Climate Change!

[Ego]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[31][32] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

[steveo73]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[31][32] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

Ego - we have to get over this mode of discussing things when the person stating a rational well thought out opinion gets demonised. I understand that AGW is standing on really shaky foundations but this approach doesn't help the warmists cause. We are discussing science and not someone's religious background.

If Spencer is some sort of extremist he is hiding it very well.

[Ego]

If Spencer is some sort of extremist he is hiding it very well.

Steveo, he does not believe in evolution. He is a creationist. He is not hiding it at all.

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.

[steveo73]

If Spencer is some sort of extremist he is hiding it very well.

Steveo, he does not believe in evolution. He is a creationist. He is not hiding it at all.

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.

How about this - I think that is completely crazy but that doesn't mean that his understanding of the Earth's climate isn't really good. His knowledge on measuring temperature is really really good.

You aren't attacking the ideas. You attack the person. That is the political play of the warmists. The facts don't matter. The science doesn't matter.

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

He is an expert in the field.

I assume you use the completely bogus Skeptical Science website whose founder is definitely a lot less accredited that Roy Spencer and has been caught using bogus statistics. The AGW fan club have very low standards (completely non-existent) when it comes to providing proof for their so far bogus theory and extremely high standards for anyone remotely critiquing the bogus theory.

[ducknalddon]

I'm a little unclear if you are a warmist/alarmist and trying to play a game or if you are trying to understand the issue factually. If you are using facts I think clearly we have to state that AGW is a hoax or best case it requires some massive revisions.

I suspect the fact you are calling me names means I am probably winning the argument

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

Ignoring his right wing conservative credentials which should give pause for thought before blindly accepting what he says:

Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

But yet again there is no reference to what that natural cause is, are we expected to just believe it is some supernatural agent.

[steveo73]

I'm a little unclear if you are a warmist/alarmist and trying to play a game or if you are trying to understand the issue factually. If you are using facts I think clearly we have to state that AGW is a hoax or best case it requires some massive revisions.

I suspect the fact you are calling me names means I am probably winning the argument

I don't think that I call anyone names. You also definitely aren't winning. The facts are clear-cut in this regard. The hypothesis of AGW isn't working.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

Ignoring his right wing conservative credentials which should give pause for thought before blindly accepting what he says:

Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

But yet again there is no reference to what that natural cause is, are we expected to just believe it is some supernatural agent.

Maybe you aren't understanding some key points here:-

1. The warmists/alarmists continually use political arguments to try and win the debate. It isn't a debate per se. It's a hypothesis that needs to be verified via the scientific method. At the moment that definitely hasn't occurred.
2. You are exaggerating the warming that has occurred and conveniently bypassing and waving your hands and hoping no one notices that there hasn't been warming in the last 15-20 years.

So that leaves us with a hypothesis with very little facts to back it up.

If you want to believe that is your business but you have to try and explain why no warming has occurred over the last 15-20 years. Is the hypothesis only valid when it suits the warmists/alarmists ?

Another key point that we have to understand is that the Earths climate varies. This is where we need to take a lot of care in our analysis of the climate. We can simply make up man made reasons for the climate changing however this to me is simply arrogance. The climate has always changed and it will in the future. So even if the climate is warming there is no need for any alarm. This is normal.

[jennypenny]

I just want to point out that about half of Evangelicals believe humans are at least partially responsible for global warming and there are many groups pushing for climate change action (like this one). Belief in evolution is no longer the litmus test it once was. I know Ego thinks that anyone with a religious belief is intellectually suspect, but most people take a more moderate stance than that.

Don't take that to mean I'm defending Steveo's position though. I don't think it helps to look at the last 15-20 years to deny warming any more than it helped when warming activists pointed to rapidly rising temperatures in the '90s to make their case. The time frame is too short. It's similar to the problem of looking at climate from a local perspective, which many people do when pointing to the snow in their backyard to deny any warming.

It's really no surprise that people do that. Take an issue like American fear of Muslim terrorism. You can tell a person that only .000whatever% of Muslims support terrorism, but that doesn't change people's minds. What does change their mind is personal interaction with Muslims in their own life. It's the same with most unfounded beliefs. Once people have personal experience on which to base their judgement, the stereotypes tend to slip away, and as a society we encourage people to base their opinions on their personal experience.

