Slashdot Mirror

Here is the scientist that actually works with the sats.

For more information from Ray Spencer....

"But as NASA’s leader of the U.S. Science Team on one of the best satellite instruments developed for monitoring sea ice, I can tell you we will not lose our ability to monitor sea ice.

Admittedly, the premature failure of the Defense Department’s DMSP F17 and F19 satellites has definitely reduced the number of times a day we can measure the polar regions."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

Further models, and collected data, show additional warming - not the same as Mann's hockey stick graph. It matters because it's dishonest and incorrect.

Yes, the planet is heating up and yes, we humans are to blame for a goodly portion of this warming. Those aren't facts in dispute, unless one is insane and deliberately ignoring the vast amounts of data. However, it's not what was predicted and saying it is what was predicted is dishonest and bad science. Good science is saying, "Hey, our models were wrong. The planet is still warming and we're continuing to work on the process." Which, really, is what they appear to be doing.

It is not, on the other hand, what the person I responded to was doing. Given the politics involved, it's important to be open, honest, and communicative. It's important to admit mistakes and to continue to improve the results. What isn't helpful is saying, "Well, it's still warming!" Yes, we know it's still warming - but it's not doing so as projected. There is no hockey stick. It's been a gradual increase in average temperatures across the globe, no spike, no runaway...

It's like the other comment that pointed out the acidification of the oceans was certain because of coral bleaching. That sounds good, until I cite NOAA who tells us that the bleaching has stopped and the coral reefs are starting to repair themselves.

By no means does this make me an AGW skeptic. No, I'm firmly in the AGW is real camp. I've just taken a lot of time to understand the data and follow the research and learn about climate science. I've even gone so far as to download the models and the datasets and run them myself. I'm intimately familiar with modeling large datasets - though I did so with traffic, another chaotic system. It was only natural that I learn to do the same with climate.

Anyhow, I'm very much a "believer" in AGW. That's because I've done the work involved to learn about it. It took a great deal of time, over a period of several years, for me to catch up with it as well as I could. It's okay that the hockey stick isn't real - just because it isn't real doesn't mean that AGW isn't real. It sure as hell doesn't mean that AGW isn't a problem. No, AGW is both real and a problem - and one that we should address, for many reasons. It's okay to admit past models were wrong.

Here, I encourage you to view this image:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

The models have been incorrect, time and time again. They have consistently predicted more warming than has occurred. That's okay - that doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming up. It just means we're still learning. It just means that further refinement is needed. Modeling is extremely difficult to do with great predictive accuracy. Modeling is not easy. It's difficult to the point where it becomes almost an art form to get it right.

Please, see the linked image. And, remember, it's okay - it doesn't mean that the planet is not warming, nor does it mean that the theory behind AGW isn't sound. AGW is real and climate science is difficult. Prediction is very, very difficult - and that's okay.

What we need is honesty and openness. What we need is saying, "Yeah, we fucked that up. We're still learning and we're getting better all the time." Yet, it seems people aren't able to do this - as is evidenced by this very thread. Fortunately, as linked elsewhere, the scientists are doing exactly that. I linked to a recent study that showed them admitting their predictions aren't very accurate. This doesn't cast doubt on AGW. It just shows that we're not as good at predictions as many have been led to believe.

The GPP+N post stated that the hockey stick was invalid. The response was that it wasn't. I've demonstrated that it is invalid. I've linked to the research and done my best to explain why it's okay and why the other user is right - in that specific claim. I've also incidentally needed to cite th

Here's a graph. See for yourself.

I don't trust any scientists. I have a PhD in applied science, and am fully capable of reviewing the data myself, which I have been doing for over 20 years. I believe and trust hard facts, and have a very low opinion of climate "scientists" who have been shilling for grant money and wildly wrong for the last 20 plus years with their computer models and predictions, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... AGW "scientists" have been caught repeatedly faking numbers, http://www.washingtontimes.com... and even they will agree that the science is far from settled (the only people arguing that the science is settled and all scientists believe in AGW are Bill Nye and the idiot politicians and those who worship at their feet). Further, your assertion that being right that the temperature is going up somehow validates the AGW "scientists" is ludicrous. Is it rational, as the AGW "scientists" argue, to destroy our civilization, and kill millions of people (even unintentionally, they are still dead, and rolling back civilization in favor of nature always costs lives, just ask the 45 million Africans who have died of Malaria to "save the birds" after we stopped using DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks... http://www.who.int/malaria/med... )

If the global temperature will rise another 0.3C in the next 100 years before falling 2C in the following 500 years is it in any way rational to divert funds from the most efficient and economical solutions to problems like energy, transportation, heating and AC? I will answer for you: No, it is not. Is there any moral, legal or rational justification for redistributing by force natural resources or money to countries more affected by global warming if AGW is not real? No there is not. There are some very key results if AGW is real or not that come into play.

