CFACT releases a new report on the eve of the New York UN climate summit.
The report is authored by Paul Driessen with contributions from Marc Morano.
Executive Summary
Launched in 1988 at the urging of activists opposed to hydrocarbon energy, economic growth, and modern living standards, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was originally charged with assessing possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. Over the subsequent decades, however, the IPCC increasingly minimized non-human factors, to the extent that it now claims only human influences matter – and any climate changes would “threaten our planet.”
The climate change scientist-government-industrialist complex has grown increasingly wealthy and powerful. It now spends billions of dollars annually on climate and weather research, focusing almost exclusively on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, and many billions more on renewable energy research and subsidies that raise energy prices, cost jobs, and reduce living standards.
Indeed, laws and regulations implemented in the name of preventing climate change have increased the cost of virtually everything people make, grow, ship, drive, eat, and do. They affect our lives, liberties, livelihoods, living standards, health, and welfare. Expert analysts calculate that climate-related rules will cost U.S. families and businesses almost $51 billion and 224,000 U.S. jobs every year through 2030 – on top of the $1.9 trillion in regulatory costs that Americans already pay every year.
With so much at stake, it is essential that climate research is honest, accurate and credible, and that the resultant energy and climate policies are based on sound, replicable science. Instead, the studies and reports are consistently defective and even deceitful. They incorporate every study financed by this multi-billion-dollar system that supports the “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis – no matter how far-fetched and indefensible their claims might be – and ignore all contrary studies and experts. They rely on faulty, manipulated data, secretive working sessions that revise the “science” to reflect political “summaries,” and computer models that completely fail to predict actual real-world climate trends.
Because average global temperatures have not risen for 18 years (and have even cooled slightly), even the terminology has shifted: from global warming to climate change, climate disruption, and extreme weather.
Relying on the IPCC work, the $2.5-billlion-a-year U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) issued a 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA) that claimed climate change “is already affecting” the lives of Americans in a “multitude of ways.” President Obama said its effects “are already being felt in every corner of the United States.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies use IPCC studies to justify costly vehicle mileage standards, delays and bans on oil and gas drilling and pipelines, and rules that are closing hundreds of coal-fired power plants and preventing new ones from being built.
As ClimateDepot.com director Marc Morano explains, the IPCC is “a political body masquerading as a science body.” It makes its pseudo-science fit its political agenda. The GCRP and the EPA do likewise. Their actions violate information quality laws and basic standards of sound science and peer review – to drive an anti-growth, anti-fossil fuel agenda. They exaggerate every conceivable cost associated with hydrocarbons, but completely ignore even the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels.
Now the White House wants to commit the United States to a new international “agreement” on climate change, energy use, economic growth, and wealth redistribution – without presenting it to Congress, in violation of constitutional requirements that any treaty receive the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
Every American concerned about our nation’s future should read this report, to understand what is happening and what is at stake. They should resist these actions by unelected, unaccountable regulators, challenge them in courts and legislatures, and demand that every study, report, and proposed rule be presented for review by citizens, legislators, and independent experts outside the closed circles of the climate change scientist-government-industrialist complex. If the climate alarmists are truly confident in their claims and have nothing to hide, they should be happy to participate in this honest, common sense approach.
Author
-
CFACT Ed
CFACT -- We're freedom people.
Keeping with the governments efforts to hype up the news this time of year, a scare letter appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this morning by alarmist writer Seth Borenstein. I sent this letter to the paper immediately afterwards.
Editor:
The September 19th AJC featured an article by Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein “NOAA: More heat records set in Aug.” The article said August 2014 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) global temperatures beat the record for 1998 and the months of June, July, and August also beat the record for 1998.
NOAA’s temperatures are based on stations spread around the planet that are subject to local influences like nearby air conditioning units. More accurate measurements are obtained from NASA satellite data from the University of Alabama (Huntsville) that is available on the Internet. Satellite data shows August years of 1998, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2012 were warmer than 2014. In addition, for June, July, and August the years 1998, 2010, and 2011 were warmer than 2014.
Borenstein’s article was timed to support President Obama’s climate program.
James H. Rust, Professor and policy advisor The Heartland Institute
It seems like these liberals know no shame and will go to any lengths to try to achieve their goals. Lying to the public has become common place in journalism. I doubt if they will bother to mention that very few leaders of developed countries will attend. This is all about wealth redistribution rather than the climate.
Furthermore it show a well defined bias in the media that only goes to prove that the main… I mean lame stream media is merely the voluntary propaganda branch of the democrat party.
