• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
For a fringe guy he sure does hold a lot of high ranking positions and has been awarded by very credible groups like NASA and the AMS.



I am still trying to figure out how DR. Roy Spencer is a "fringe" scientist?


I hate to break it to both of you but someone that works for multiple right wing think tanks isn't a credible source of information and is merely pushing his own political agenda.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank.

If you're also talking about the same guy that said in 2012 he believed we'd see "very little warming in the future", to come only to find out the next several years would successively be the warmest on record by a substantial margin, he's not being taken seriously by most of the climate community, including myself.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/
 

Lickwx

Ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
9,772
Reaction score
11,898
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
I hate to break it to both of you but someone that works for multiple right wing think tanks isn't a credible source of information and is merely pushing his own political agenda.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank.

If you're also talking about the same guy that said in 2012 he believed we'd see "very little warming in the future", to come only to find out the next several years would successively be the warmest on record by a substantial margin, he's not being taken seriously by most of the climate community, including myself.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/
How is that any different from all the leftist scientists working in leftist groups ? Don’t be a hypocrite .
 

Rain Cold

Shields Up
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
13,152
Reaction score
33,755
Location
Raleigh, NC
How is that any different from all the leftist scientists working in leftist groups ? Don’t be a hypocrite .
This is a very easy formula to understand. Anybody who doesn't buy the doomsday climate change "science" 100% is a dumb, Christian, right-wing Trump-supporting nutbag. It doesn't matter how many degrees they have, how many awards they've received, how long they've been in the field, how much research they've done, how many papers they've had published, or anything else.

On the other hand, a nice, upstanding, left-leaning individual who is merely thinking about taking a physical science class is an expert on climate change and has the authority to smear and besmirch anyone on the other side, no questions asked.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
This is a very easy formula to understand. Anybody who doesn't buy the doomsday climate change "science" 100% is a dumb, Christian, right-wing Trump-supporting nutbag. It doesn't matter how many degrees they have, how many awards they've received, how long they've been in the field, how much research they've done, how many papers they've had published, or anything else.

On the other hand, a nice, upstanding, left-leaning individual who is merely thinking about taking a physical science class is an expert on climate change and has the authority to smear and besmirch anyone on the other side, no questions asked.

Another god awful, ignorant, classless take that’s completely out of touch with reality. Imagine being so naive to think you actually know more than a climate scientist that’s spent their entire career studying climate change and barely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make ends meet. But hey I guess you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night so that automatically makes you an expert on this topic. Having actually been in the field, the reality is climate scientists aren’t rich, for the most part at least save a few. The overwhelming majority are honest, tenured college professors at small universities, most of which don’t get paid terribly well and have no reason to push any agenda whatsoever. I would know since I chose not to partake in said career path because it would almost certainly mean I’d be poor the rest of my life.
 

Lickwx

Ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
9,772
Reaction score
11,898
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
Another god awful, ignorant, classless take that’s completely out of touch with reality. Imagine being so naive to think you actually know more than a climate scientist that’s spent their entire career studying climate change and barely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make ends meet. But hey I guess you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night so that automatically makes you an expert on this topic. Having actually been in the field, the reality is climate scientists aren’t rich, for the most part at least save a few. The overwhelming majority are honest, tenured college professors at small universities, most of which don’t get paid terribly well and have no reason to push any agenda whatsoever. I would know since I chose not to partake in said career path because it would almost certainly mean I’d be poor the rest of my life.
Instead of a paragraph here is a video representing my sentiments on your post.


 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
Instead of a paragraph here is a video representing my sentiments on your post.



Sorry, but the truth hurts. Quite frankly, idk why everyone seems so inclined to turn everything into an elaborate "us vs them" conspiracy theory. I've seen more than enough in the field of climate science to know what actually goes on, despite what your favorite news outlet, politician, or facebook would tell you. 🤷‍♂️
 

Lickwx

Ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
9,772
Reaction score
11,898
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
Sorry, but the truth hurts. Quite frankly, idk why everyone seems so inclined to turn everything into an elaborate "us vs them" conspiracy theory. I've seen more than enough in the field of climate science to know what actually goes on, despite what your favorite news outlet, politician, or facebook would tell you. 🤷‍♂️
I actually form my opinions without the news . I don’t read the news . If I read anything climate related it’s a book from the library . I’ve read a bunch , read the one about the sea ice from the guy in Oxford right when it was published and a ton of books by paleo climatologists / geologists . You want to see how pointless it is to worry about earth changing ? Read about the past from those guys , what we are seeing today is child’s play.
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
12,034
Reaction score
28,305
Location
SAV, GA
Don't change the subject. The question was about Dr Roy Spencer and his credibility.

