Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps you should go back to your concrete theory.
I have typed to you guys for years there would be a crazy ramp up in temps and out past 40 years it will be another ballgame vs now and the heating will just get faster over time.
Roy Spencer may have initials behind his name but his biases are matched in size and scope only by his list of blunders.
Sounds like you have the bias here. He didn't say anything controversial.
Quote:
First of all, the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 energy imbalance is much smaller than our knowledge of any of the natural energy flows in the climate system. It can be compared to the estimated natural energy flows of 235-245 W/m2 in and out of the climate system on an annual basis, approximately 1 part in 300
Quote:
Secondly, since we don’t have good global energy imbalance measurements before this period, there is no justification for the claim, “the magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.” To expect the natural energy flows in the climate system to stay stable to 1 part in 300 over thousands of years has no scientific basis, and is merely a statement of faith. We have no idea whether such changes have occurred in centuries past.
Quote:
What bothers me is the alarmist language attached to (1) such a tiny number, and (2) the likelihood that no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO.
You know he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect or that the earth is warming. I mean his own satellite measurements show it. He questions how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. I get it the vast majority of climate scientists say that all the warming is us. Did you have a chance to watch Christy's opinion?
Quote:
Be that as it may, the paper which Spencer critiques in his blog is an entirely different paper than the one I posted.
Sorry I only read the abstract and didn't look at the authors since the paper Spencer discusses also deals with energy imbalance I thought that was the same.
Roy Spencer isn't a flat earth conventioneer. He brings up some important points
...
Quote from Dr. Spencer: "What bothers me is the alarmist language attached to (1) such a tiny number, and (2) the likelihood that no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO"
This is just such typical Spencer nonsense.
He offers no support for his claim that 1 in 300 is a tiny number, he just says it's small because, well, it looks it like it's small. By this logic a blood alcohol concentration of 1 in 300 should also be small when in fact it is fatal.
He also focuses only on the presence of a natural component of the energy imbalance as if that completely precludes the importance of an unnatural component. Classic Spencer logical fallacy right there.
He offers no support for his claim that 1 in 300 is a tiny number, he just says it's small because, well, it looks it like it's small. By this logic a blood alcohol concentration of 1 in 300 should also be small when in fact it is fatal.
He also focuses only on the presence of a natural component of the energy imbalance as if that completely precludes the importance of an unnatural component. Classic Spencer logical fallacy right there.
He's being pretty tricky here as he's quoting real numbers, but using them to imply to non-climate scientists a misleading conclusion that he wouldn't be able to get away with making overtly in a scientific paper.
But in any field of science it will be possible to find the odd scientist, especially retired, seldom involved in much/any current research who holds outdated or "unorthodox" views. You'll find an antivax medical scientist if you search hard enough or a geologist who believes in Noah's flood etc. That's why when using science as a practical guide, it's important to pay attention to what is generally agreed, not fringe views.
The other troubling thing about Spencer is his support for "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", 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. Earth's climate system is no exception".
Given the enormous damage humanity has caused to nature especially in the past ~60 years such as collapsing fish stocks, collapsing wildlife populations, massive deforestation, disappearing coral reefs etc the stupidity and hubris of such a declaration is painfully unscientific and discredits anyone supporting it.
He offers no support for his claim that 1 in 300 is a tiny number, he just says it's small because, well, it looks it like it's small. By this logic a blood alcohol concentration of 1 in 300 should also be small when in fact it is fatal.
Good analogy but it's not so much the number he said it's the alarmist language attached to it by media outlets
Quote:
He also focuses only on the presence of a natural component of the energy imbalance as if that completely precludes the importance of an unnatural component. Classic Spencer logical fallacy right there.
I would like to know how much is natural variability according to the authors. Probably small but even if the entire 1W is all human caused and is toxic per your analogy that would mean that the 1W change in a climate system that has a natural energy flow of 235/245W would make our climate EXTREMELY sensitive to any energy imbalance and that the most dire models are right. I need to learn more.
Sounds like you have the bias here. He didn't say anything controversial.