Don’t get your science from the media. Get it from primary peer reviewed sources.
Wasn’t referring to science, I was referring to the media that supposedly reports on science, but is so biased that any reports of anything cannot be taken seriously. That’s where nearly all of the misinformation comes from that the climate alarmists cite as evidence of global warming under the pseudonym of climate change.
You’ll get no argument from me that the media is doing an increasingly worse job at reporting science news. One of the worst issues is that a new report is treated like a final nail in some coffin. That’s not how science works. We incrementally advance in groping stops and starts. When our data sets from various sub disciplines all incrementally converge on the same answer, we give it a lot more weight.
They all need to be Jimmy Hoffa’d
When it was pointed out that summers were getting milder and winters colder, they looked down their pseudo-intellectual noses and admonished that we couldn’t confuse weather with climate. They are two different things. Now they use severe weather events as evidence of global warmi…er climate change. This fear based, end of days scenario, is fed like pablum to the public school students in order to breed a 50% plus 1 voting majority. Once that is accomplished we can bend over and kiss the middle class goodbye.
Can the school administrators and teachers be sued for teaching lies?
Sure try and sue the “GovMINT” see how far that gets you.
Use primary peer reviewed sources. That gets you much farther.
The Peer in Peer Reviewed are that group of college graduates that pay their mortgages with paychecks funded by the channeling of tax dollars to GovMint funded studies, organizations, and Universities for the purpose of duping the great unwashed American public into buying this load of cwap we manufactured out of whole cloth. The Group that would not have the money to publish if the GovMint stopped funding them. Peer Reviewed is code for Political Correct Position on the GovMint scam.
So we shouldn’t believe the experts because it’s their profession and not just a hobby? Ok. That makes no sense. You really don’t know how grant money is used. Your whole post makes up accusations of good people with no concrete cases or evidence. That might be perceived as just being a crappy person. Is peer review perfect? No. Is it better than secondary sources that have a horse in the race. Um . . . hell yes.
Sure, a Back handed slap accusing me indirectly of being a crappy person. I predicted you would go on the attack. I make no judgements about individuals. And why don’t you enlighten us on how
grant money works rather than assuming that I don’t. Especially those Billions of taxpayer dollars.
You and people advancing this doomsday scenario are the ones wielding peer review, along with a number of other soundbites, as if they were a cudgel to bludgeon all of us “Non-believers” (“Peer reviewers” words not mine). All I ask is that when you and your side make their pronouncements of “settled science” they present the facts to prove it rather than try to silence those who ask questions by declaring that the “debate is over” so STFU! Real science is never “settled” and always welcomes questions and “debate”. Cshorey I am still waiting for your proof of the claims. Something tells me I have a long wait. I will gird myself for another personal attack from you.
It wasn’t back handed. I’m telling you to your face that accusing people without proof is being a crappy person. That’s generally accepted in polite society. I also never advanced a doomsday scenario. That’s in your head only. Quite a few things appear to grow from your sensuous mind. You see, when a scientist gets a grant, they must justify the use of that money to the granting agency. It can not be kept for personal gain. The PI uses it to pay helpers and get equipment, travel to field sites, etc.
What proof do you want? Have you looked into the post WWII experiments on thermal IR imaging? Do you know why band 6 of thematic image mapper is so blurry? There is plenty of proof in those to points to start with, but your asking for a quick sound bite proof just lets us know that you don’t understand how science is done. We need a convergence of evidence on a complex issue like climate change and that is exactly what we have. Look into the paper in 1938 by Guy Calendar and see how many predictions came true. Look into the work of Smagorinsky and Manabee and see how greenhouse gas warming has certain distinct “fingerprints” and we actually do see those markers in the system. I’ve dealt with people who claim what you have claimed and I know you’re immune to this evidence anyway. I really post here for future generations to see the machinations of CFACT and its followers.
You are missing some very important points. Your side of this argument is calling for Government interference in our live. My side of the debate is not making any claims nor calling for action. We are questioning your side of the argument and being told shut up and disparaged in the media. Your side is making unproven claims and calling for the Government to step in with new rules and regulations that will effect us all. You are being disingenuous by saying that you personally make no doomsday claims knowing full well that you support the side of this debate that is. Do you deny the media is promoting the doomsday scenarios? Do you deny that they claim to have proof without presentation of same? I understand the Scientific Method and understand it is not being adhered to in the process of advancing the religious dogma of AGW.
