Roy Spencer's recently published study is incorrect

Spencer’s simple forcing-feedback model: In the previous round, my opponent stated, “The simple model argument can be made for any research involving climate change.” However, this suggestion is downright wrong. Dr. Spencer used zero-dimensional models in his recently published study. These models employ only one equation. While they can tell you the Earth’s average temperature, these models cannot account for any of the processes which move energy about the planet. [1] Obviously, Spencer should have used more complex models in his study, such as four-dimensional GCMs. These models discretise and solve the full equations for mass and energy transfer and radiant exchange. Four-dimensional GCMs also contain parametrisations for processes that occur on scales too small to be resolved directly. While these models are not perfect, they account for hundreds of processes which zero-dimensional models do not. [1] Climategate: My opponent states, “If climate scientists have taught us anything it’s that data can and should be manipulated if it helps us reach the preferred outcome. This is simply good science a la Climategate.” The “climategate scientists” did not manipulate data. Eight independent investigations have cleared these scientists of any wrongdoing. [2] Spencer’s selection of climate models to evaluate: My opponent states, “While it may be argued that Spencer didn’t choose enough models, he certainly chose enough to reach a conclusion...I fail to see how your arguments prove his wrong.” I agree that a conclusion could possibly be drawn from only six climate models. However, for this conclusion to be accurate, the six models must represent the full range of model outputs. As I noted in the last round, some models match the observations very well but others do not. Oddly, Spencer examined only models which did not match the satellite observations well. He then erroneously concluded that all IPCC models do not match the observations. For instance, Spencer stated, “There is a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models.” However, these conclusions do not hold true when one accounts for the full range of model outputs. As Dr. Kevin Trenberth found, “Our results suggest that there are good models and some not so good, but...the net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations.” [3] The implications of Spencer’s study: In the previous round, my opponent argued, “If the energy budget not radiatively forced then the debt ceiling should be heightened once again. It is because of the debt ceiling that scientists even think that the climate sensitivity is higher. If the raise the ceiling this is no longer an issue.” This argument is entirely nonsensical. The surface’s energy budget is purely a scientific concept. As such, it’s entirely unrelated to the debt ceiling and all other political issues. [4] Likewise, climate sensitivity has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Estimates of high climate sensitivity are based on scientific evidence such as paleoclimate reconstructions. [5] References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.cgd.ucar.edu... http://www.skepticalscience.com...