I was hoping that Steve McIntyre would weight in on the Spencer & Braswell paper and the issues created by the Dessler (2010) paper. This I hope will give us some insight into the Dessler (2011) paper which was to refute the Spencer & Braswell paper published in Remote Sensing. Dessler 2010 perhaps set a record for a peer-reviewed paper.
My hopes have been answered by Steve in a post at Climate Audit.
Like most of us, I’ve been a bit taken aback by the ritual seppuku of young academic Wolfgang Wagner, formerly editor of Remote Sensing, for the temerity of casting a shadow across the path of climate capo Kevin Trenberth. It appears that Wagner’s self-immolation has only partly appeased Trenberth, who, like an Oriental despot, remains unamused.
Spencer and Braswell 2011, the stone presently in Trenberth’s shoe, is, to a very considerable extent, a critique of Dessler 2010 (Science). Over the past few days, I requested data from the authors of both articles and was promptly supplied with it by both.
You can read Steve’s analyis of both of the data sets HERE. He concluded at the end of his analysis, in Steve’s typical low key fashion:
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.
We now have the opinion of a very capable third party who found no positive feedback from clouds. The size of the stone in Trenberth’s shoe just get a little larger.
[Edited for clarification as to paper references.]