What you miss is that “your side” (which is not really opposite) will have to pay with the rest of us for this willful ignorance of what the experts in this field are telling us. I do not cite Al Gore. I cite climate scientists who have been trained in this field and can discuss the devils in the details which are mighty indeed. I acknowledge many more versed than I. I guess I can’t say Media is proposing “doomsday” scenarios as that often refers to the end of the world. I sure don’t know any sane person saying climate change = end of the world. If we tone down your verbiage and use the “alarmist” term often thrown about here, I guess that’s more my ilk. I’m alarmed when I see a persistent drought of CA that was predicted by models back in the 70’s, and people there only now passing laws regulating groundwater extraction. I’m alarmed when a higher sea level and warmer seas caused Sandy to inflict more damage to that section of coastline then ever before, and the response by Gov. Christie is to get the ACE to build fragile berms at huge expense which will do nothing with the next “Sandy”. He’s allowing redevelopment on the shore, and huge sums of money for that come from the Federal Flood Insurance that you and I pay into. That bodes that I am going to pay more and more for other people’s dumb choices, and that alarms me. I’m alarmed that rising seas also mean sea water intrusion into aquifers and that for every 1 foot you draw down the water table at coastal aquifers, you draw the salt water boundary up to your well 16 ft.
I have two daughters, 16 and 11, and from the studies I’ve made, I no longer wonder about this matter. I know this only gets worse for them. I will not stand by and say I didn’t call out an alarm. I call out an alarm. To my daughters and to the future generations that will come. I do call out the alarm and pray these people can hear.
Cshorey: How terribly sad that you can never take the
time learn anything, very sad indeed but constant for people with your affliction. Did any MODELS predict this
10 year persistent drought?
“Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large
part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that
decade.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_today
“In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit
heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf
What does this do for your concern about sea levels?
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends 1611400
Nawiliwili, Hawaii
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=1611400
Or this one for where I use to live.
9451600 Sitka, Alaska
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9451600
Being so stupid must cause you to have a very interesting life, AKA, but not one where you can see through using your real name in these exchanges.
Hi John,
There’s a test going on with you since we met. I’m waiting to see if you pass it. (Hint, it’s about one of your main obsessions). Um, yes, individual model runs often show persistent drought. I remember the first GCMs of Smagorinsky and Manabe had drought over CA and the SW to TX. But do remember that all models are wrong, but some models are useful. Just as a map is a model of the world, and isn’t perfect, and can be pointed out to be wrong in many areas, it is still very useful for seeing where you may currently be heading, and where you might want to be going.
No not Willful ignorance you are asking for mindless obeisance. There are, contrary to the media spin, many experts such as Dr. Roy Spencer who will refute most of the claims about the Anthropogenic aspect of YOUR so called experts. And again this isn’t a consensus issue. That would make it political. This is about science and empirical data not what the majority hypothesize. Again Doomsday is my poor choice of wording Sorry for using sarcasm. Your side is using words such as Catastrophic, dire, deadly so let’s stop changing the subject by arguing terminology. A recent study, since you like them so well, points to the heat and drought of CA and suggests that 90% of the problem is due to the alteration of Winds by, at the risk of sounding repetitive, shifts in the jet stream. You can google it (see too can play at the game of homework assignments). Again, hurricanes happen and people who live near the shore are sleepwalking if they think the Government and the scientists can immunize them from hurricanes and flooding. Your side argues that Climate Change cannot be conflated with weather but apparently that is not true if the weather supports your argument. but my final point to that is that if your side could finitely control the percentage of CO2 in the Atmo you still couldn’t save Sandy, New Orleans or any other coastal properties from the tragic effects of Hurricanes. So enough about hurricanes and other weather events. I agree with you that using taxpayers money to subsidize other people’s dumb choices is a horrible idea. We can at last agree on something. Let us both demand more from the politicians of both parties or agree to vote out the incumbents at every election (again of both parties). Congratulation on your daughters. Tell them I said hi and let them know they have much more to fear, regarding their futures, from the potential collapse of the U.S. economy and erosion of the middle class, thanks in large part to the onerous cost and restrictions being suggested by your side, than collapse of the climate and the erosion of beach front property. Unless of course you own beach front in which case good luck with that next hurricane that heads your way. All the spending on all the studies by all the scientist beholden to the GovMINt for their funding will not turn aside the gail force winds and subsequent flooding. But, A $17 TRILLION DEBT AND GROWING is not a hypothetical problem but a very real one that could destroy the quality of life for your children and make the American Dream a history lesson for you to teach.