Scientific fact says CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution were measured between 250 and 550 PPM. Therefore, our measurements today do not indicate much, if any, change in CO2 concentrations globally. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that plant growth is limited primarily by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is where all the CO2 has been going as we produce it. This theory has been thoroughly tested and proven scientifically (if you increase CO2 concentrations locally, keeping other factors constant, plant growth is more rapid, more dense and the overall carbon capture rate increases.) This is scientific fact, not pull it out of your ass speculation.

Furthermore, hard science says that the earth's atmosphere is already 100% opaque in the 3 IR bands that CO2 absorbs. Thus, arguing more CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming is wild speculation at best and at worst irrational/disingenuous.

Unlike your (incorrect) assertions, I do not follow others, I have and will continue to evaluate the evidence myself. I am happy to make a prediction for you: The climate will change. It will be either hotter or cooler than it is today. Glaciers will either grow or shrink. Sea levels will either rise or fall. The one constant that we know is that the climate is never constant. To assert that what we see today is atypical and caused by humans based on the last 300 years of observation is irrational and completely ignores the facts at hand. https://static.skepticalscienc...

Please, by all means David Thornley, show me with sourced references and clear logic where exactly I am "wrong on every point."

1 Observe - The earth has been warmer and cooler than it is now, with more CO2 in the atmosphere (we agree here)

2 Hypothesis - Humans must be destroying the world and bringing about the apocalypse

    -if the polar caps melt, climate change proponents claim that the sea level rise will be 230 feet, leading to mass starvation, wars over resources and land, basically the end of all civilization as we know it. Feel free to refute my statement with a facts of your own. Didn't you see An Inconvenient Truth by your spokesman Al Gore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If climate change is not the apocalypse, why should we give two shits about it or spend $500B a year to combat it?

3 Mathematical model - Create mathematical models that have been proven wildly inaccurate without exception for the last 25 years; engage in incestuous consensus, conduct a witch hunt for any who disagree, shout down any opposing theories by claiming majority rule regardless of their scientific merit

- This is not libel and is easily searchable. Here is a nice graph of predicted vs actual global temperatures for the last 30 years vs 90 different climate models. As you can clearly see, they are nearly all way off high from the actual temperatures. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
You might want to, you know, learn something before you call other people names.

4 Conclusion - AGW is right and is the apocalypse, everyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a shill for fossil fuels (pretty sure you made this point already yourself with your personal attacks) Also, one of your biggest supporters, Bill Nye is quite vocal on this topic: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02...

The sad truth is that global warming/climate change is no longer about science, it is about orthodoxy, conformity and grants for "scientists", it is about manipulation and power for the politicians, and it is about feeling intellectually and morally superior for the unwashed masses who in most cases have no more than a high school level education in the physical sciences and only know what they have been spoonfed. Notice that nowhere in there is actual science where hypotheses are continually being made and challenged and are furthered by peer review and debate.

Further, the steps above are exactly what the global warming crowd call science, and as I showed in my prior post, it is clearly not the scientific method. It may be based in physics, but climate science isn't science, it is climate modeling or climate simulation, but those names are not as catchy and don't sound as authoritative.

Side note: I do thermal design for a living and create very complex closed form and FDA models of thermal systems, but after the models, I always build and test, as that is the only way to be sure that your model is accurate. Climate scientists don't/can't do this testing at any faster than realtime, and so far their realtime testing has not been favorable for their thermal models.

Your erroneous assumption is that the polar caps median or average temperature is -4C. This is not the case. TLDR summary: Arctic temperature range is -58C to 30C depending on the time of year and time of day. Interpolating 5C into observed sea level rise is something like 2.5 inches of sea level rise. Not exactly something that you would even notice in 99.9% of the planet. The other 0.1% may have to adapt or move, but such is life. (It takes 26,300 cubic miles of water to raise the sea level by 1".)

