The Refutation of Roy?

The week before last, the resignation of the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing over the publication of a paper by Roy Spencer was the talk of the climate-oriented blogosphere. Last week there was a further development--climatologist Andrew Dessler published a paper critiquing claims made in publications by Spencer and Lindzen (both well known for skepticism of human influence in global warming).

I've been holding off blogging about this in order to let the dust settle somewhat. As I understand them, Spencer and Lindzen both think that changes in clouds can actually drive climate change, as opposed to the prevailing view that clouds are important secondary factors. Also wrapped up in the controversy is how much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, which is referred to by the term 'climate sensitivity.'

Here is a quick re-cap of the mini-controversy as I understand it: Climate sensitivity has been inferred chiefly from paleoclimate sources, and is generally estimated to be around 3 degrees C. Spencer does not accept the paleoclimate estimates; he thinks they are too uncertain. At any rate, everyone would like a way to determine climate sensitivity in the present. Dessler previously published a paper that used satellite data to infer climate sensitivity. Spencer's latest paper argued that there are uncertainties that muddy the waters such that accurate sensitivity cannot be determined. In making his argument, Spencer's paper claimed that there is a discrepancy between satellite data and IPCC models. Although relatively modest in its claims, Spencer and the press talked up the paper as though it implied a low climate sensitivity and represented David slaying Goliath. Dessler's latest paper criticizes Spencer's for using an equation that potentially violates the first law of thermodynamics, and for using observations and models that maximize difference between the two. Other models and observations more closely mirror one another.

Spencer is defending himself on his blog and has levied his own criticisms of Dessler's paper. Unfortunately, Dessler does not have a blog so it's not clear what his take is on Spencer's comments. According to Spencer, the two have exchanged emails and may be coming to a better understanding of one another, though probably still disagreeing. It is clear that the drama will continue.

Actually, what's going on here is not unique to climate science. Every branch of science has its differing schools of thought that struggle for dominance. The difference here is that more of the general public is paying attention and choosing sides, so that what would normally be a nerd-fight that nobody cares about, has become a proxy for ideological and political battle.

If you want to dig in to the claims and counter-claims, it gets technical fast. So at this point I will kick it over to the following links, which help explain what's going on.

RealClimate has a calm reflection on the scene: Resignations, retractions and the process of science

Skeptical Science:

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper

Barry Bickmore posts:

Roy Spencer Persecuted By Own Data

Roy Spencer Responds With More Shoddy Statistics and Excuses

Roy Spencer's response:

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study


Andrew Dessler's video explanation of his paper:

---