Slashdot Mirror

July 1936 was the hottest month in the temperature record, then it wasn't, now it is again; so who is the denialist? RSS temperature data set shows no warming for 17 years and even hunts at a possible cooling, UAH temperature record shows no significant warming for 17 years and the USCRN even shows a 10 year pause in warming; so again who is the denialist?

Actually, climate change skeptics publish in mainstream journals all the time. There's always loose threads you can pull at.

For example RW Spencer is an evangelical Christian who believes that climate change would contradict God's will. Yet he still gets published in mainstream journals.

This demonstrates the extreme open-mindedness of science, when compared to virtually any other field of human endeavor. Yes, the process is slanted in favor of the prevailing wisdom, but people who disagree with the majority opinion aren't ostracized or prevented from publishing, no matter *why* they believe what they do. Scientists believe things for all kinds of un-scientific reasons: aesthetics, hunches, even personal dislike for other scientists. Religion isn't any less scientific than any of that stuff, but you leave that stuff in the locker room when you're on the playing field, so to speak.

Naturally people whose papers get rejected by reviewers think the referees were unfair. But it's not like *other* skeptics can't get their papers published; they just have to play by science's rules.

Here's at least one link about the models not matching reality. When data and models collide, which one should win?

"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

Addendum:

I notice that Pierre Latour's "No, Virginia" no longer has a direct link to the article he is refuting, so I am providing a link to it here.

My suggestion would be to read Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still before you read Latour's "No, Virginia..." piece. Simply because the latter is a rebuttal of the former.

Where this all comes in is that Roy Spencer is defending the "back radiation" concept that Greenhouse Gas warming relies upon. The "back radiation" idea requires that cooler objects can radiatively make hotter objects even hotter. Spencer explains why he thinks this is valid. Latour shows that it is not allowed by thermodynamics.

Latour is a control engineer for chemical processes and he has designed heat-transfer systems for NASA.

Most models, including the ones cited by TFA, predict 1-2 C average global temp increase by the end of the century. Troll again, perhaps? The point being argued here, if you need comprehension help, is what the effect of that increase will be.

Yes, troll again - because whilst most models predict the rise, the models are completely wrong when compared with real data. So the decision becomes do we trust models which are NOT matching reality, or do we go with real, hard data (empirical science) and toss the models and build anew?

Please check the link. You'll see the average IPCC model misses measured data by 0.6 deg C; the vast majority of models are off by 0.4 deg C or more. Given that there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over a projected 1 deg C change over the next half century, I'd say an error of 0.4 deg C over 17 years is significant.

Now there IS ONE model that actually got the current stall spot-on. Of course, that model doesn't rely upon CO2, and it's not by a climatologist (just a geologist), so many discount it. But considering he nailed the stall - and has a rational, reasonable explanation as well, it is worth considering.

Not a single IPCC5 model matches reality, nor even comes close. The real data disagrees with the models; which do we believe?

"I do pay attention to the climate debate but I've seen very little good science coming from the climate contrarian side."

Then you haven't REALLY been paying attention.

Try these on for size, just as an example. Hardly new.

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

http://www.principia-scientifi...

If you can successfully rebut Latour, I'd be happy to buy you a drink.

The "hockey stick" agrees closely with the average of IPCC models. Yet none of the models comes close to matching real measurements. Perhapsthe hockey stick only stands the test of time when compared against other models, not real data...

I don't know your reference for saying that "the models are broken". In my understanding the models used e.g. in IPCC reports, are quite good.

It is completely unreasonable to dismiss them just because they are not perfect. The proper approach is to study the discrepancies, reason about their possible causes and estimate the effect of the errors on the question you are seeking to answer with the model.

Look at this

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

What I don't get is why they don't chuck out the models that are bad, keep the ones that are good and invent ones that are better. Right now it almost seems like they do the opposite - the ones that predict OMG! Runaway Global Warming! get loads of press time. And the ones that don't predict anything too drastic get largely ignored and the people that made them called evil deniers.