You are assuming that runaway greenhouse effect is likely, and using as an example a completely different planet, 30% closer to the sun with a 98% CO2 atmosphere (vs our 0.04% atmospheric CO2)?!?! My argument is that all the CO2 we are releasing was once living matter on the planet and we know past CO2 levels were higher during very lush planetary times and we did not have runaway greenhouse effects and got from prehistoric times to now without global flooding. My argument is both more similar (same planet, same orbit, same atmosphere) and more reasonable (we have a historical record supporting my assertion, there is no historical record that elevated CO2 levels ever lead in the past to greenhouse runaway.)

Excerpt from my response to another post above:

First off, if all the ice on the planet melted, sea levels would rise 230ft. I live 15miles from the coast and my current elevation is 775 feet, so yeah, not really worried on that one. (Further, these figures do not account for the exponential increase in dissolved water in the atmosphere with increased temperatures, so the actual rise is somewhat lower).

http://www.amnh.org/ology/feat... [amnh.org]

Beyond that, NO ONE thinks that all the ice would melt. (If someone tells you that they are full of shit.) The Arctic temperature range is -58C to 30C depending on the time of year and time of day, Antarctic is a bit higher. Changing those temperatures to -53C to 35C is not going to change the fact that for most of the time, most water that hits the polar caps is frozen and will stay frozen. Experts still hotly debate whether or not the elevated temperatures which cause more moisture in the atmosphere would significantly increase the annual snowfall rate on the polar caps, actually significantly increasing the rate of ice accumulation. Sea levels have risen 2.9mm per year since 1993, even with the slight 0.6C warming we have seen since then. From 1870 to 2004 sea levels rose an average of 3mm per year or about 7.7inches over 134 years. Not even a blip of increase or anywhere near a cataclysmic rise or a cataclysmic increase in sea levels like you are asserting. Anyone who tells you that sea level rise is a foregone conclusion with global warming is lying to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... [drroyspencer.com]

First off, if all the ice on the planet melted, sea levels would rise 230ft. I live 15miles from the coast and my current elevation is 775 feet, so yeah, not really worried on that one. (Further, these figures do not account for the exponential increase in dissolved water in the atmosphere with increased temperatures, so the actual rise is somewhat lower). (strike one)

http://www.amnh.org/ology/feat...

Beyond that, NO ONE thinks that all the ice would melt. (If someone tells you that they are full of shit.) The Arctic temperature range is -58C to 30C depending on the time of year and time of day, Antarctic is a bit higher. Changing those temperatures to -53C to 35C is not going to change the fact that for most of the time, most water that hits the polar caps is frozen and will stay frozen. Experts still hotly debate whether or not the elevated temperatures which cause more moisture in the atmosphere would significantly increase the annual snowfall rate on the polar caps, actually significantly increasing the rate of ice accumulation. Sea levels have risen 2.9mm per year since 1993, even with the slight 0.6C warming we have seen since then. From 1870 to 2004 sea levels rose an average of 3mm per year or about 7.7inches over 134 years. Not even a blip of increase or anywhere near a cataclysmic rise or a cataclysmic increase in sea levels like you are asserting. Anyone who tells you that sea level rise is a foregone conclusion with global warming is lying to you. (strike two)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

Taking scientific advice from a (even popular) web comic strip written by an ex-software engineer completely lacking in the hard sciences (he even insists on disclaimers as a non-expert on his work because of this) is not helping your cause. He is just regurgitating the erroneous assumptions of the so called "climate scientists" who are as much scientists as my local sanitation engineer is an engineer. (See that last link above, that graph shows just how wildly off these "scientists" were with their models vs reality.) They can barely predict the weather 3 days from now and you blindly trust their models of 100 years from now when they have been consistently wrong for the last 15 years? Sorry, no thanks. (strike three)

You can educate yourself or continue in self righteous PC ignorance, up to you. As you can see here, though, you are hardly batting 1000...

It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity".

Economic activity does not necessarily leave society better off. Paying people to dig holes, and paying still more people to fill the holes back in, is "economic activity."

When the unsubsidized cost-per-kilowatt hour of energy source X becomes competitive, you'll find no greater supporter of X than me. But facts on the ground don't yet look good for solar. (And as a big Elon Musk fan, it pains me to post that link.)