My understanding from what I’ve read is that Dr Spencer does believe in AGW just as Judith Curry does. What they’re against are the extreme predictions of many models as well as hype. Does this assessment sound about right?
 

Rain Cold

Shields Up
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
13,152
Reaction score
33,755
Location
Raleigh, NC
My understanding from what I’ve read is that Dr Spencer does believe in AGW just as Judith Curry does. What they’re against are the extreme predictions of many models as well as hype. Does this assessment sound about right?
Yep. But when you realize that he is a conservative, his credibility plummets.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
I actually form my opinions without the news . I don’t read the news . If I read anything climate related it’s a book from the library . I’ve read a bunch , read the one about the sea ice from the guy in Oxford right when it was published and a ton of books by paleo climatologists / geologists . You want to see how pointless it is to worry about earth changing ? Read about the past form those guys , what we are seeing today is child’s play.

I would strongly suggest opening up your mind for once and reading through an IPCC report. You don't need to read the policy recommendation section which is largely political ( I for one do not), you'll legitimately learn a lot from the meteorology, which is hundreds and hundreds of pages. It's more akin to encyclopedia on climate than it is a political doctrine that some naively believe If you have questions about certain claims, there's more than enough literature cited for you to scrutinize and dig in for yourself. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with anyone in here when nobody wants to put forth any effort to open up their mind and educate themselves on a topic they have such a strong opinion on.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
My understanding from what I’ve read is that Dr Spencer does believe in AGW just as Judith Curry does. What they’re against are the extreme predictions of many models as well as hype. Does this assessment sound about right?

Dr Roy Spencer works for the Heartland Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which are right wing think tanks, he has a political agenda to fulfill.

Yep. But when you realize that he is a conservative, his credibility plummets.

You mean to tell me someone that works for multiple political organizations on a topic as polarizing as climate change couldn't possibly be biased in any particular way to tout an opinion that supports a narrow political world view? Big if true.

Man, as much as people in here like to scream and holler about climate scientists (many of which too have a Dr. in front of their name, have published just as much or more papers than Spencer and have won far more awards (which apparently according to Rain Cold's previous post automatically makes u immune of scrutiny) having political agendas and being in bed w/ politicians, Dr Spencer is actually the very epitome of that.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
Tell me you have a political agenda without telling me you have a political agenda.


* George C. Marshall Institute. Dr. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decisionto accept money from corporations and their foundations.

* Cornwall Alliance. Dr. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

Dr. Spencer has served big oil companies well, who would like nothing more than to see fossil fuels continue being used at an ever-increasing rate to prop up their bottom line and increase profits.
 

NoSnowATL

I like warmth
Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
23,929
Location
Georgia
I'm buying an EV once my Toyota kicks the bucket.It'll be at least 10 years before I cross that bridge though knowing how these things tend to last. An expensive electric bill is a whole lot better than a weekly gasoline bill of $75.
I like the EV trucks and hummer. Price tag is little high but I want one.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
I like the EV trucks and hummer. Price tag is little high be I want one.

I bet in 5-10 years the infrastructure will be in place to where it's convenient for almost anyone to have an EV, it's not quite there for me to be inclined to get one (& considering I just bought my toyota and have a $700 monthly car payment, it's not happening), so I have to settle for polluting the atmosphere for another 10 ish years against my best wishes. I'm sure the batteries at some point will get so good in EVs that they'll be able to travel 600-800 miles (or more) on one fill-up, already twice as good as my vehicle.
 