Actually that's what denier really means. If you think the world is warming slowly but it's no great problem like the satellite temperature measurements say you're an evil denier. In fact unless you support massive CO2 cuts now on the basis of the most alarmist model you're a denier. I.e. it's really an argument about policy, not whether you think the world will be 0.5 degree C or 1.0 degree C warmer in a hundred years time.

You can see that when geoengineering is brought up. The Royal Society did a study that showed that Sulphate aerosols for example could be used to effect "a reduction of solar input by about 2%" to "balance the effect on global mean temperature of a doubling of CO2" for "total annual cost at 10s of billion dollars". So we don't need to rely on the precautionary principle to tell us we need to cut our CO2 emissions to zero now just in case. We can go on as we are, monitor temperature and build ourselves a planetary thermostat quickly and cheaply if it becomes necessary. Of course the 'cut CO2 now' lobby hate this.

They also hate it when you point out that CO2 emissions in Europe and the US are trending down. China's CO2 emissions are increasing massively. If you want a global CO2 cut you'd need to get China to stop industrializing. Which they won't do

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/...

Or of course that the actual satellite measurements of temperature are undershooting all the models - you need to use the adjusted temperature measurements from ground stations. And the adjusted temperature measurements only do that because the past has been getting cooler. Those cavemen better watch out, pretty soon it will be below absolute zero when they are.

What this is really about is that you've got people who'd make a load of money if everyone was forced to by CO2 permits. It's pure rent seeking by them. Or people who know deep down we're all sinners for our materialistic lifestyle and want to force everyone into the modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes to repent.

Science is all about testable predictions. The predictions from the CAGW guys have failed. We have busted out of the 95% confidence interval on the models, and we busted out on the low end. The models have been shown to overpredict warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/

No serious person can dispute that there has been warming. However, the CAGW guys are saying that, based on their models, that future warming will be catastrophic (hence the 'C' in CAGW). Given that we are now outside the 95% confidence interval, I am no longer worried that the models will prove to be correct.

Observed data does not support the models. Exactly opposite of what you just claimed.

You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.

Except that the models do NOT match reality. When empirical data and models collide, it's the models that are wrong.

".. there's so much evidence for it and so little against it that it would take something revolutionary to change my mind..."

Spoken like someone who truly does not know what he's talking about. There is LOTS of contrary evidence. You just haven't seen it, so you deny it exists. That's called "denial".

Just for example, see here, where Dr. Roy Spencer explains how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.

Then see HERE, where this idea is soundly refuted.

I'm not going to claim to you here that the greenhouse effect is disproved, but the fact is that the scientific basis for it is actually pretty thin.

If you want to talk about the science, you have to read and talk about both sides, or you are not being honest.

How did this get past the Slashdot censors. They have been censoring any discussion of GW for some time. Must be run by the Reddit asshats now. Especially since the IPCC is now trying to figure out the lack of warming for the last 15 yrs. Or.....we could look at all the predictor models.....vs REALITY http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

Don't pretend for a second that you came to that conclusion on your own after spending years examining the data. You just read a few blogs and popular articles and decided that this is what smart people are supposed to believe.

Actually, I work as a scientist. AGW isn't my field. Cognitive science (AI) is. I'm particularly interested in ignorance, so I spend a lot of time learning about the barking mad beliefs that various people cling to.

btw, Roy Spencer is a creationist, and he is one of the few active climate scientists who disbelieves in AGW.

I don't think climate change is mistakenly up for grabs, if the difference between the predictions and the actual reality are anything to go by. Evolution certainly is, as it's an organising principle that would be extremely easy to falsify (just show the fossil of a rabbit found in Devonian strata).

...the predicted temperature rise expected as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than predicted in 2007.

...and how accurate were the 2007 predictions compared to the actual temperatures?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

It seems, "not very".

So, following your link to skeptical science, and examining the intermediate level to actually look a temperatures, the models they showed have in fact been compared to data extending past 2005, although they stopped observed data there. Doing so makes it clear that for the bast 15+ years, that particular set of models overestimated the temperature growth.

A broader comparison is available here. Climate models fairly consistently diverge in their predictions. You might aso check a later link.