I used to fear global warming a lot. But that was before the climate models were shown to be wrong.

If climate models, as a whole, were unbiased, you'd expect about half of them to underpredict the observed amount of warming, and the other half to overpredict the observed amount of warming.

But that's not the kind of wrong they've been shown to be. They all overpredict, as this plot of 73 different climate models, run over a 45-year timespan, shows: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

If this isn't long enough to convince you that the models are wrong, how long of a run would it take? 55 years? 70 years?

This is really the only scientific way to evaluate the validity of climate models. The models have performed with such bias, that it's fair to call anyone who still has faith in them a science denier.

[Contrast the bias of the climate models with hurricane track models which, collectively, do a good job. About half the models predict a track that's leftward of the observed track, while the other half predict a track that's rightward of the observed track: http://images.huffingtonpost.c... ]

I don't disagree with climate models because of faith. I disagree with them because they've been shown to be wrong.

If climate models, as a whole, were unbiased, you'd expect about half of them to underpredict the observed amount of warming, and the other half to overpredict the observed amount of warming.

But that's not the kind of wrong they've been shown to be. They all overpredict, as this plot of 73 different climate models, run over a 45-year timespan, shows: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

If this isn't long enough to convince you that the models are wrong, how long of a run would it take? 55 years? 70 years?

This is really the only scientific way to evaluate the validity of climate models. The models have performed with such bias, that it's fair to call anyone who still has faith in them a science denier.

[Contrast the bias of the climate models with hurricane track models which, collectively, do a good job. About half the models predict a track that's leftward of the observed track, while the other half predict a track that's rightward of the observed track: http://images.huffingtonpost.c... ]

Fact: Climate models have been wrong for years:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA.
http://principia-scientific.or...

Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy."
http://www.naturalnews.com/052...

With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.

Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.

As a person who has great confidence that AGW exists, the same as I have confidence in the speed of light, or any other scientific law, the existence of Hurricane Andrew has nothing to do with AGW.

With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.

Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.

A slower spin would result in cooler temperatures: http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

Dr. Roy Spencer says otherwise, that most don't factor in water vapor, and none include cloud formation.

You are right that Nasa adjusted the temperatures, but in this case, it doesn't matter, because multiple temperature measuring methods concur that July was very warm. See for example

You linked to the wrong page, that page is just a series of pictures of a lake from space for part of December 2013 through April 2014. That obviously has nothing to do with global average temperatures in either 2008 or 2015. That site has a post from this month that you can use to compare the averages in 2008 with 2015.

Did they miss this? Might want to ask for their cash back if there was ever any real cash and this isn't just some story to get climate change in the news.

The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen. Using the Scientific Method this means that the AGW hypothesis is not only not sustainable using the observed data (that is, reality) but it is falsified.

Bill Nye is refusing to use the Scientific Method. That means he is actually the ANTI-Science Guy. He is trying to bamboozle people with rhetoric and partial information, instead of telling the whole story and using the Scientific Method, which inexorably leads to the conclusion that the IPCC computer simulations do not model the effects of water vapor/clouds correctly (their Transient Climate Sensitivity estimates are a whopping factor of 4 out - worse even than the results I'm used to as a former astrophysicist). This means the warming we see is natural (which should be obvious, since it started 160 years ago when we were still using horses and mostly agrarian).

Ignore the rhetoric. Look at the observational data and compare with the predictions made by the AGW hypothesis. AGW is falsified. If this was normal science then people would have accepted they got the theory wrong, but since science has been hijacked by political "Lysenkosim" then we see persistent propaganda that denies the observed reality (kinda like that old man that wants to pretend to be a 6 year old girl).

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ! Stop pretending he does. AGW is not supported by the data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
http://docs.house.gov/meetings...
From https://climateaudit.org/2016/...

Do you want to be one of the people who pretends the naked Emperor has no clothes? is that the smart move? NO ! instead, stop listening to rhetoric from politicized Cultural Marxist Politically Correct flunkies like Bill Nye and look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA - all of it!

If you disagree then that's cool, please give me your data and we can discuss it. In Science observational data is king. Too back Bill Nye is refusing to acknowledge this (or perhaps he is simply incompetent and doesn't know all the data).

Dr. Roy Spencer provides evidence and contrary opinions.

He also says a lot of stuff that isn't well supported by the evidence. In fact, he once said about his own paper:

"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."

