spencer with Hansen in terms of ideological activism. In addition, Hansen has been a much larger figure in the public spotlight than Spencer.

3. Your last statement is complete BS.

I'm not defending Spencer, saying he hasn't made mistakes, or that he is the ideal scientist. Hardly. But those who make him out to be the anti-Hansen, or feel that he should be the target of just as much criticism as Hansen, are missing some pretty important differences.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Outside of the science community both of these mens are nearly completely irrelevant to mainstream America.

[WeatherRusty]

1. Where has Spencer "denied" AGW is occurring?

2.You can not compare Spencer with Hansen in terms of ideological activism. In addition, Hansen has been a much larger figure in the public spotlight than Spencer.

3. Your last statement is complete BS.

I'm not defending Spencer, saying he hasn't made mistakes, or that he is the ideal scientist. Hardly. But those who make him out to be the anti-Hansen, or feel that he should be the target of just as much criticism as Hansen, are missing some pretty important differences.

Spencer is in the camp which wants us to believe the warming of the past century is best accounted for by natural variability and that positive feedback is mutted. This is not what the mainstream of climate science is telling us based on the evidence. The climate is not constrained within certain bounds, it is free to reach equilibrium with any amount of forcing, be that ridiculously warm or cold. We are just lucky the environment supports our needs at this time in Earth's history.

Spencer's prominence as a spokesperson for the skeptical movement is beyond question. He is one of the big names lending apparent credibility to the skeptical position due to his being an actual climate scientist. He carries a lot of weight as a genuine scientist. People listen to what he has to say. The problem for him is that his science with regard to AGW is not in keeping with his scientific expertise in remote sensing, but that difference is lost on most people. His opinion of AGW is tainted by his ideological beliefs as it is with most people, but skeptics and outright deniers are drawn away from the actual science by their fundamental philosophy while believers find compatibly with their beliefs in the science.

[tacoman25]

Spencer is in the camp which wants us to believe the warming of the past century is best accounted for by natural variability and that positive feedback is mutted. This is not what the mainstream of climate science is telling us based on the evidence. The climate is not constrained within certain bounds, it is free to reach equilibrium with any amount of forcing, be that ridiculously warm or cold. We are just lucky the environment supports our needs at this time in Earth's history.

Spencer's prominence as a spokesperson for the skeptical movement is beyond question. He is one of the big names lending apparent credibility to the skeptical position due to his being an actual climate scientist. He carries a lot of weight as a genuine scientist. People listen to what he has to say. The problem for him is that his science with regard to AGW is not in keeping with his scientific expertise in remote sensing, but that difference is lost on most people. His opinion of AGW is tainted by his ideological beliefs as it is with most people, but skeptics and outright deniers are drawn away from the actual science by their fundamental philosophy while believers find compatibly with their beliefs in the science.

Spencer has stated he doesn't disagree with AGW theory - he just believes the climate sensitivity of earth to be a lot lower than many other scientists do.

Spencer is nowhere near as prominent as Hansen. There is simply no arguing that. Hansen has been in the media spotlight much more than Spencer, he has more exposure/fame at his position with NASA, he has testified before Congress, he has made bold climate predictions that made news headlines, he has published more books and papers, he has been arrested for activist activities, he has won awards, etc. GISS is a much better known and cited global temperature source than UAH.

[WeatherRusty]

Spencer has stated he doesn't disagree with AGW theory - he just believes the climate sensitivity of earth to be a lot lower than many other scientists do.

Spencer is nowhere near as prominent as Hansen. There is simply no arguing that. Hansen has been in the media spotlight much more than Spencer, he has more exposure/fame at his position with NASA, he has testified before Congress, he has made bold climate predictions that made news headlines, he has published more books and papers, he has been arrested for activist activities, he has won awards, etc. GISS is a much better known and cited global temperature source than UAH.

Spencer agrees in general with the finding that a doubling of CO2 produces a forcing on climate the equal of 3.7W/m^2 and a bit less than 1.2C of corresponding temperature response (Planck Response). You are correct that he questions the value of climate sensitivity and tries to demonstrate climate sensitivity to be very weak. The history of climate change on Earth's indicates climate sensitivity to fall in the range of 2C - 4.5C or so which is not very weak. Those figures are the basis for our concern and by definition what AGW represents as a problematic issue. If you don't think climate sensitivity to fall in that range, especially on the low end, then you don't really believe or accept the science of AGW. You must think the science is way off the mark.