So, following your link to skeptical science, and examining the intermediate level to actually look a temperatures, the models they showed have in fact been compared to data extending past 2005, although they stopped observed data there. Doing so makes it clear that for the bast 15+ years, that particular set of models overestimated the temperature growth.

A broader comparison is available here. Climate models fairly consistently diverge in their predictions. You might aso check a later link.

How is any reconstruction not "cherry picked"?

Where would you have it start? At the end of the ice age? Why not at the end of Ediacaran period? No? How about Permian? What period would you start with and why?

It's ALL cherry picked to support the conclusion they want to reach.

Nonsense. If it has been warming from 1997 to date, it has been warming from 1996 to date, it has been warming from 1995 to date, etc.; it has been warming from 1999 to date, it has been warming from 2000 to date, it has been warming from 2001 to date, etc.; but it has NOT been warming from 1998 to date, and you conclude from that that the climate has now switched over to cooling, that is very definitely cherry picking, even if you fuzz it up as "Global Cooling that has been going on for the past 15 or so years", as though you could pick any year back then, rather than it's just your faulty memory which has some faded postit note saying "see, AGW is fake after all" without marking what particular specific year is the only one that works for your argument.

Here's a nice piece of cherry picking by Roy Spencer, utilizing not just 1998, but also March 2011.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/uah_march2011.png
which is conveniently forgotten 18 months later, back to the default just 1998 cherry picking
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51.png

see also
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg1655_990_600.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png

For the rest of us "gee. 1998 was a freakishly hot year, wasn't it?"

So, 2009 is now only the second hottest year in recorded history, not the first hottest.A lot of folks might think that having the two hottest years in the past few centuries all within 15 years might be an indicator that it's warmer now; particularly if you notice that the first half a decade of the 21st century was also right up there.

Of course, if you took seriously the denialist arguments that "there are lots of things that affect climate" and "climate is cyclic", you'd notice that the high points of the El Nino (hot) years starting 1998 till now are on the average suddenly about 0.2 degrees C hotter than they were 1980 through 1995, just as the high points of the La Nina (cool) years from 1996 to 2008 are on the average suddenly about 0.15 degrees C warmer than they were from 1979 through 1989.

Why stop there? It has definitely cooled from noon today till midnight now, I therefore declare that we are in a cooling trend.

You pick your part of the global temperature chart and we'll pick ours.

Really you people whine about looking at only part of the record yet you yourselves ignore the larger record.

Hypocrites

Real Climatologists don't used weather satellite data, at least for temperatures, only deniers like Roy Spencer

Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.

You're claiming that ten years worth of sea level data can't show a trend? You're the stupid one.

Whether the trend will continue for the next 10 or more years is certainly a question, but no one can say for sure at the moment.

I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.

You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*

Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.

If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling. (Also FYI, in 1998 the running average hit 0.4 C above the baseline.)

Link to UAH temperature chart.

So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?

Even NOAA admits that a 15 year pause in warming represents major problems for the climate modelers:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Source: NOAA State of the Climate 2008.

We are right at the threshold of such a fifteen year period now. As I pointed out previously, the Sun is unlikely to play along with the climate alarmists. It will certainly be devastating to them if we get any kind of cooling trend over the next 20-40 years, as I expect we will.

You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.

(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)

It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling. It's a sign of desperation.

The beauty of this situation is we'll know soon enough who was right...just a few more years to go. Be patient, and prepared to eat a huge helping of crow.

In the meantime, let's reflect on the actual realities of CO2 concentration. What do you think the peak value will be? It seems to me that it's virtually impossible to get to the point where humanity as a whole is carbon-neutral before 2050, and even that date is very unlikely. China is currently building two large coal electric plants every week. My guess for peak CO2 concentration is between 500-600 PPM, up from the current ~400 PPM. So, you'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong.

Regardless of my thinking on the matter, I'm willing to meet you alarmists halfway. I would welcome a push for a massive buildout of next-generation nuclear for a number of reasons. That, combined with next-generation solar, could make a major difference in CO2 concentration going forward. It seems clear we're going to need a lot of high-density energy generation for the geoengineering necessary if AGW alarmism is in fact correct.

Sadly, despite the demonstrat

"They aren't mutually exclusive."