One has to wonder how many of the climate myths that Dr Spencer has said have been a result of what his gut says rather than any evidence; and how much of his evidence is selected to match his gut feeling. His papers and comments do seem to be motivated by the desire to right the supposed mistakes of other climate research.

And yet he claims that it is the climate researchers who are the myopic ones:

They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'...by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption... But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

In his quest to show that climate researchers are wrong, he has stated that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, but also that it causes its own climate change by its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

So take you pedantic ass and fuck off.

A well formed argument there, but I would expect nothing less from someone who consistently can't spell the word climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

6. less than a degree on average for the whole planet!

31th december of 1974: - 30 degrees
23rd december of 2013: + 23 degrees

This is celsius. Feel free to check wolframalpha.com what that is in fahrenheit

Since 15 - 20 years we have no winters anymore, I call that global warming. How you call it, is up to you.

+0.73 deg C is less than a degree

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2016 is +0.73 deg. C, down a little from the February record-setting value of +0.83 deg. C (click for full size version). This makes March 2016 the warmest March in the satellite record (since 1979), and statistically tied with April 1998 for the second warmest month. UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for March, 2016: +0.73 deg. C

Back in the 70's the Alarmists were talking about a coming ice-age

I'm three for three now. Any guess yet how I knew?

More bad news for our bet. February was even warmer than January, and not by a bit: http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

Good thing this is just a gentleman's bet because as you said: "I seem to have a difficult time collecting especially when the bet points out someone's stupidity, or they at least perceive it as stupidity because they drank the cool aid and believed someone else. Like someone betting that 2016 will be as hot or hotter than 2015. That's a stupid bet."

This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.

Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.

But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.

And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?

So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.

No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.

But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.

I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.

Did you actually read the comment I replied to?

Hint, I, and the OP were referring to this chart:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

which contains temperatures up to Dec 2015, so, no it wasn't hotter.

2015 is virtually certain to beat 2014's record as the planet's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880

Not according to satellite data.

So, publishing helps you get funding - keeps you employed, so to speak. I assume publishing a bogus paper doesn't help so much does it? Or one that says everyone else is wrong, and the organization funding your research is wrong as well? Not a popular paper I suppose...

As far as Hansen et al. cooking the books, here's one good source but you can literally go through the raw data, and see how it's been adjusted many times, and it happens regularly. Interesting that nearly all the adjustments tend to make the temperature increase "higher" than what the actual data said, too...

Of course, the adjustments warning of massive calamity that can only be saved by huge "investments" and control by Big Government - the same entity that provides all those NIH and other grants - have no financial impact on those who do the adjustments, right?

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments".

Bwahaha, that's a good one. First of all, they don't even measure temperature.

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

Certainly. However, since the last adjustments, the surface datasets of record have been diverging from the satellite measurements:

The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again

Interesting that this is taking place going into another big climate conference complete with demands for "climate justice", and also while we're on the eve of a solar Grand Minimum...

A quote from that last linked article:

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH
RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

Graph

There you go, an ACTUAL graph of IPCC TEMPERATURE predictions vs reality. What you gave were a bunch of graphs that didn't show IPCC predictions vs reality. You know you are lying and misleading people and are hoping to god that no one calls you on it.

I checked your links and was initially shocked because the graphs match the predictions, and EVERY time I've attempted to see that they haven't matched. Then I read the details and not a ONE of them showed temperature. If you want to make a claim about something BESIDES warming, your link might be relevant, but you intentionally tried to mislead and lie to people. Its what the rest of us have come to expect form AGW alarmists, nothing but lies.

Your problem is that "more than half" is the formal part. They could have said "more than three-quarters" but they didn't. Why not? In that light their "best estimate" doesn't mean all that much, especially if the vast majority of past estimates were over-estimates.

I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!

Here's what IPCC reviewer Richard Tol had to say on the paper: http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...

The IPCC report is not MY source. It's YOUR source. Indeed it should be your primary source since you align yourself with the consensus. I'm just informing you of what YOUR source says. Evidently you prefer extreme advocacy blogs like Sks. (I'm what they call a 'luke-warmer'.)

I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report. Why did they say that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together", but then say their "best estimate" is similar to the observed warming? "More than half" means somewhere between 50% - 100%. Why did they phrase it that way if that's not what they meant? Why didn't they say "at least 90% of the warming"?

