Climate Change Denial

[nwdiver]

This is why they look different.

??? Is that also why there are different values for the same year? The right graph IS the ERSSTv5... what is Spencer showing on his graph? Maybe 'ovservations' don't match the models but OBSERVATIONS sure seem to

It's not known what drives climate during the Milankovitch cycles? So.... the fact that the radiative forcing effect of increasing CO2 from 180ppm to 280ppm easily explains the dramatic warming couldn't possibly be the reason? Why?

It's not like we noticed warming and started looking for a scape goat THEN found CO2. ~150 years ago researchers tested different gasses to measure their influence on Earths climate. THOSE experiments lead to the discovery that CO2 causes warming... had absolutely nothing to do with Ice Ages or rising CO2 levels. Those facts just proved previous observations.

 

[MitchP85D]

So the guy retracted his study and you still think his old study was right? That sounds really Drumpf! Do you still think the Earth is flat?

What in the heck are you talking about?

 

[MitchP85D]

??? Is that also why there are different values for the same year? The right graph IS the ERSSTv5... what is Spencer showing on his graph? Maybe 'ovservations' don't match the models but OBSERVATIONS sure seem to

View attachment 657877

It's not known what drives climate during the Milankovitch cycles? So.... the fact that the radiative forcing effect of increasing CO2 from 180ppm to 280ppm easily explains the dramatic warming couldn't possibly be the reason? Why?

It's not like we noticed warming and started looking for a scape goat THEN found CO2. ~150 years ago researchers tested different gasses to measure their influence on Earths climate. THOSE experiments lead to the discovery that CO2 causes warming... had absolutely nothing to do with Ice Ages or rising CO2 levels. Those facts just proved previous observations.

Again, I have to tell you. The data sets are based on different averages to determine the temperature anomalies. The Spencer graph defines the average from 1979-1983. The other graph isn't defined. The short time frame Spencer used was due to the fact the model runs began in 1979. He wanted to make sure an apples to apples comparison was done.

 

[nwdiver]

Again, I have to tell you. The data sets are based on different averages to determine the temperature anomalies. The Spencer graph defines the average from 1979-1983. The other graph isn't defined. The short time frame Spencer used was due to the fact the model runs began in 1979. He wanted to make sure an apples to apples comparison was done.

??? Not 'defined' how? The other graph is ERSSTv5. How is it 'not defined'???

???? Then what 'ovservation' data set is he using to compare to the models???? It sure isn't what his graph cites. It's not ERSSTv5. What is it?

Why is Spencer wrongly claiming the ovservation in 1994 was a 0C anomaly when it was 0.4? Why is Spencer wrongly claiming the ovservation in 2018 was a 0.4C anomaly when it was 0.8C? If you make up numbers to show the models are wrong of course they're going to look wrong... but when you compare the models to the ACTUAL ERSSTv5 data.... they're not far off....

 

[MitchP85D]

He made the idiotic statement that termites produce more CO2 than man, apparently without the basic understanding that termites are part of the natural CO2 cycle of recycled plant material which have been occurring for millennia while man made emissions from fossil fuels are not.

Are you trying to make the case that humans aren't part of the natural cycle?

 

[winfield100]

What in the heck are you talking about?

go back and read the last few pages vis a vis “retracted study” and what you were using to attempt to prove your thesis.
apparently falsified data

you _do_ understand what a “retracted study” implies?

 

[eevee-fan]

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

archive.thinkprogress.org

LOL

"
As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

1. “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
2. “It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
3. NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”
4. Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”"

 

[MitchP85D]

??? Not 'defined' how? The other graph is ERSSTv5. How is it 'not defined'???

???? Then what 'ovservation' data set is he using to compare to the models???? It sure isn't what his graph cites. It's not ERSSTv5. What is it?

Why is Spencer wrongly claiming the ovservation in 1994 was a 0C anomaly when it was 0.4? Why is Spencer wrongly claiming the ovservation in 2018 was a 0.4C anomaly when it was 0.8C? If you make up numbers to show the models are wrong of course they're going to look wrong... but when you compare the models to the ACTUAL ERSSTv5 data.... they're not far off....

Spencer is not wrongly claiming anything. Only in your highly overactive imagination is he wrongly claiming something. On his web site, he explains the parameters he used.

"The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have."

"Fig. 1. 68 CMIP6 climate model simulations of global average sea surface temperature (relative to the 5 year average, 1979-1983), and compared to observations from the ERSSTv5 dataset."

Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[nwdiver]

compared to observations from the ERSSTv5 dataset."

.... except it's NOT the ERSSTv5 dataset... for 1994 does ERSSTv5 show a 0C or 0.4C anomaly? It shows 0.4C... why does Spencer show 0C on his graph? For 2018 does ERSSTv5 show a 0.4C or 0.8C anomaly? 0.8C... why does Spencer show 0.4C on his graph? That's ERSSTv5. Whatever Spencer is showing as the comparison ovservation it DOES NOT match ERSSTv5....

 

[drtimhill]

Are you trying to make the case that humans aren't part of the natural cycle?

He means "natural" as in "not man-made", as you well know.

 

[nwdiver]

Are you trying to make the case that humans aren't part of the natural cycle?

??? The emissions from fools fuel aren't. That carbon has been out of the carbon cycle for eons and would have remained so. If you have a 400gph filter in a fish tank and you start adding 1gph of additional water into the tank... is that 1gph 0.25% of the reason you'll have a mess or 100% of the reason you have a mess? The pump is sending 400 gallons every hour BACK into the tank... 1 gallon is 0.25% of 400... right?

 

[winfield100]

Spencer is not wrongly claiming anything. Only in your highly overactive imagination is he wrongly claiming something. On his web site, he explains the parameters he used.

"The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have."