NoSnowATL

I like warmth
Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
23,929
Location
Georgia
I bet in 5-10 years the infrastructure will be in place to where it's convenient for almost anyone to have an EV, it's not quite there for me to be inclined to get one (& considering I just bought my toyota and have a $700 monthly car payment, it's not happening), so I have to settle for polluting the atmosphere for another 10 ish years against my best wishes. I'm sure the batteries at some point will get so good in EVs that they'll be able to travel 600-800 miles (or more) on one fill-up, already twice as good as my vehicle.
Yea the hummer is 118k. Hope it goes down closer to 60-80k before I get one. Just a mean looking truck man. I love the fact not having to fill up anymore, open top and all it Gadgets and gizmos inside.
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Clemmons, NC
It is easy to see that the people who believe in AGW and the nebulous negative feedback mechanisms will take no opportunity to actually debate someone on a stage and let the public decide, want no part of that. Dr Spencer has offered to debate ANYONE in the Atmospheric Sciences field who disagrees with him but has strangely gotten no takers. I believe you should set it up Eric and go head to head with him, what do you say? As for EV's, just where are we going to store the billions of batteries it will take to go electric let lone the corrosive effect that these batteries will have? Perhaps we will have to supplement with them and I encourage all of you who believe it will save the earth to go by all means to purchase one. Good luck when you have to go on a trip of say 600 miles or get ready to board an airplane, because charging has to occur very frequently not to mention the extra time that charging will take on that trip.
 

SNOWMANN

Formerly Mcdowell_Weather
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Marion, NC
Gas and coal won't last forever it was needed at the time to jump start society but its time to conserve whats left for future generation oil goes into alot of products other than gasoline plus I want my mountain views back damn smog is horrible from all the emissions not to mention the health affects global warming aside theres plenty of other reasons to explore other energy.
 

SNOWMANN

Formerly Mcdowell_Weather
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Marion, NC
It is easy to see that the people who believe in AGW and the nebulous negative feedback mechanisms will take no opportunity to actually debate someone on a stage and let the public decide, want no part of that. Dr Spencer has offered to debate ANYONE in the Atmospheric Sciences field who disagrees with him but has strangely gotten no takers. I believe you should set it up Eric and go head to head with him, what do you say? As for EV's, just where are we going to store the billions of batteries it will take to go electric let lone the corrosive effect that these batteries will have? Perhaps we will have to supplement with them and I encourage all of you who believe it will save the earth to go by all means to purchase one. Good luck when you have to go on a trip of say 600 miles or get ready to board an airplane, because charging has to occur very frequently not to mention the extra time that charging will take on that trip.
Batteries aren't the only option for planes i personally believe hydrogen would be a good fit there the problem we face as a country is the transition we need to keep fossil fuels affordable while we transition and lower the price of the new technology for the common family to be able to afford. Thats the real problem imo
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
It is easy to see that the people who believe in AGW and the nebulous negative feedback mechanisms will take no opportunity to actually debate someone on a stage and let the public decide, want no part of that. Dr Spencer has offered to debate ANYONE in the Atmospheric Sciences field who disagrees with him but has strangely gotten no takers. I believe you should set it up Eric and go head to head with him, what do you say? As for EV's, just where are we going to store the billions of batteries it will take to go electric let lone the corrosive effect that these batteries will have? Perhaps we will have to supplement with them and I encourage all of you who believe it will save the earth to go by all means to purchase one. Good luck when you have to go on a trip of say 600 miles or get ready to board an airplane, because charging has to occur very frequently not to mention the extra time that charging will take on that trip.

It is easy to see that the people who believe in AGW and the nebulous negative feedback mechanisms

The climate science community is well aware of those mechanisms and they've been discussed ad nauseum in literature and IPCC reports (which I assume neither of which you've read or care to know about, but it's linked above if you ever want to read) including but not limited to sulfuric aerosols, clouds (the sign of the feedback here depends on depth, height, and opacity), but they're nowhere near strong enough to offset the positive feedbacks that are mostly due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions, which are causing temperatures to continue to warm to this very day.


Dr Spencer has offered to debate ANYONE in the Atmospheric Sciences field who disagrees with him but has strangely gotten no takers."

This is just complete nonsense. He's already been in very heated debates even with his own colleagues and lost very handily and been exposed repeatedly as at minimum completely aloof and dishonest or at worst a political hack (the latter which is entirely consistent with his affiliations to conservative think tanks and big oil shown above). Let me just give you a few examples that come up w/ a quick google search.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/

In this article, Spencer suggests the climate sensitivity may be low, due to mainstream climate scientists underestimating clouds, and he claims that satellite data will support him.