I tend to take things at face value, so when they say "more than half of the observed increase" I'm going to assume that's what they mean, especially since it's the statement they were willing to quantify @ 95%-100% probability.

You are free to assume they mean something other than what they say.

Speaking of their "best estimate", lets take a look at how their many "estimates" are holding up against observation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

The 'blog' post I referred you to was actually an article from the Wall St Journal reposted on the author's personal site (the first part of IPCC report was released btw). I couldn't find the original article at first but here it is. Here's a video with the author, based on IPCC scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As to your comment about "single data points", you wanted sources so I provided some as examples. And now I am criticized for that too? Really? There is more if a person would care to look, but it is clear you are unaware of what your own "side" even says, apparently preferring extreme advocacy sites like Sks to the IPCC, so I doubt you are willing to listen to differing views anyway.

I am going to hammer this final point: most of the predicted warming is due to climate sensitivity estimates, and NOT due to the warming radiated directly by CO2. These estimates are unproven, vary widely and are highly uncertain. The IPCC claims that climate sensitivity produces up to an additional 3.5 degrees of warming per additional degree of warming from CO2. I find that absurd. And if climate sensitivity is indeed lower as is suggested by recent research, then there is no global warming catastrophe.

the temperature anomaly for April 2015 is 0.07C; we have to see some crazy hot temps to get back on track for the temperature prediction form 20 years ago. If I were going to bet right now, seeing how quiet the sun has been in the last 2 cycles, I'd go with a Little Ice Age, before I'd go with another Medieval Warm period!

It means a lot that the Earth is warming and that human activity is the cause.

Yes it is and the most significant human activity causing the past warming is urbanization around formerly rural ground weather stations stations, Even with Urbanization April, 2015: was http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...">+0.07 deg. C warmer, so warming is pretty much in the past tense, even with a weak El Nino.

Should have previewed the link.

Despite Record High CO2 http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

Which Global Warming? The one which stopped 18 Years ago?

No, not that Global Warming, it's another one. You can't say that it has stopped or is dead, because all you need to do is look at a graph of global temperatures to see that this is not unprecedented. The global temperature peaked in 1940 and then didn't reach that point again until 1970. Global Warming didn't stop back then, despite that lull.

In fact, that wasn't a lull, it was more of a plummet then a rise. If you look at the graphs, you will see that the global temperature repeatedly plateaus (or even falls) only to continue warming a few years later.

It is totally premature to try to call the end of a major trend while you are in the middle of it. Just look at how noisy the data is for the period that you mention (which is just one reading). Who is to say that we wont see another step up in the next year or so followed by another plateau at a higher level? It certainly fits the pattern that we have seen in the past.

Even other crackpots dont buy Nikolov's nuttery:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

Spencer may be a denier himself, but at least he is a cliamte scientist, who actually understands the physics of the atmosphere.

Thought Experiment #1 on The Pressure Effect
If it is atmospheric pressure which causes the relative warmth of the lower troposphere versus the upper troposphere, then why is the average temperature of the stratosphere virtually constant with height, despite the air pressure at the base of the stratosphere (200 millibars) being about 100x that at the top of the stratosphere (2 millibars)?

If you say it’s due to sunlight absorption by ozone warming the middle and upper stratosphere, you would be correct. But how does the stratosphere then lose all of that extra energy it gains by solar absorption? Well, that occurs through IR emission, primarily from carbon dioxide. The temperature of the ‘ozone layer’ increases until the IR loss (primarily by CO2) equals the rate of solar absorption by ozone. Again, it’s an energy budget issue, not an air pressure issue.

The point I’m making with the stratosphere example is that greenhouse gases are necessary to explain the temperature profile of the stratosphere, not what the “pressure enhancement” theory of climate would predict.

And if greenhouse gases influence the stratosphere, then they must also be operating in the troposphere.

Thought Experiment #2 on the Pressure Effect
Imagine we start with the atmosphere we have today, and then magically dump in an equal amount of atmospheric mass having the same heat content. Let’s assume the extra air was all nitrogen, which is not a greenhouse gas. What would happen to the surface temperature?

Ned Nikolov would probably say that the surface temperature would increase greatly, due to a doubling of the surface pressure causing compressional heating. And he would be correct.initially.

