Slashdot Mirror

This is the magnified minority effect - Roy Spencer and his co-worker John Christy are the most frequently-quoted of the 3% of climate scientists that minimize or reject human-caused global warming (in their case, minimize). As if simply repeating their opinions ad nauseum makes them correct.

Yes, I've seen that post by Roy Spencer before. His graph relies largely on choosing a very short baseline (1979-1983) to exaggerate the difference between models and measurements (because the difference between models and observations was unusually large in 1979-1983). In contrast, it is normal to use a 30-year period for baselining to eliminate short-term artifacts.

Spencer's graph also shows that measurements of the troposphere are not as high as models predicted; climate scientists generally agree about this but have explored many possible reasons (technical discussion here), whereas Spencer/Christy emphasize just that one interpretation of the data that minimizes global warming. A paper published soon afterward confirmed the hot spot, but I've seen how people who don't want to believe it can dismiss that paper based on its title alone (the title contains the word "homogenised", which deniers take as an indication of fraud.)

It's interesting that Lynnwood highlights that Spencer is 'funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil")' - at the same time as other 'skeptics' argue that climate scientists cannot be trusted because you supposedly "have to" believe in man-made global warming in order to get government funding. One thing I've learned well from talking to skeptics is that they are very good at burning the climate science candle at both ends. Another example: mainstream models are claimed to be useless because they are not perfectly accurate, but apparently if a model is produced by Spencer/Christy it can be trusted.

Lynnwood is also confused about the topic of discussion when he says "Puts a bit of a damper on the whole 'models assume we have negative carbon output!' kind of thing". The supercomputer models of the atmosphere, oceans, land and vegetation which Spencer is criticizing are completely different and separate from "models" of future economic activity, some of which optimistically include negative-carbon technology.

The two sets of models are even made by totally different people (economists et al vs physicists, oceanographers, ecologists, et al) Folks like Lynnwood simplistically reduce the work of thousands of scientists around the world into a single concept called "models" which can then be dismissed in its entirety, with little thought.

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

I think the XKCD comic is rather more clever as he uses peer reviewed science. Your other perspective presumes that temperatures in Greenland represent temperatures around the world. That's not going to work. It looks like he snipped only certain parts though as using the whole core wouldn't fool "even the dimmest denier at WUWT" as Sue explains here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

I don't know whether that statement is actually true (but it is testable)

Good news, its already been tested!

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Coincidentally in response to Dyson's opinion. A blanket claim that models are wrong should cite at least one. And before anyone pulls up the "95% of climate models are wrong graph", that was thoroughly debunked here:

  http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

And don't let this:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

Upset you. Seriously, don't be upset. Learn from it!

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.

That might help SANE, rational people see your point, because until now the only people making those ridiculous claims are WUWTers like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

Apparently you are confused about context. As usual. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."

Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think!

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Always interesting to see people get is backwards. What they actually did was this: Trend adjustments

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "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". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

Hmm... So you're saying the top result is right?

So, is there anything more credible to support this position than a notoriously unreliable scientist faking a discrepancy between the models and the data?

Not that graph again....

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

Bullshit. The chart came from one Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not only a climatologist who has made a career out of claiming he's right and most scientists are wrong, but is also a noted creationist ("intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism" is my favorite quote from him on the topic).

Here's a nice summation of how he fudged numbers in order to come up with that bogus chart: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

To your point of "I may be wrong", let me say, yes.... yes you are.

For those wanting a similar graph of models versus measured there is a graph from the IPCC AR5 report here. It shows models aren't as bad as the grandparent, but it DOES clearly show the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

Bad graph. Explained here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

How about a graph from the IPCC itself then instead, you can verify it in their AR5 report here. Not nearly as bad, but very clearly showing the last decade or more trending at the very low end of the models.

Bullshit. The chart came from one Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not only a climatologist who has made a career out of claiming he's right and most scientists are wrong, but is also a noted creationist ("intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism" is my favorite quote from him on the topic).

Here's a nice summation of how he fudged numbers in order to come up with that bogus chart: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

To your point of "I may be wrong", let me say, yes.... yes you are.

Bad graph. Explained here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

A cursory googling doesn't paint Steve S. Goddard as someone that has a rigourous approach to statistical analysis.

Here is the correct commentary, I mixed up which bogus data this is:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

Basically he shifted the predictions line up by .3 degrees

I honestly don't know why GP did that, but maybe it is because attacking the science has already been taken care of and all that's left was looking for his motives for doing such bad science?

Also, what the hell does straight or white have to do with anything? Are you Godwinning your own post?

I honestly don't know why GP did that, but maybe it is because attacking the science has already been taken care of and all that's left was looking for his motives for doing such bad science?

Also, what the hell does straight or white have to do with anything? Are you Godwinning your own post?

That is a perfect example on how to misalign graphs to make them match your agenda. He should be jailed for that.