Rebuttal: "Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. ... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."

He contradicts himself you'll find that's a pretty common theme w/ some of his extravagant claims in the last 15-20 years


"My long term prediction is that eventually we are going to realise that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing"

Yeah, this claim is aging like spoiled milk. But again, I'm of the notion that the real crux of the issue is it's really not the amount of CO2 necessarily that's the leading issue (it's still a problem), it's how fast it's being put into the atmosphere by manmade activities, which makes adaptation to the very rapidly changing climate (1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the PETM, which killed off ~40% of Marine Benthic organisms) damn near-impossible. Humans are creatures of habit and when you force their hand to change their ways extremely rapidly, it's going to be very costly and for most non-developed countries that don't have deep pockets like the United States and can't afford the kinds of adaptation measures it'll take to adjust to the new climate we've created for ourselves.


In another paper Spencer published in 2011, in Remote Sensing (which isn't a journal for atmospheric scientists btw, which is a concern since the reviewers are really not experts in the field of climate science and meteorology, often not exactly making the best judgement calls on suggestions for revisions, etc), he tried to claim the warming was being potentially caused by clouds (spoiler alert: it was not)


Errors identified by climate scientists "...range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs)."[31]"Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations[27], thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result

Continuing on w/ said paper

In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they (climate scientists/his own peers) do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).
Wow, doesn't this sound familiar, it's almost as if I've said this at least once in here over the past few days.

Rather, he (Dr Spcener) is writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.
Huh, isn't that a freaky coincidence. /s


In fact, the backlash on said paper above from actual climate scientists was so bad that the chief editor resigned. Not exactly a good look for your boy Dr Spencer there huh.

"In Sept 2011 Remote Sensing editor-in-chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned, saying that the paper should not have been published - that while "[peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claim"

In the end, it's a vicious cycle w/ nonsensical literature like this

Michael Ashley noted that this paper was following the same trajectory as previous papers touted as demolishing global warming, that haven't stood up over time:[31]

1. The article is published in a non-mainstream journal, following inadequate peer-review.
2. Press releases from the authors exaggerate/distort the contents of the article to inflate its significance and increase the attention given to it.
3. News of the article spreads like wild-fire around the blogosphere.

Remember that misinformation and falsehoods such as Spencer's 2011 paper spread faster than actual, real science (again not a shocker here).

4. Some media outlets take the press release and exaggerate it further still, so that the information that finally reaches the public has almost no relation to the original article.

This has been happening since the dawn of major news media outlet sources (& arguably much earlier than that). Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other major news outlets are all guilty of this, not just when it comes to climate change, information and headlines that common folk like yourself who have no real idea what climate change (or other topics) are really about, read sensational headlines and extravagant claims to polarize the issue further, increase ratings, and sell newspapers, and misleads you from reality.


5. Within days, experts in the field show that the original article is fatally flawed; but by now the damage is done.

You don't have to look very far or even just at climate change to see this happen in real-time, space news is just as bad, sometimes worse w/ the lengths some news organizations go to exaggerate said claims of newly found terrestrial life, earth-like planets, etc. which often get shot down by real experts in the field, only for the rebuttal to not spread like the preceding misinformation.


6. For years into the future, the article is quoted by deniers of human-induced climate change as evidence that the science is uncertain.

Anyone that scrolls through this very thread, which spans the last 4 years or so, will see this time & time again.


But I digress, let's continue on w/ examining Roy Spencer's track record

Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[38], [39]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:

How convenient that is. It's almost like they were purposely trying to get a desired result to support a political agenda (big if true!)

"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done

Not surprised in the least.

Whilst a critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Roy Spencer has also been a contributor. He helped draw up Chapter 7. Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks of the Third Assessment Report [42] and contributed to Chapter 3: Observed climate variability and change

Wow, good for you Spencer, at least you did something amicable here (see I'm not trying to just lambast the guy, but just show you there are two sides to this story, one of which you are purposely throwing under the rug). Look, no one in the community denies Spencer's work in the 80s and 90s and remote sensing, he was a pioneer in the field and should be commended for it. However, he became convinced that AGW was a farce sometime in the late 1990s (which wasn't a super extreme stance to take back then, but become increasingly fringe w/ time as the amount of literature and real-time observational evidence has built up against him and his pet hypotheses which are continually shot down by his peers) and has stubbornly not evolved his position over time (very much like crazed Joe Bastardi, whom I used to adore, but realized he's completely lost it (much liek Spencer) (can't teach old dogs new tricks I guess), and Spencer has since become a mouthpiece for right wing political organization and big oil companies (such as Exxon-Mobil). Just really sinks your credibility as an honest scientist when you're backed by political organizations whose main goal is to push a specific agenda and misconstrue/mislead public messaging. It's honestly sad really.

