• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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)).

 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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..
 
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.
 
Any of you boys down on the coast of NC live near one of them pellet mills that gets shipped to Europe for there energy I watch a cool documentary about it. Sounds like a con were giving up our forest so Europe can look good on paper to cut down emissions.
 
Any of you boys down on the coast of NC live near one of them pellet mills that gets shipped to Europe for there energy I watch a cool documentary about it. Sounds like a con were giving up our forest so Europe can look good on paper to cut down emissions.
Yeah I know exactly you are talking about . @metwannabe lives in the central area for it all. Halifax , Warren , and Northampton county are one giant pine plantation.


 
Yeah I know exactly you are talking about . @metwannabe lives in the central area for it all. Halifax , Warren , and Northampton county are one giant pine plantation.


Yeah thats it. It sounds like a joke to me.
 
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.
Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional? Sure they are released now, but the media reported on the conference without having that tidbit to read. Like most dissenting opinions, it was censured out until the damage was done and no longer a "story". When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.
From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data. The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO. The added solar energy from fewer clouds led to an increase of +1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020 (most of it in the last 6 years)
comment image
This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years. One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming.
 
Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional? Sure they are released now, but the media reported on the conference without having that tidbit to read. Like most dissenting opinions, it was censured out until the damage was done and no longer a "story". When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.
From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data. The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO. The added solar energy from fewer clouds led to an increase of +1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020 (most of it in the last 6 years)
comment image
This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years. One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming.

Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional?

They've always been released and made very public, how exactly is that the fault of the scientists developing these reports exactly like they're trying to purposely hide something as you've appeared to insinuate? This seems like you're just extremely misinformed and out-of-the-loop here because the IPCC reports have been widely publicized during the entire 21st century (if you don't believe me, see Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth released in 2006 (never was a fan of this, and it was at best a wild over exaggeration of reality, but the point is the publicity has been there for a long time, I don't think you can really make that argument here).


When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.

Sure, accurately modeling clouds and mainly aerosol cloud feedbacks (water vapor not necessarily, it has more to do w/ fine, sub-grid scale precipitation more-so than just water vapor in general) will make the models more valuable but overall their predictions haven't been so awful they aren't valuable. Against observed temperature changes, the first several IPCC reports have fared pretty well, slightly warmer than forecast overall, but well within the range of uncertainty of modeled scenarios.

IPCC's latest take on this is fairly reasonable.
Some CMIP6 models demonstrate an improvement in how clouds are represented. CMIP5 models commonly displayed a negative shortwave cloud radiative effect that was too weak in the present climate. These errors have been reduced, especially over the Southern Ocean, due to a more realistic simulation of supercooled liquid droplets with sufficient numbers and an associated increase in the cloud optical depth. Because a negative cloud optical depth feedback in response to surface warming results from ‘brightening’ of clouds via active phase change from ice to liquid cloud particles (increasing their shortwave cloud radiative effect), the extratropical cloud shortwave feedback in CMIP6 models tends to be less negative, leading to a better agreement with observational estimates (medium confidence). CMIP6 models generally, represent more processes that drive aerosol–cloud interactions than the previous generation of climate models, but there is only medium confidence that those enhancements improve their fitness-for-purpose of simulating radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions

IPCC AR4 (2005) vs HADCRUT4
AR4-comparison-1536x904.png
IPCC report vs AR3 (2001) prediction
TAR-comparison-1536x1008.png

IPCC AR1 (1990) prediction vs actual global temperature
FAR-comparison-1536x904.png


From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data

First of all, in order to derive the PDO and AMO oscillations, it's actually common practice to remove global warming (detrending) from the mean SST first before computing the index, so it's actually going to reflect basic state climate changes by the way it's calculated (i.e. the correlation between AGW and these phenomena is actually artificial). Btw, these oscillations don't really change the total amount of heat in the earth system or contribute to net cooling or warming of the climate over long periods of time, rather oceanic variability (including ENSO) only fluxes heat around (& change when/where the heat is stored + released) and manifesting as internal variability that gets superimposed onto a warming climate.


The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO.

I've seen some make the link between clouds and the PDO, but the PDO was actually positive (& strongly so especially in the 2nd half of the year) during 2014, so this actually isn't true. This could have contributed to earlier reductions in clouds during 2010-2013, but definitely make sure you check and double check the data before making claims like these.

2014 -0.56 -0.42 0.30 0.36 1.26 -0.29 0.24 0.33 0.75 1.42 1.35 1.85

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat


"This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years.

Wow, this is a really, really bold claim and not consistent at all with published literature and the IPCC's latest assessment reports which characterize these as internal variability, and not sufficient to explain much of the most recent warming. Do you have any real literature to back you up on this one, or are you making this up?


One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming."

Huh? This sentence is just complete & utter nonsense. You desperately need to educate yourself on the basics of greenhouse gases before commenting again. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the troposphere (& blocks it from escaping into the stratosphere), at specific infrared wavelengths in large part because of its tri polar atomic structure that gives it more degrees of freedom than oxygen and nitrogen (O2 and N2 respectively). CO2's influence on the climate is positive and very strongly so at that, adding more of it warms the climate, there's absolutely no debate on that one.



climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
 
Eric, what are the error bars in GCM'S? Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance, then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq meter. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre). So, the fact that the NASA GISS GCM has problems representing clouds must call into question the entire performance of the GCM.
 
Eric, what are the error bars in GCM'S? Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance, then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq meter. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre). So, the fact that the NASA GISS GCM has problems representing clouds must call into question the entire performance of the GCM.

Well, the problem is we actually don't really know for certain what the actual sign of the radiative forcing is from cloud cover, there's a legitimate chance it's actually not significantly negative at all as you're assuming (notice the error bar is anywhere from close to 0 to nearly -1.5 for clouds), because it's dependent on cloud type, the height of the cloud, (cirrus actually contribute to warming, whereas deep Cb favor cooling (at least at the sfc), the types of aerosols contained within it, which impacts albedo, opacity, the feedbacks between these aerosols and clouds, as well as which types are more prominent + when/where they occur, and many of these processes occur at the micro/sub-grid scale level that can't be accurately simulated (& are too computationally expensive (for now) to explicitly resolve.



As for the reduction in top of atmosphere (TOA) outgoing longwave radiation and the graph you showed earlier, there are a lot of reasons for that change, it's not just 100% related to clouds and the total forcing change from that is not anywhere close to being consistent with even the most extremely conservative estimates of the uncertainty cloud radiative feedback. The change you're seeing in TOA radiation (decrease of 5-10 W/m2) actually comes mostly from the so-called blocking effect of outgoing longwave infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the troposphere, that reduces top of the atmosphere radiation because less of earth's heat is escaping out into space/at the top of the atmosphere and instead laying within the troposphere. Aside from man-made CO2 & CH4 (which are agreed to constitute most of the change) a small contribution of could be reasonably coming from increasing ozone levels as well following the Montreal Protocol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top