In Judy Curry’s post
there is an informative set of e-mails that illustrates the current poor state of scientific discourse. The relevant e-mail exchange starts with
“R. Gates | January 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Reply
This missing heat issue is obviously one of the most important issues right now to get solved or to study in more depth. For if it turns out that the missing heat is not there, then neither is any substantial AGW, but if, as Trenberth and others suspect, it is in the deeper ocean, as some recent research indicates, then that additional heat is yet more conclusive proof that AGW is occurring. I sent a query to Dr. Trenberth about his take on the Knox & Douglass paper, and he graciously took the time to give me this response:
“I have now read the paper and I dismiss it entirely. The authors do not describe what data they use. Argo data have undergone several major revisions. It also is varying in time in amount and coverage, and some floats were “bad” and some had calibration problems (the surface pressure was recorded as negative, indicating depth problems).
They also do not use the Lyman et al results, or our commentary on it:
Trenberth, K. E., 2010: The ocean is warming, isn’t it? Nature, 465, 304. [PDF]
They end up with a statement about their opinion. Well I will say emphatically that their opinion is wrong and we have evidence that it is so. This sort of paper should not have been published, and really it hasn’t been because this “journal” has no credibility. It is clear what the biases are of these authors.
Looking at the figure in the paper also reveals a clear problem: The values at the end are higher than any others yet they have a downward trend. Clearly any “trend” they get depends critically on how they get it and it highly dependent on the time period. By taking a 12 month running mean they discount the last 6 months.”
David Douglas responded to this e-mail in the following.
david douglass | January 9, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Reply
Update from Dr. Trenberth regarding Knox & Douglass paper:
He is leaving for travel to Europe until Jan. 19 (Bern ISSE 9-14; Grenoble ECRA 15-18) and will not be posting on this site but he is going to be responding in full in a future paper, showing what “rubbish” the Knox & Douglass paper is.
I will look forward to that paper…
Kevin has apparently learned nothing from the released East Anglia e-mails. To refer to a published paper as “rubbish” without substantiating that claim is arrogant. This behaviour is what has gotten us to the politicization of climate science. A constructive way for Kevin Trenberth to respond would be to post a comment on Judy’s weblog that could then be debated, while he simultaneously prepares a rebuttal paper to the scientifically sound paper by Knox and Douglas.