But hey let's continue on shall we.

From Dr Spencer (Mar 22, 2012): "there's no way to get rid of the CO2."
Source WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

Wow talk about bold claims that are aging extremely horribly before your very eyes. Not only are current technologies enough to curb emissions from where they were before w/ increasingly fuel efficient vehicles, electric vehicles, etc, but even big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil are introducing carbon capture technology to physically remove CO2 out of the air. This claim is nothing short of a massive blunder by Spencer, especially when the organizations he's working for are doing the very thing he said couldn't happen.

From Dr Spencer (Mar 2012) "I think...we may see very little warming in the future"
Source WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

From Dr Spencer (Mar 2012): "for some reason it stopped warming in the last 10 years, which is one of those dirty little secrets of global warming science"
Source WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

Talk about hot takes/bold claims that definitely didn't age like fine wine, the near-decade since this quote, every year of the last 6 has been warmer than 2012 and there is unfortunately no sign of it slowing for a significant period of time.

Even when you use his own dataset, the timing of these statements couldn't have come at a worse time for Spencer's credibility, & not surprisingly he couldn't have been more wrong on both accounts.
Capture.JPG

Dr Spencer (also from Mar 2012): "the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

If he even looked at his own work, it wouldn't have taken him long to realize the warming is occurring the fastest in sparsely populated areas of the Arctic where few people actually live, so his point about population and urban sprawl mainly accounting for the temperature change is completely and utterly false, and shows he's either purposely misleading you, or doesn't actually understand what's going on (or both).

earth-warming-relative-hawkins.jpg



Benestad et al (2016) is a pretty good read for those interested in some of the issues w/ "contrarian" papers. Most of the issues stem from poorly constructed hypotheses, data fudging (as Spencer has been known to do), inappropriate statistics, inaccurate physical assumptions, over-fitting/curve fitting, and missing contextual information that would lead you to an entirely different conclusion. And before anyone says "bUt tHe sCieNcE iS nOt sEtTlEd", coming straight from the horse's mouth:

We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5


As for EV's, just where are we going to store the billions of batteries it will take to go electric let lone the corrosive effect that these batteries will have?

We've long since figured out how to properly handle and safely store much more dangerous/hazardous nuclear waste (for decades), I don't see how this is somehow going to be a major issue overall.


Good luck when you have to go on a trip of say 600 miles or get ready to board an airplane, because charging has to occur very frequently not to mention the extra time that charging will take on that trip.

Once again this statement shows you're pretty misinformed and out-of-touch with most of the latest technological advancements and your claim of inconvenience to the traveler at best a huge reach. For one thing, most combustion engine vehicles, when carrying more than one passenger rarely have a range over 400 miles, my vehicle doesn't go over 300 miles with one other person in it, so I'll at least have to stop just for gas no less than 2 times on my way to said location. Unless you have a hybrid, which can push closer to 500 miles on a very good day & again closer to 400 with multiple passengers in the vehicle, if you're going on a 8-10 hour car ride that'll take you 600 ish miles, you're probably going to want to stop more than once for bathroom breaks, stretch, meals, sight seeing, rest stops, etc. so this is a pretty moot point. There are already over 42,000 charging stations in the US and 5,000 "fast" charging stations, with the number from some companies expected to double in just the next 10 years alone. It takes 20-30 mins to get a "good" charge of 200 miles from a fast DC charging station and that'll likely only get faster as the technology continuously improves and is innovated by private sector companies. I'd hardly consider that super inconvenient in the next several years as I've stated above, when that number may get pushed down closer to 15 mins which isn't all that crazy for the amount of time it normally takes for a pit stop at a gas station. For some that are very on-the-go, it may not be the best option right away, but most people can't reasonably drive more than several hundred miles in a day, so it's pretty reasonable for a majority of consumers.
 
