I have followed Roy Spencer’s work for a while on trying to measure climate feedback effects from satellite data. In general, I give him Kudos for actually working on what is really THE critical problem that separates climate catastrophe from climate rounding error. It is good someone is working on this, rather than, say, how global warming might affect toad mating, or whatever.
I have never been totally convinced by this part of Spencer’s work. Again, I give him kudos for trying to isolate the effect of single variables in a complex system through actual observation, rather than the lazy approach of running experiments inside computer models of dubious accuracy. I am not convinced he has achieved this, but I must admit I have not spent a ton of time working it through.
Anyway, Spencer has a long discussion of his methodology in answer to some critics. I reserve judgment until I have studied it further. But I was captivated by this bit:
On the positive side, though, MF10 have forced us to go back and reexamine the methodology and conclusions in SB08. As a result, we are now well on the way to new results which will better optimize the matching of satellite-observed climate variability to the simple climate model, including a range of feedback estimates consistent with the satellite data. It is now apparent to us that we did not do a good enough job of that in SB08.
Really? You shared your data, were criticized, and are modifying your approach based on this criticism? I thought from the study of the habits of mainstream climate scientists the correct scientific procedure was to 1) hide your data like it was Russian nuclear secrets; 2) prevent any opposing view from getting published; and 3) defend a flawed methodology by getting 10 of your friends to use the same methodology and summarize it all in an IPCC spaghetti graph.