[tacoman25]

Spencer agrees in general with the finding that a doubling of CO2 produces a forcing on climate the equal of 3.7W/m^2 and a bit less than 1.2C of corresponding temperature response (Planck Response). You are correct that he questions the value of climate sensitivity and tries to demonstrate climate sensitivity to be very weak. The history of climate change on Earth's indicates climate sensitivity to fall in the range of 2C - 4.5C or so which is not very weak. Those figures are the basis for our concern and by definition what AGW represents as a problematic issue. If you don't think climate sensitivity to fall in that range, especially on the low end, then you don't really believe or accept the science of AGW. You must think the science is way off the mark.

This is based on the assumption that CO2 is the only thing that would be causing temperature change...

[skierinvermont]

This is based on the assumption that CO2 is the only thing that would be causing temperature change...

No it's not. It's based on the relationship between ANY (solar, GHG, etc.) radiative forcing and surface temperature change.

[tacoman25]

No it's not. It's based on the relationship between ANY (solar, GHG, etc.) radiative forcing and surface temperature change.

How is solar going to cause 2C-4.5C change? It's not, per radiative theory. All that's left to cause that big of changes would be GHG...CO2 being the primary one here. Despite inconclusive evidence that CO2 changes have caused 2-4.5C temperature variations in the past.

[WeatherRusty]

How is solar going to cause 2C-4.5C change? It's not, per radiative theory. All that's left to cause that big of changes would be GHG...CO2 being the primary one here. Despite inconclusive evidence that CO2 changes have caused 2-4.5C temperature variations in the past.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is defined and I paraphrase here "The final temperature change resulting from an initial forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2". A doubling of CO2 gives that amount of forcing, so climate sensitivity is calibrated to a doubling of CO2 but the forcing can be from any source the equal of 3.7W/m^2.

Solar variation can not bring about anywhere near that amount of forcing. Neither can orbital variations known as Milankovitch cycles. That is just the point. In order to explain the wide range of temperature variation evident in the paleo-climate record, feedback is necessary as an amplifier of the initial forcing. The strongest feedback processes likely relate to water vapor, cloud, ice albedo and ground cover albedo and finally the long lived greenhouse gas CO2. There is no other physical way to explain the >6C variation evident over the past 3 million years.

[skierinvermont]

How is solar going to cause 2C-4.5C change? It's not, per radiative theory. All that's left to cause that big of changes would be GHG...CO2 being the primary one here. Despite inconclusive evidence that CO2 changes have caused 2-4.5C temperature variations in the past.

You said that the values of climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C were based on the assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of climate.

They are not. The climate sensitivity estimates are based on ANY variable that causes 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing. Solar variability has caused 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing compared to present many times throughout the earth's history. And it is in part based on the response of the earth to these solar fluctuations that climate sensitivity values are estimated at 2-4.5C.

[WeatherRusty]

You said that the values of climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C were based on the assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of climate.

They are not. The climate sensitivity estimates are based on ANY variable that causes 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing. Solar variability has caused 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing compared to present many times throughout the earth's history. And it is in part based on the response of the earth to these solar fluctuations that climate sensitivity values are estimated at 2-4.5C.

Skier,

You stated that solar has produced 3.7W of forcing many times. This is not the case.

Solar output would have to vary by about 22W/m^2 in order to produce a forcing equal to a doubling of CO2.

When computing solar forcing we have to consider the geometry of the Earth as well as albedo. In order to account for the fact that Earth is a sphere we divide the perpendicular solar constant value by 4. Albedo is accounted for by multiplying the result by (1 - 0.30)=0.70.

[skierinvermont]

Skier,

You stated that solar has produced 3.7W of forcing many times. This is not the case.

Solar output would have to vary by about 22W/m^2 in order to produce a forcing equal to a doubling of CO2.

When computing solar forcing we have to consider the geometry of the Earth as well as albedo. In order to account for the fact that Earth is a sphere we divide the perpendicular solar constant value by 4. Albedo is accounted for by multiplying the result by (1 - 0.30)=0.70.

over the last 600+ million years it has certainly varied by more than 22W/m2s. Although I shouldn't have said many times.. most variations are less than 3.7W/m2 but can still be used to establish the relationship.