Last edited:

EastAtlwx

Meteorologist
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
535
Reaction score
800
Location
Conyers, GA
It is easy to see that the people who believe in AGW and the nebulous negative feedback mechanisms

The climate science community is well aware of those mechanisms and they've been discussed ad nauseum in literature and IPCC reports (which I assume neither of which you've read or care to know about, but it's linked above if you ever want to read) including but not limited to sulfuric aerosols, clouds (the sign of the feedback here depends on depth, height, and opacity), but they're nowhere near strong enough to offset the positive feedbacks that are mostly due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions, which are causing temperatures to continue to warm to this very day.


Dr Spencer has offered to debate ANYONE in the Atmospheric Sciences field who disagrees with him but has strangely gotten no takers."

This is just complete nonsense. He's already been in very heated debates even with his own colleagues and lost very handily and been exposed repeatedly as at minimum completely aloof and dishonest or at worst a political hack (the latter which is entirely consistent with his affiliations to conservative think tanks and big oil shown above). Let me just give you a few examples that come up w/ a quick google search.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/

In this article, Spencer suggests the climate sensitivity may be low, due to mainstream climate scientists underestimating clouds, and he claims that satellite data will support him.

Rebuttal: "Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. ... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."

He contradicts himself you'll find that's a pretty common theme w/ some of his extravagant claims in the last 15-20 years


"My long term prediction is that eventually we are going to realise that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing"

Yeah, this claim is aging like spoiled milk. But again, I'm of the notion that the real crux of the issue is it's really not the amount of CO2 necessarily that's the leading issue (it's still a problem), it's how fast it's being put into the atmosphere by manmade activities, which makes adaptation to the very rapidly changing climate (1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the PETM, which killed off ~40% of Marine Benthic organisms) damn near-impossible. Humans are creatures of habit and when you force their hand to change their ways extremely rapidly, it's going to be very costly and for most non-developed countries that don't have deep pockets like the United States and can't afford the kinds of adaptation measures it'll take to adjust to the new climate we've created for ourselves.


In another paper Spencer published in 2011, in Remote Sensing (which isn't a journal for atmospheric scientists btw, which is a concern since the reviewers are really not experts in the field of climate science and meteorology, often not exactly making the best judgement calls on suggestions for revisions, etc), he tried to claim the warming was being potentially caused by clouds (spoiler alert: it was not)


Errors identified by climate scientists "...range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs)."[31]"Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations[27], thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result

Continuing on w/ said paper

In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they (climate scientists/his own peers) do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).
Wow, doesn't this sound familiar, it's almost as if I've said this at least once in here over the past few days.

Rather, he (Dr Spcener) is writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.
Huh, isn't that a freaky coincidence. /s


In fact, the backlash on said paper above from actual climate scientists was so bad that the chief editor resigned. Not exactly a good look for your boy Dr Spencer there huh.

"In Sept 2011 Remote Sensing editor-in-chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned, saying that the paper should not have been published - that while "[peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claim"

In the end, it's a vicious cycle w/ nonsensical literature like this

Michael Ashley noted that this paper was following the same trajectory as previous papers touted as demolishing global warming, that haven't stood up over time:[31]

1. The article is published in a non-mainstream journal, following inadequate peer-review.
2. Press releases from the authors exaggerate/distort the contents of the article to inflate its significance and increase the attention given to it.
3. News of the article spreads like wild-fire around the blogosphere.

Remember that misinformation and falsehoods such as Spencer's 2011 paper spread faster than actual, real science (again not a shocker here).

4. Some media outlets take the press release and exaggerate it further still, so that the information that finally reaches the public has almost no relation to the original article.

This has been happening since the dawn of major news media outlet sources (& arguably much earlier than that). Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other major news outlets are all guilty of this, not just when it comes to climate change, information and headlines that common folk like yourself who have no real idea what climate change (or other topics) are really about, read sensational headlines and extravagant claims to polarize the issue further, increase ratings, and sell newspapers, and misleads you from reality.