You know he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect or that the earth is warming. I mean his own satellite measurements show it. He questions how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. I get it the vast majority of climate scientists say that all the warming is us. Did you have a chance to watch Christy's opinion?
...
I did watch the Christy piece, thank you. My thoughts:
1. He is incorrect when he says the rate of recent warming is not unusual. Certainly within the Holocene, recent warming is without precedent. Have a look at that graph I posted earlier for example. If he's going to make such a bold claim he needs to back it up.
2. He is incorrect when he says predictions of models are not accurate when they have actually been quite accurate at predicting changes in global mean surface temperature. Perhaps he's referring to the difficulties the models have had predicting middle tropospheric warming as "measured" by satellites. Which leads to the biggest issue.
3. He characterizes himself as just somebody who gathers data and does not rely on models. However, the satellite "measurements" are not at all measurements: they are just calculations based on--you guessed it--models. Very disingenuous of him to characterize himself that way.
He's being pretty tricky here as he's quoting real numbers, but using them to imply to non-climate scientists a misleading conclusion that he wouldn't be able to get away with making overtly in a scientific paper.
But in any field of science it will be possible to find the odd scientist, especially retired, seldom involved in much/any current research who holds outdated or "unorthodox" views. You'll find an antivax medical scientist if you search hard enough or a geologist who believes in Noah's flood etc. That's why when using science as a practical guide, it's important to pay attention to what is generally agreed, not fringe views.
The other troubling thing about Spencer is his support for "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", 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. Earth's climate system is no exception".
Given the enormous damage humanity has caused to nature especially in the past ~60 years such as collapsing fish stocks, collapsing wildlife populations, massive deforestation, disappearing coral reefs etc the stupidity and hubris of such a declaration is painfully unscientific and discredits anyone supporting it.
Not enough likes in the world for this post. Thank you.
This hoax has been going on since 1922 and obviously still works great. Barnum & Bailey believed if you threw enough crap against the wall some of it would stick, and so it is today. Scientists can go to the well for large grants to study the "change".......oddly enough it seems the deep pockets of the USA are at fault. China and Russia skate because we all know they will never pay. Clearly EU gas hog SUV's caused the drought of 1540.
The Swiss historian Christian Pfister described the events of 1540 in a newspaper interview: Wikipedia
For eleven months, there was practically no rain, „temperatures were 5–7 °C (9.0–12.6 °F) above the normal values for the 20th century, in many places summer temperatures would have exceeded 40 °C (104 °F). Many forests in Europe went up in flames, choking smoke darkened the sun, not a single thunderstorm was reported in summer 1540. Water was already scarce in May, wells and springs dried up, mills stood still, people starved, animals were slaughtered.“[5] Estimates are that in 1540 half a million people died, mostly due to diarrhoeal diseases.
Globalists and those with an agenda will continue to beat us over the head on climate. I always picture Al Gore in a snowstorm preaching on the subject years ago........LOL
Sounds like you have the bias here. He didn't say anything controversial.
You know he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect or that the earth is warming. I mean his own satellite measurements show it. He questions how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. I get it the vast majority of climate scientists say that all the warming is us. Did you have a chance to watch Christy's opinion?
...
I should add that I agree with him when he says the effect of global warming on outcomes such as hurricane and tornado frequency is currently not certain and thus far there has not been an observed increase in such things. The media frequently misinterprets individual events and overstates the connection. Christy reasonably described that particular situation well. Credit where credit is due.
I should add that I agree with him when he says the effect of global warming on outcomes such as hurricane and tornado frequency is currently not certain and thus far there has not been an observed increase in such things. The media frequently misinterprets individual events and overstates the connection. Christy reasonably described that particular situation well. Credit where credit is due.
True, the frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes has not gone up. However, the physics of hurricanes are inescapable: they are heat engines, and as AGW warms the Gulf, then then they will on average pack more energy and severity. We've also seen the rise of intense "rain bombs" for hurricanes making landfall with record-breaking rainfall totals. And, as sea level rise continues, then hurricane storm surge inundation will be deeper and will advance farther inland.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