"Fig. 1. 68 CMIP6 climate model simulations of global average sea surface temperature (relative to the 5 year average, 1979-1983), and compared to observations from the ERSSTv5 dataset."

Roy Spencer, PhD

thank you for the link to Spencers website
this alone is enough to damn him permanently
“..the “Chief Climatologist of the EIB Network”.....”
If he was that gullible than he is completely suspect, since the EIB Network was not even vaguely scientific and for entertainment only

you have a nice life trolling others with tripe

 

[MitchP85D]

.... except it's NOT the ERSSTv5 dataset... for 1994 does ERSSTv5 show a 0C or 0.4C anomaly? It shows 0.4C... why does Spencer show 0C on his graph? For 2018 does ERSSTv5 show a 0.4C or 0.8C anomaly? 0.8C... why does Spencer show 0.4C on his graph? That's ERSSTv5. Whatever Spencer is showing as the comparison ovservation it DOES NOT match ERSSTv5....



View attachment 657899

Is that red line you drew based on the 1979-1983 average Spencer used to determine the temperature anomaly? Of course not! If Spencer is falsifying data, he would be expelled from UAH, and NASA would no longer fund his research. If you think he is falsifying data, go to his web site and tell him so. He is available to the public. Just go to his blog site. All you have to do is provide and email address and come up with your name or moniker. I use my name when I comment on his site. I will admonish you there are other atmospheric scientists and physicists who comment and argue on his site. If you accuse Roy Spencer of falsifying data, see what kind of a response you might get.

Go ahead to his page and sign up.

Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[SageBrush]

Are you feeling silly for slandering a quality atmospheric scientist?

You should be feeling very silly for promoting 20 year old methods and conclusions that Spencer himself admits are wrong.
As for Spencer, I ignore him not for being wrong, but for waiting for so long to admit it despite overwhelming evidence.

 

[nwdiver]

Is that red line you drew based on the 1979-1983 average Spencer used to determine the temperature anomaly? Of course not! If Spencer is falsifying data, he would be expelled from UAH, and NASA would no longer fund his research. If you think he is falsifying data, go to his web site and tell him so. He is available to the public. Just go to his blog site. All you have to do is provide and email address and come up with your name or moniker. I use my name when I comment on his site. I will admonish you there are other atmospheric scientists and physicists who comment and argue on his site. If you accuse Roy Spencer of falsifying data, see what kind of a response you might get.

Go ahead to his page and sign up.

Roy Spencer, PhD

Ok... then what's the ERSSTv5 anomaly for 1994? 2018? If I'm wrong then cite the correct answer. What good would my complaints do? Far more qualified people than me have already called out his shoddy work.

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, Validations, and Intercomparisons​

 

[SageBrush]

Wrong! CO2 does not drive the climate. It follows the climate.

Learn the difference between a forcing and a feedback, then and now.

 

[MitchP85D]

thank you for the link to Spencers website
this alone is enough to damn him permanently
“..the “Chief Climatologist of the EIB Network”.....”
If he was that gullible than he is completely suspect, since the EIB Network was not even vaguely scientific and for entertainment only

you have a nice life trolling others with tripe

That doesn't damn Dr. Spencer at all. He called in to Rush Limbaugh's show a few times to give climate updates. The mainstream news media will not interview climate realists like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen. But Rush did. The news media has an alarmist narrative to sell, and these scientists and others are not hopping aboard the human-caused global warming bandwagon.

 

[eevee-fan]

Wonder if that is why he is an entertainer now, with that web site, trying to make money off clicks

 

[nwdiver]

That doesn't damn Dr. Spencer at all. He called in to Rush Limbaugh's show a few times to give climate updates. The mainstream news media will not interview climate realists like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen. But Rush did. The news media has an alarmist narrative to sell, and these scientists and others are not hopping aboard the human-caused global warming bandwagon.

Climate realists that can't square the consensus conclusion of the driving feedback that ends an Ice Age with present observational data? What's the feedback that drives a ~7C increase in temperature? The radiative forcing of CO2 is the only plausible explanation. If an increase of 180 => 280ppm is a ~7C increase in average global temps what do you think an increase to 400ppm means? 500?

The surface of Venus receives less energy that the surface of Earth due to 100% cloud cover... yet its hotter than Mercury. Why?

This... this isn't rocket science... it's basic energy accounting. Earths orbit wobbles and there's more energy. Is this enough to warm the Earth by 7C? No... not even close. If you increase CO2 from 180 to 280ppm and add radiative forcing of >2w/m^2 after water vapor feedbacks? YES! Now you have your 7C warming! Why is this so hard to accept?

If ~50M tons of SO2 ONCE can cause the 'Year without a Summer' by reducing incoming energy why is it so hard to accept the fact that ~1000x more CO2 EVERY YEAR would cause warming by reducing outgoing energy? It's just energy accounting. Less energy in and the earth cools. Less energy out and the Earth warms. This isn't rocket science... it's barely 5th grade math....

 

[MitchP85D]

Ok... then what's the ERSSTv5 anomaly for 1994? 2018? If I'm wrong then cite the correct answer. What good would my complaints do? Far more qualified people than me have already called out his shoddy work.

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, Validations, and Intercomparisons​

You still don't understand that the global mean temperature anomaly is based on the years used to base the average. If you use a different set of years from another set, this will produce different numbers for the anomaly. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, and you can't grasp it. Many data sets use the 1981-2010 30-year range to define the climate normal. Some are updating to 1991-2020 to determine the climate normal. Spencer and Christy just updated to the new climate range. But depending on your research, you can choose any set of years to study and examine the departure from the "normal" that you defined. The Danish Meteorological Institute uses 1958-2002 to define the Arctic temperature mean.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Danmarks Meteorologiske Instituts hjemmeside for marin information

ocean.dmi.dk