5. Within days, experts in the field show that the original article is fatally flawed; but by now the damage is done.

You don't have to look very far or even just at climate change to see this happen in real-time, space news is just as bad, sometimes worse w/ the lengths some news organizations go to exaggerate said claims of newly found terrestrial life, earth-like planets, etc. which often get shot down by real experts in the field, only for the rebuttal to not spread like the preceding misinformation.


6. For years into the future, the article is quoted by deniers of human-induced climate change as evidence that the science is uncertain.

Anyone that scrolls through this very thread, which spans the last 4 years or so, will see this time & time again.


But I digress, let's continue on w/ examining Roy Spencer's track record

Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[38], [39]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:

How convenient that is. It's almost like they were purposely trying to get a desired result to support a political agenda (big if true!)

"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done

Not surprised in the least.

Whilst a critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Roy Spencer has also been a contributor. He helped draw up Chapter 7. Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks of the Third Assessment Report [42] and contributed to Chapter 3: Observed climate variability and change

Wow, good for you Spencer, at least you did something amicable here (see I'm not trying to just lambast the guy, but just show you there are two sides to this story, one of which you are purposely throwing under the rug). Look, no one in the community denies Spencer's work in the 80s and 90s and remote sensing, he was a pioneer in the field and should be commended for it. However, he became convinced that AGW was a farce sometime in the late 1990s (which wasn't a super extreme stance to take back then, but become increasingly fringe w/ time as the amount of literature and real-time observational evidence has built up against him and his pet hypotheses which are continually shot down by his peers) and has stubbornly not evolved his position over time (very much like crazed Joe Bastardi, whom I used to adore, but realized he's completely lost it (much liek Spencer) (can't teach old dogs new tricks I guess), and Spencer has since become a mouthpiece for right wing political organization and big oil companies (such as Exxon-Mobil). Just really sinks your credibility as an honest scientist when you're backed by political organizations whose main goal is to push a specific agenda and misconstrue/mislead public messaging. It's honestly sad really.

But hey let's continue on shall we.

From Dr Spencer (Mar 22, 2012): "there's no way to get rid of the CO2."
Source WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

Wow talk about bold claims that are aging extremely horribly before your very eyes. Not only are current technologies enough to curb emissions from where they were before w/ increasingly fuel efficient vehicles, electric vehicles, etc, but even big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil are introducing carbon capture technology to physically remove CO2 out of the air. This claim is nothing short of a massive blunder by Spencer, especially when the organizations he's working for are doing the very thing he said couldn't happen.

From Dr Spencer (Mar 2012) "I think...we may see very little warming in the future"
Source WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

From Dr Spencer (Mar 2012): "for some reason it stopped warming in the last 10 years, which is one of those dirty little secrets of global warming science"
Source WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/

Talk about hot takes/bold claims that definitely didn't age like fine wine, the near-decade since this quote, every year of the last 6 has been warmer than 2012 and there is unfortunately no sign of it slowing for a significant period of time.

Even when you use his own dataset, the timing of these statements couldn't have come at a worse time for Spencer's credibility, & not surprisingly he couldn't have been more wrong on both accounts.
View attachment 96478

Dr Spencer (also from Mar 2012): "the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

If he even looked at his own work, it wouldn't have taken him long to realize the warming is occurring the fastest in sparsely populated areas of the Arctic where few people actually live, so his point about population and urban sprawl mainly accounting for the temperature change is completely and utterly false, and shows he's either purposely misleading you are doesn't actually understand what's going on (or both).

earth-warming-relative-hawkins.jpg



Benestad et al (2016) is a pretty good read for those interested in some of the issues w/ "contrarian" papers. Most of the issues stem from poorly constructed hypotheses, data fudging (as Spencer has been known to do), inappropriate statistics, inaccurate physical assumptions, over-fitting/curve fitting, and missing contextual information that would lead you to an entirely different conclusion. And before anyone says "bUt tHe sCieNcE iS nOt sEtTlEd", coming straight from the horse's mouth:

We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5


As for EV's, just where are we going to store the billions of batteries it will take to go electric let lone the corrosive effect that these batteries will have?

We've long since figured out how to properly handle and safely store much more dangerous/hazardous nuclear waste (for decades), I don't see how this is somehow going to be a major issue overall.


Good luck when you have to go on a trip of say 600 miles or get ready to board an airplane, because charging has to occur very frequently not to mention the extra time that charging will take on that trip.