Of course, that doesn't always work with climate change where variability can give conflicting impressions, like when people live in areas that are getting harsher winters. It's an peculiar wrinkle wrt climate change. My experience with something like immigrants or vaccines is probably very similar to someone living in the deep south or west coast, but our experiences wrt climate-related changes are most likely very different (in the short term) and will confirm different opinions if we only rely on the usual standard of personal experience. Is there a rule for when personal experience is a useful indicator and when it isn't?

[George the original one]

2. You are exaggerating the warming that has occurred and conveniently bypassing and waving your hands and hoping no one notices that there hasn't been warming in the last 15-20 years.

You keep saying it's been cooling last 15-20 years and yet offer no evidence. NASA, NOAA, and your own Australian government have measured increases. I've offered charts of local Pacific Northwest measurements that clearly show warming and acceleration. Gardeners in the USA know they've had warming because their local agricultural zone is one zone higher since the '80s. Arctic ice cap has diminished by 25% in the last 45 years with an accelerating trend. So... what is your evidence?

[steveo73]

2. You are exaggerating the warming that has occurred and conveniently bypassing and waving your hands and hoping no one notices that there hasn't been warming in the last 15-20 years.

You keep saying it's been cooling last 15-20 years and yet offer no evidence. NASA, NOAA, and your own Australian government have measured increases. I've offered charts of local Pacific Northwest measurements that clearly show warming and acceleration. Gardeners in the USA know they've had warming because their local agricultural zone is one zone higher since the '80s. Arctic ice cap has diminished by 25% in the last 45 years with an accelerating trend. So... what is your evidence?

It's basically accepted fact that there has been no warming over the past 15 years. If you want to dispute that then you are simply not utilising the facts.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 016_v6.gif

[steveo73]

Don't take that to mean I'm defending Steveo's position though. I don't think it helps to look at the last 15-20 years to deny warming any more than it helped when warming activists pointed to rapidly rising temperatures in the '90s to make their case. The time frame is too short. It's similar to the problem of looking at climate from a local perspective, which many people do when pointing to the snow in their backyard to deny any warming.

It's not my position. It's the science and the facts. We need to start talking in alignment with facts not theories.

You are though 100% correct in your comments. The alarmists utilised a stupid time period to justify their hypothesis. All you have to do is look at temperatures since that point and AGW is a massive fail.

The problem with this whole bunch of crap is that the hypothesis is a ridiculous overly simplistic hypothesis. I tried to touch on this earlier by stating have you ever seen a stock market analyst analyse a chart. They come up with all this palava in relation to price at a point in time on a scale that suits their purposes. The stock then goes and does something completely different to what they state. I tried to do the same thing with CO2 in the atmosphere. The alarmists say look at this time period here which is such a stupid time period to use.

What needs to occur is that this whole debate needs to be put into perspective. This is CO2 over the course of the history of the Earth. This is temperature. Now let's look at the issues. One problem we have is that the data is extremely poor. We only have accurate data over a very small time period.

Once it is put into perspective though the alarmists need to go and find a different cause. This is not something that we should be getting worked up about at all.

[George the original one]

2. You are exaggerating the warming that has occurred and conveniently bypassing and waving your hands and hoping no one notices that there hasn't been warming in the last 15-20 years.

You keep saying it's been cooling last 15-20 years and yet offer no evidence. NASA, NOAA, and your own Australian government have measured increases. I've offered charts of local Pacific Northwest measurements that clearly show warming and acceleration. Gardeners in the USA know they've had warming because their local agricultural zone is one zone higher since the '80s. Arctic ice cap has diminished by 25% in the last 45 years with an accelerating trend. So... what is your evidence?

It's basically accepted fact that there has been no warming over the past 15 years. If you want to dispute that then you are simply not utilising the facts.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 016_v6.gif

How the f*** do you call -0.3 in 1979 to +0.4 in 2016 as cooling?!? That is your delusion man!

2001 = 0.0 and 2016 = +0.4. That's not cooling, either, in your 15-year window.

[steveo73]

You keep saying it's been cooling last 15-20 years and yet offer no evidence. NASA, NOAA, and your own Australian government have measured increases. I've offered charts of local Pacific Northwest measurements that clearly show warming and acceleration. Gardeners in the USA know they've had warming because their local agricultural zone is one zone higher since the '80s. Arctic ice cap has diminished by 25% in the last 45 years with an accelerating trend. So... what is your evidence?