But what would happen next? The rate of solar energy absorption by the surface (the energy input) would still be the same, but now the rate of IR loss by the surface would be much greater, because of the much higher surface temperature brought about through compressional heating.

The resulting energy imbalance would then cause the surface (and overlying atmosphere) to cool to outer space until the rate of IR energy loss once again equaled the rate of solar energy gained. The average temperature would finally end up being about the same as before the atmospheric pressure was doubled. /

There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:

In the interest of goodwill I would warn you about trying to argue with this person. I have documented proof that (a) he doesn't argue honestly, (b) he will personally hound and harass people, especially if they prove him wrong. He doesn't seem to be able to accept being wrong.

For example: he insisted on debating Roy Spencer's radiation experiment. I agreed to do so only on the condition that it was understood that I was debating only Spencer's experiment, not global warming.

When I showed him that the mainstream physics, textbook solutions to the temperatures in Spencer's experiment disagreed with his (and Spencer's) conclusions, he hasn't ceased demanding that I solve it a different way of his own devising, which doesn't appear in any textbook on radiative heat transfer, anywhere.

He is still doing so, when the whim strikes him; he did it again just a few days ago. And as you can see, even though I told him in no uncertain terms that we were debating only Spencer's experiment (his agreement can still be seen here on Slashdot), he insists that I am a "Sky Dragon Slayer", simply because I stated that Pierre Latour's radiation physics were correct. (For the record, I have never read the "Sky Dragon" books.)

I do assert that there is no solidly demonstrated cause for concern over CO2. This person conflates that position of mine, with my use of textbook physics to refute Spencer, as somehow proving I am a Sky Dragon Slayer.

If you insist on arguing with him, prepare to have your words repeated -- for years -- out of context and in distorted and misleading ways. I suppose it's possible that it's some kind of personal vendetta against just me, but I suspect an actual personality flaw.

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

You're reading a lot into what I said. I'm willing to listen to actual science, not the personal opinions of scientists, not politics and not personal feelings. The computer models are wrong.

All of the models use an over estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity and therefore have always over-estimated any warming due to CO2 anthropogenic or otherwise. Even more troubleing is they always under-estimate negative feedbacks which again over-estimate any warming, this leads to the trend lines between model predictions and reality to actually diverge. I do agree the oceans have warmed, but I'm to going to lose any sleep over the Global oceans at 0 - 700m warming at a trend of 18 onehundreths of a degree per decade.

I prefer Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much, nor has it been gridded to correct for geospacial inconsistencies.

I assume you mean it has [not] been "corrected" as much.

If you do, you're wrong.

The problem with the satellite data is that it doesn't measure temperature, it's a proxy, and like all proxies needs some amusing massaging to work out what temperatures the satellite measurements correspond to.

Historically UAH fucked this up pretty badly, over time they've fixed their many errors and now get something that seems to correspond to the measured temperatures.

RSS however are having a big problem at the moment - their figures are out of line with everyone else's.

Roy Spencer says:

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearswe use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

I do believe you have an odd definition for excellent.

Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data.

Dr. Roy Spencer on the divergence between UAH and RSS global temperature records.

Of course 10 or even 20 years is too short a period to form any meaningful conclusions on surface temperature trends. Natural variability is large enough to overcome the underlying warming trend in that short a period. There's a reason that the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years. Meanwhile the oceans continue to heat up without pause.

We'll see what future temperature trends bring but I doubt that an extremely low solar cycle will be enough to stop rising temperatures.

Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere.

Dr Roy Spencer doesn't agree that RSS is the best.

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearsâ¦we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

" The GCMs really do not seem to work." why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.

" They clearly run way too hot. " no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.

When I keep seeing graphics like this and and this which all show the majority of computer climate models over-prediction the current temperatures.

Hint: stop looking at graphics faked by "sceptics".

" The GCMs really do not seem to work."
why do you think that? they work very well. They have even lead us to make new discoveries about the climate.

" They clearly run way too hot. "
no, they doi not. Another baseless statement I suspect you have no clue how models work. in general, much less in any specific field.

When I keep seeing graphics like this and and this which all show the majority of computer climate models over-prediction the current temperatures.

I'm going to ask you a question. If you can not answer it, then you need to STFU and learn some science.

My turn, What is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and how much is it? for extra point don't WattsUpWithThis, Skeptical Science or Wikipedia.