Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to '2014 warmest year ever' nonsense

[Crick]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5. But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.

 

[westwall]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5. But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.

Actually, it's the other way around bucko. We are claiming it is all natural variation and the Vostock ice core data supports us. Not you.

 

[orogenicman]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5. But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.

Actually, it's the other way around bucko. We are claiming it is all natural variation and the Vostock ice core data supports us. Not you.

No sir, it does not.

Here is the raw rata. Prove your claim:

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core

 

[westwall]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5. But, since you're the one with the extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to do the telling first.

Actually, it's the other way around bucko. We are claiming it is all natural variation and the Vostock ice core data supports us. Not you.

No sir, it does not.

Here is the raw rata. Prove your claim:

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core

Here you go. Warming, THEN CO2 increases, hundreds of years afterwards.

 

[orogenicman]

No dude. I gave you the raw data. Take the data and prove your claim. Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.

Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data. So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.

 

[westwall]

No dude. I gave you the raw data. Take the data and prove your claim. Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.

Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data. So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.

OK, it will take a few days to do it.

 

[Treeshepherd]

"Truth.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.

And they can't refute his arguments, because he knows what he's talking about and they don't. So when he comes across their latest nonsense - this time the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record - he takes aim and destroys the claim in beautiful fashion:


"Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end." "

Politics Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to 2014 warmest year ever nonsense Best of Cain

NOAA is part of the Commerce Department's budget. NASA justifies an increasingly significant part of its budget to study climate change. The Pentagon is even getting in on this Climate Change meal ticket. They propose that since climate change is a destabilizing factor, more money is warranted in their budget.Climate change is a huge cash cow for government budgets and there is every incentive to paint the situation toward the extreme end of the spectrum. The public has become a bit more cynical about government reports in general, and many organizations are doubling down and claiming that climate change is the #1 most important issue facing mankind. That's hyperbolic when you consider the prospects of nuclear war, natural disasters, deforestation, terrorism, pollution, etc..

The 97% consensus truism quoted by John Kerry and perpetuated everywhere is somewhat dubious if you study how that number was derived. Basically, climate change papers were separated into 4 piles. The largest pile (66%) was stacked with papers that make no assumptions about whether man's activities are the main driver behind climate change. Those papers don't count in the 'vote'. There actually wasn't a vote at all. Of course, a very tiny percentage of the papers made strong arguments that humans can be ruled out as a main culprit. But there are many scientists who look seriously at alternative explanations for climate change. The climate has never not been changing, after all, and it's absurd to ignore alternative explanations for what's going on.

The headlines all read "2014 Hottest Year" without really explaining that data points from weather stations were selected by humans. The RSS satellite data was ignored. The statistical margin of error was not explained in most news stories. Computer modelling constantly changes. Incomplete weather reporting from certain stations was completed by speculation. Other factors like the urban heat island effect are dealt with artfully. There is a certain amount of art that goes into building these reports. It was a warm year, no doubt. Hottest year ever recorded? That statement doesn't match up to observables. It was statistically the hottest year in the history of subjectively selected data points recorded in the history of annually adjusted computer modelling. That's what I would say. And as Mark Twain said, "There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

[Kosh]

No dude. I gave you the raw data. Take the data and prove your claim. Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.

Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data. So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.

And the AGW cult dismisses the fact that CO2 does Not nor has ever controlled climate..

 

[orogenicman]

No dude. I gave you the raw data. Take the data and prove your claim. Don't be a pussy and post someone else's work.

Moreover, your graph only gives prehistoric data from the core, excluding modern temperature and CO2 data. So you cannot say that the ice cores show that the modern increase is natural based on rthe ice core data.

And the AGW cult dismisses the fact that CO2 does Not nor has ever controlled climate..

The fact that CO2 and temperature changes hand in hand as indicated in your pal's graph above demonstrates that you are sucking vacuum.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has always been a part of the climate system, sometimes as a symptom, sometimes as a cause.

the modern era is different because it is mankind who is changing the proportions of a chemical equation. what happened in the past is not necessarily what will happennow. no one knows exactly what is going to happen, although I have a strong suspicion that most of the released CO2 is going to end up as limestone eventually. homeostasis is like that. the Earth has dealt with many disruptions to the system in the past and this is just another minor one that will be dealt with.

 

[orogenicman]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

 

[IanC]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again this is what they had to read temperature and record from in the 1900s can you read it accurately to a half a degree and record it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This came along in the 40s, is it any better ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This came along in the mid 80s now anybody can read not down to the half a degree but to the 10th of a degree

 

[Wyatt earp]

So to say the earth warmed up in a half a degree in a 100 years as a fact, is assanine

 

[IanC]

The funny thing is that LIG (liquid in glass) thermometers are more consistent than today's technology.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The funny thing is that LIG (liquid in glass) thermometers are more consistent than today's technology.

no it's the same the k and j Thermocouple s never lie it is who calibrated does, That's why I always double check with my fluke Pyrometer meter she Don't lie

Again can you read a glass Thermometer to a half a degree? Because i could come along or who ever and say you Need Glasses because you are wrong

 

[Wyatt earp]

I always double check my measurement readings with another source did they a 100 years ago? Or 60 years ago did they? Even my low voltage problems with another multimeter.you have to be accurate.to trouble shoot a electrical problem

 

[IanC]

There aren't a whole lot of electrical problems to troubleshoot in a LIG.