I never claimed they were. Holy crap. Do people on Slashdot even look at links anymore? Okay, look. Here they are again. The articles this whole discussion is about:

This one by Spencer.

And this rebuttal by Latour.

Got it? If you have a problem with either argument, please make them to the appropriate people, okay? Rather than me. I am just a reporter here.

When even the skeptic bloggers turn against you, you know you're fighting a lost cause. Spencer obviously thinks Latour is crap. Lucia thinks "Slaying the Sky Dragon" is crap. Curry thinks it's crap. (I don't link to her blog because the publishers of the book got her blog shut down for daring to criticize them.)

But hey, keep eating up everything the Sky Dragon feeds you, you gullible tool.

"I'm actually not seeing shit."

Well, then, try this article about why most AGW models are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You might actually want to start, though, with the article by Roy Spencer to which the above article is a response. Just for reference.

To the best of my knowledge (which I admit is incomplete), Dr. Latour's rebuttal has so far not been successfully refuted.

Then you disagree with most scientists. His data is correct.

Do you have any evidence for either of those assertions?

All I found is this blog post where the graph is from.

"Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002."

So he's looking at "natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere", which may or may not be directly correlated with global warming. Mixing data from eleven different sets, from "different, deep layers of the atmosphere" and shoving a poor sine curve through the whole thing when he doesn't even have a full cycle!!

Oh, and even then I'm still just assume that him and John Christy have made no errors in retrieving and processing the data, and that's why, unlike the rest of the scientific community, they can't find any warming.

That's just not true. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif [nasa.gov]

It depends what graph you look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2012.png

I don't believe for a second that "science" has an agenda. But I do believe that many people make claims that they state are based on science, when in fact they are based on observations, or worse, on opinion. Or on greed.

My observation, is that observationists (ha ha...) see the world through their lens of perception, colored by the points they wish to prove. Recognition of this several centuries ago gave rise to the "scientific method". The value of the word "theory" and respect for arguments on both sides of a "hypothesis" have been drowned out by the screaming that the Internet and free publication of thought has allowed.

Sadly, most people seem to confuse argument, free publication, and conjecture with science. Those, apparently, most inclined to follow this trend are politicians and the free press. I have to admit that it's difficult to resist the emotional siren of it all, and attempt to remain objective. After all, the economic advantage of convincing a government to follow a public trend can be enticing. So long as you are on the "funded" end of the equation.

The Theory of Relativity is just that. A theory. It is OK to question it. When someone observes neutrinos flying across Europe faster than light-speed, people raise questions and conduct experiments. The theory is tested again and again. Bitter arguments are not inclined to erupt. Why is there name-calling rather than argument in other areas where theories are behind the points? Why, if someone questions the anthropogenic theory of global warming are they quickly labelled as a scientific heretic? And isn't that what this entire discussion is really all about, after all? An attempt to name-call those heretics as "conservatives"? Why is it OK not to believe in string theory but not OK not to believe in the green-house-gas theory?

Another popular area to call people names for disagreeing with a theory is evolution. Question that one and instead of being called "conservative" you get painted as "religious zealot". Isn't it time to stop all the name calling and understand that theories are just that, and the basis of the scientific method is raising doubt and devising and conducting tests?

See http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/.

Heavy rainfall may continue but there is a limit to how much rainfall the land will absorb once it becomes saturated. Then the rainfall just runs off. At some point the effect loses the ability to continue to lower sea levels as the ocean continues to warm and land ice continues to melt. But I don't expect that we will see rainfall like the past two years in every year. There is still natural variation and there will be dry and wet years. Two years of sea level drop is pretty meaningless. If it continues for another 8 years then I'll take it more seriously.

I had to look up the "Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’". I'd never heard about it before. But if even Dr. Roy Spencer is debunking it I have to think there is not much validity to it. Other debunkings here.