It's basically accepted fact that there has been no warming over the past 15 years. If you want to dispute that then you are simply not utilising the facts.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 016_v6.gif

How the f*** do you call -0.3 in 1979 to +0.4 in 2016 as cooling?!? That is your delusion man!

2001 = 0.0 and 2016 = +0.4. That's not cooling, either, in your 15-year window.

Let's call it a pause then. AGW factually though isn't happening. Also you should look at the chart and stop putting your spin on it. If that is AGW in action then you really need your eyes fixed.

It could be as simple as it is happening but it's simply not something to be worried about because the impact is so insignificant or it could be that the theory is completely wrong. Whatever the case we can now factually state that the alarmist theories are false.

It's time to move on. It's been caught out as being false.

[Ego]

It's basically accepted fact that there has been no warming over the past 15 years. If you want to dispute that then you are simply not utilising the facts.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 016_v6.gif

Definitely not accepted fact. In fact, the only scientist who accepts it as fact is Dr. Spencer who made the original calculations that were later found to be incorrect. NOAA later corrected it as well.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/ ... lw0602.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

Dr. Spencer was responsible for the error. He continues to use his MIS-calculation. Why would he do that?

[steveo73]

Ego - my take is that these revisions of the data are basically ludicrous and they show how poorly the science is being conducted within this field. It's actually exactly what I am talking about when they keep waving their hands and hoping no one notices. If you have though a political affiliation you may buy it. If you are looking at the facts there is no way you buy it.

I think that this is just another example of the fraudulent behaviour by so called "scientists" to keep the gravy train running. I also think that this is the type of behaviour that has resulted in the backlash against this cause.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has- ... l-warming/

You can go ahead and believe this fraudulent behavior if you want too. The good thing is that in another 10-20 years they will do it again and again but the impact will remain the same - i.e. non-existent.

I'll add that there is the possibility that there is some warming occurring but it is going to take decades to see if this is really the case. This warming (if it is occurring) does not mean that AGW is occurring. The next point is that the significance of any warming is miles off any alarmist hypothesis.

So there are a bunch of factors against the alarmists:-

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years. You can debate this if you want too but you are really clutching at straws.
2. No impacts ala the alarmist crapola as in:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6SE5TYrCM
3. The science is pretty clear cut on CO2 having minimal impact on the climate.
4. The feedback mechanisms of the Earth's climate are not well understood. This is the last bastion of the alarmist but don't let them scam you. There is no proof whatsoever that the feedback mechanisms are positive.

The question remains do we now state that this is definitively a false hypothesis or do we hang on and reassess this over the next couple of decades ?

We definitely should all relax and be extremely comfortable that the alarmists have massively overstated their case and there is no need for any action on our behalf. Worst case let's assess this over the next couple of decades but at the same time let's go and use those funds that are being directed towards a false claim towards something meaningful.

[Ego]

You can go ahead and believe this fraudulent behavior if you want too.

So it is a conspiracy? Fraudulent behavior by every climate scientist against this one? Has any credible scientist criticized the revisions of Dr. Spencer's miscalculations?

[George the original one]

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years.

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

[steveo73]

You can go ahead and believe this fraudulent behavior if you want too.

So it is a conspiracy? Fraudulent behavior by every climate scientist against this one? Has any credible scientist criticized the revisions of Dr. Spencer's miscalculations?

Definitely. I think that is pretty clear. I tell you something interesting - there aren't too many scientists as credible as Dr Spencer in that field. I don't know where you go from there. If you can't trust him you are basically screwed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPW ... 1#t=29m52s

[steveo73]

1. No temperature increase in the last 15-20 years.

Once again, show me how you're reading the chart you linked to. It clearly shows 0.4 degree rise in the past 15 years and I'm just going from local minimum to local minimum. The average line in that chart also shows a rise. PLEASE SHOW ME OTHERWISE!

That is the best chart to look at. I don't understand how you are reading that chart to come up with your data. 1998 - .45 running average. 2016 .5 running average. Is that your warming ? If so you gotta laugh. That shows how much you want to believe.

That global warming is a real killer. We are all doomed.

[Chad]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skepti ... pencer.htm

[theanimal]

For some reason, I predict a post in the near future about skepticalscience being fraudulent.

This is a solid wall here, folks. 2 mega threads demonstrate the evidence of that. I don't think anybody is going to be knocking it down. But I commend those who are still trying!