Once again this statement shows you're pretty misinformed and out-of-touch with most of the latest technological advancements and your claim of inconvenience to the traveler at best a huge reach. For one thing, most combustion engine vehicles, when carrying more than one passenger rarely have a range over 400 miles, my vehicle doesn't go over 300 miles with one other person in it, so I'll at least have to stop just for gas no less than 2 times on my way to said location. Unless you have a hybrid, which can push closer to 500 miles on a very good day & again closer to 400 with multiple passengers in the vehicle, if you're going on a 8-10 hour car ride that'll take you 600 ish miles, you're probably going to want to stop more than once for bathroom breaks, stretch, meals, sight seeing, rest stops, etc. so this is a pretty moot point. There are already over 42,000 charging stations in the US and 5,000 "fast" charging stations, with the number from some companies expected to double in just the next 10 years alone. It takes 20-30 mins to get a "good" charge of 200 miles from a fast DC charging station and that'll likely only get faster as the technology continuously improves and is innovated by private sector companies. I'd hardly consider that super inconvenient in the next several years as I've stated above, when that number may get pushed down closer to 15 mins which isn't all that crazy for the amount of time it normally takes for a pit stop at a gas station. For some that are very on-the-go, it may not be the best option right away, but most people can't reasonably drive more than several hundred miles in a day, so it's pretty reasonable for a majority of consumers.
so, I got a bit of free time. Do you recommend I start reading earlier editions of the IPCC or will the recent 2021 be suffice to make sure I'm caught up with what is going on in the Climate world.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
so, I got a bit of free time. Do you recommend I start reading earlier editions of the IPCC or will the recent 2021 be suffice to make sure I'm caught up with what is going on in the Climate world.

I think starting with the most recent edition and working your way backwards in time to see how the consensus and messaging has shifted over time. You'll find that the confidence and consensus has only grown stronger with each new Assessment Report (AR).

As a published atmospheric and climate scientist, the IPCC AR reports are seen more as a reference manual/encyclopedia of virtually all things climate rather than a political doctrine (which some that have never read it tend to believe and certain (often conservative, but also liberal) news media outlets love to exaggerate to polarize AGW and misconstrue messaging (which hastens "skepticism" in AGW from amateurs)).

 

weatherfide

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
2,517
Location
Faytteville, GA
Too bad with AGW and high Pac SSTS the MJO gets stuck in the MC and we torch till March.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outside of a few snow weenies in the Southeast U.S., most people welcome warmer winter weather, lower heating bills and pleasant outdoor activities. Especially nice if the AGW you speak of lowers summer temps (everything starts to moderate on both extremes).

Nobody knows what the climate will do. All of the models used to predict it have very poor correlation scores. Makes sense, too, because if they were accurate, we could use them for weather forecasting, too!

Adaptation is the key. We have plenty of time to adapt to global climate changes, anthropomorphic or natural. Majority of scientists agree that any changes are going to happen over decades, not years.

Also, why did you post global climate stuff in the main thread? Climate doesn't link directly to short term weather trends.
 

weatherfide

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
2,517
Location
Faytteville, GA
I need an EV that costs $15,000 or less in the "used" market, has 100,000 miles of life left, has a range of 400 miles on a single charge and that max charge doesn't drop by more than 5% over the life of the vehicle. Those miles are in 95 degree weather for 2 hours a day with full A/C and premium sound blasting through the speakers. I also don't want any unusual disposal charges at end of life. The manufacturer needs to come get the spent battery and I'll call the scrap metal guys to get the rest.
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Clemmons, NC
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2
Last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Wonder why this was NOT included in the packet given to journalists and and the public?
 

EastAtlwx

Meteorologist
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
535
Reaction score
800
Location
Conyers, GA
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2
Last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Wonder why this was NOT included in the packet given to journalists and and the public?
Dude, way to take it out of context... literally the next part of the paragraph "The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential" It's just talking about the importance of ensembles to consider the range of possible solutions..
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2
Last paragraph:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Wonder why this was NOT included in the packet given to journalists and and the public?

Nice job cherry picking an IPCC report that’s now 3 issues old and completely taking it out of context (as @EastAtlwx has said above). As for it not being made public, every IPCC report is public.
 
Top