Well the funny thing about trends is the starting point and the ending point makes a big difference, Ice used to be a few kilometers thick over where my house is now. When I was a teenager I used to work at a ski-area and ride my snowmobile, now I have to drive to 45 degrees north to get decent snow, now that was in the later 1960's and early 1970's, Now in the 1990's the temperatures seem to have peaked, and in the 2010's the temple have been flat and now, Some data like UAH satelite measured lower atmosphere temps are hinting at a downward trend, the evidence isn't strong enough to bet the farm on, yet I don't consider any temp data strong enough to bet the farm on.

Just a quick one as I'm drunk and tired; but our most accurate climate models so far (as quantified by starting them in approx 1870, running them to the present, and comparing results with reality) show that in the absence of anthropogenic forcing (i.e. CO2, aerosol and methane input by humans), we should have in fact experienced cooling over the last decade or so. The fact that we have experienced warming is then even worse than it initially appears.

Actually, it appears we haven't been warming and are, in fact, starting to head into that cooling phase. At least that's what the data appears to say.

It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

Nobody is denying that it got like 0.2 degrees hotter in the past 10 years, it's the fact that some people seem to be making the leap between it getting hotter and humans not trading enough carbon credits, now that is an exercise in fantasy.

Roy Spencer seems to be popping up in a lot of denier posts, being one of the few deniers (of man-made gw) among those who should actually have a clue. However, he's also a signatory to this curious statement, which contains such gems as:

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. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

This in itself doesn't invalidate his science, but it does mean that he's cast his lot with a bunch of pretty anti-scientific people, and has a decidedly non-scientific basis for his approach to science. That said, his "science" is also... controversial, to say the least, to the point that a journal editor-in-chief relinquished his position after having published a flawed article of his.

All this makes me very skeptical to anything claimed by this personnage, apart from the fact that his findings seem to be demolished by the scientific community he claims to be a part of. His credibility also suffers from his being a creationist who also seeks to deny or invalidate huge areas of well-established science. In short, he comes across as a scientific crook, and you guys come across as pretty desperate for constantly referring to him.

I'm not a climate scientist, but neither am I an automobile engineer, and I still put my faith in those who are everytime I ride a car. I wouldn't, however, trust a car designed by the lone crazy-ass engineer who claims that everyone else is doing it wrong, that brakes in cars are just for wimps, and that God should cater to everyone's braking needs.

* Man Eating Duck dons asbestos underwear *

It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

Nobody is denying that it got like 0.2 degrees hotter in the past 10 years, it's the fact that some people seem to be making the leap between it getting hotter and humans not trading enough carbon credits, now that is an exercise in fantasy.

A lot more than 8.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-dec-2011-0-13-deg-c/

Several years ago, there was a paper from a team of remote sensing scientists who showed that the algorithms for converting the satellite measurements into surface temperature were wrong. They were getting a deterministic error in the answers. (This also shows the difference between DATA and the interpretation of that data. The DATA was right, the interpretation was wrong. The data can also be wrong, but that's a different kind of error.)

If your referring to Spencer and his critics, Spencer is usually very careful to state that the satellite measurements are not surface temperature measurements.

You might find On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance interesting. It's a little bit off your topic but not much.

This is the language of science bucko. Get used to it. Clearly they are consistent.

Ah, the Layzej "Speculation Is Science" axiom. Got it :)

The non-anthropogenic portion of the CO2 is preexisting. It is not causing a change in the climate.

Of course not. Climate never changed before humans started releasing CO2, so obviously natural CO2 can't cause climate change, right? :)

You get funnier every day!

The literature that you referenced does not support Spencer's claim that clouds are a negative feedback.

Let's be clear as to what Spencer claims - "But we have never claimed anything like “clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature”! We claim causation works in BOTH directions, not just one direction (feedback) as he claims."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

How's that straw man taking your beating? :)

The literature only shows that clouds are a large negative forcing.

Do you also accept that the literature of Ramanthan underestimated the negative forcing by a factor of 2?

This is not a novel claim as shown by Ramanathan 1989.

You'll have to be specific - *what* claim. Ramanthan is very careful not to claim anything other than the idea that measuring forcing from year to year can help answer some vexing questions. Speculation != claim.

This also does not imply that clouds are a large negative feedback as shown by Ramanathan 1989.

What? You need to make up your mind - is Ramanthan saying clouds are a *negative* feedback, or *positive* feedback in your opinion? Be precise!

In fact Ramanathan 1989 specifically states that BECAUSE clouds are a large negative forcing we may find that they are a significant positive feedback.

Read the article again - he makes a claim that they could play a significant feedback role, but he only *speculates* that this feedback is positive, not negative. From his abstract:

"Hence, small changes in the cloud-radiative forcing fields can play a significant role as a climate feedback mechanism."

Note the lack of "positive" or "negative" quantifier there before the word "feedback".

The literature that you referenced shows that clouds are a negative feedback

I'd say it strongly implies, and at the least brings into question whether or not they are purely a positive feedback. If I've confused you earlier I apologize, and hope you can understand my clarification.

A negative cloud forcing is inconsistent with the IPCC finding that clouds are a small positive feedback.

I'll be more specific - a net negative cloud forcing, along with the assertion that a warmer world produces more clouds (which would produce more negative cloud forcing), is inconsistent with the idea that clouds are a small positive feedback. Now, perhaps for the edge case of a drought stricken landscape there is reason to believe they could regionally be a small positive feedback, but certainly not on a global scale. The problem with the IPCC is that it is inconsistent with itself.

Ramanathans many examples of positive cloud feedbacks all go something like: "So more heat, means more moisture, means more clouds, which have a negative forcing, which means less negative forcing"

I've got nothing against Ramanthan's speculations (hard to call his imagination "examples") - my statement there is a parody of your position (and ap

Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?

Because it makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you). HSThompson has stated in previous posts that seasons are caused by ocean currents rather than the fact that the Earth is tilted wrt its orbit (The side closest to the sun experiencing summer). I will concede that arguing with him is pointless. Suffice it to say that even the most skeptical scientists do not doubt that CO2 is a forcing and that adding CO2 will warm the planet. For instance, here is Roy Spencer pointing out that you can buy a $50 sensor and measure the back radiation caused by greenhouse gasses. He starts: "let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the 'greenhouse effect'."

For example, we might take a look at the question of when or whether clouds are feedbacks or forcings:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/

Spencer does a great job of laying out the case.

Interesting plot of global warming but it uses a 3rd order polynomial fit for the trend, instead of a straight line. What's the trend of the polynomial curve (which actually fits the data better than a straight line)? It's sinusoidal, and we're at the peak. This also fits with the prediction model by Prof. Don Easterbrook - who's been right about the warming in the 90s, flat-line in the 2000s and our start of a cooling trend.

Not politics. Roy is blaming politics, but the rational is pretty clear, and reasonable.

The paper wasn't even pulled.
The blog is interesting. Roy is basically resulting to insults and banning to stop rational. Typical of someone who projects how they would r onto others. act

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/#comments

That is an incorrect analogy and it is also rather mischievous. You need to read Dr Spencer's refutation before you start throwing around the old and bottom numbingly boring "all AGW sceptics are creationists" meme. There's too much arm waving going on here.

Which is why his paper must be examined on its own merits, or lack of same. If you want to make a real argument, then examine and logically attack the paper itself, not the guy who wrote it.

The paper and the ideas were attacked on the merit of their arguments. You can read an email discussion on the topic on Roy Spencer's website. There is no academic misconduct here, or Galileo versus religious consensus narratives. Pretty much everyone disagrees with Spencer for good reason. Perhaps you agree with him, in which case, you might find the academic discussion on the topic of some interest.

Give me *real* scientific process.

Just go to Roy Spencer's website, and read the discourse on the paper for yourself.

I agree with OP, the funding source is irrelevant compared to providing evidence of wrongness. In this instance, it is pretty easy to show, and also easy to show that Spencer is earnest in his beliefs (which include intelligent design). You can see some real academic discourse on Spencer's website, and judge for yourself.

• Learning the history of how these types of debates occur
• Reading the academic discourse on the topic

A very clear pattern emerges with remarkable speed.

(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)

On the contrary, climate scientists say *exactly* why the model is wrong. (Not that discussion is published on Roy Spencer's website.) Unfortunately the details don't fit between two commercials, and many simply don't want to hear it anyway.