I’m asking for mindful discretion. I do know Roy Spencer. His career is not sterling. I recall when he and Christy did that paper that said satellite measurements showed a cooling trend, but then it was pointed out that in correcting satellite drift they put in the wrong sign. The result was the measurement they used drifted earlier and earlier in the day and that made it look like a cooling trend. Once they corrected the sign error, they got the same warming trend everyone else did. But Roy didn’t stop there, but time is precious so let me just say that Roy Spencer disagreeing with me doesn’t really say much, and I’d prefer to stick to evidential matters here. You tell me the drought in CA is due to shifts in the Jet Stream. Yup. There is a persistent high pressure cell off the west coast deflecting the JS. We are still investigating the nature of these changes, but one thing is certain. The speed of the JS is a function of the difference in temperature between the temporal and polar zones, and as Guy Calendar predicted in 1938, and all models have agreed with since, and all observations have confirmed to have to be, the Arctic has warmed faster than any other place in the world. This means there is less of a difference in temperature between the polar and temperate zones. This results in a slowing of the JS. There is a definite correlation so far in slower JS having greater amplitude in its Rosby wave, and those waves slow their tracking around the globe. So pointing out the JS has shifted being the main cause of CA drought is actually pointing to one of the climate shift issues we’re aware of and having to adapt to. I’m glad we agree on not subsidizing poor choices, and ignoring the best evidence that sea level rise will continue unabated through this century makes coastal development one of the dumber choices. Urbanization and deforestation reducing infiltration and evapotranspiration has caused more flashy discharge in those water basins and plenty of development is in harm’s way. People build houses in the dead center of forests and expect us to pay to keep that little area from ever burning. After these points you seem to digress into politics and end with the classic Al Gore bit. Al isn’t a climate scientist. Stop getting your information from secondary sources. Look into primary information and keep an open mind.
I have viewed videos from the pro global warming side, experts that you obviously agree with that have cited Dr. Roy Spencer as one of 3 people most qualified to speak on Climate issues. Your declaration that his career isn’t sterling, is that your assessment or are quoting some higher authority and if so could you please name them? I have looked into primary information and viewed an enormous amount of misinformation, bad information and outright deceipt from sources such as the University of East Anglia exposed for “cooking the books” to generate a desired outcome that the media would trumpet from hill to dale. Funny they didn’t report the missing data. Now a partial observer could make the proclamation that James Hansen’s career has been less than sterling as a government paid member of NOAA whose own satelitte data has conflicted with Hansen’s computer models for the past decade, but that would be another silly diversion from the the real issue.
Solar output has not been decreasing for the past half century, as you claim elsewhere in your postings. The scientific community has observed a 22 year solar cycle which is the primary influence of climate and alteration of polar ice melt/growth and subsequent shifts in the jet stream. I only point this out because your proclamations are often as incorrect as your personal attack on Dr. Spencer’s reputation. For the casual reader please note that Cshorey, with postings on this article’s comment threads has vacillated between arguing weather events, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards as evidence of CC while rebutting observations of uncooperative weather that contradicts the CC claim as being irrelevant because one cannot confuse the two. How did you put it Cshorey? “All of the above – weather. Not climate.” in response to wiseguy below. The observant see that this whole weather issue is a fallback position, for the Warmingists, from their primary impetus of rising temperatures once they stopped rising.
Please look into the context of the East Anglia e-mails so you can see that the outright deceit (corrected the spelling for you) was not in the e-mails themselves, but in the way quotes were taken out of context with no accurate explanation to make it look like deceit on the part of scientists. You should be pissed that you’ve been tricked. And Roy Spencer really has had several articles retracted and an editor resign over letting a truly bad paper by Roy through to publication. If you want to hang a argument agains AGW on Roy, you are choosing a weak hangar. Meanwhile, a paper written by James Hansen in the 70’s has been shown to be predictively accurate.
As long as we are correcting grammar you will want to …hang an argument against… has anyone ever told you that you are a pompous…Roy Spencer has been held up by proponents of the Man Made crowd (that is your side) as one of 3 leading authorities on the topic of Climate Change. Someone in your circle of scientists disagrees with your take on Dr. Spencer.
Your James Hansen claim is a false one. You will need to point out any predictions that where accurate also include those predictions that were inaccurate. Some predictions of his have been so wrong they actually removed his “Hockey Stick” Slide from An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary which is not allowed to be viewed in UK schools because there are so many scientific inaccuracies. Look, we can play this nuh uh game till the cows come home or drop dead from the global warming you claim their flatulence causes. You make statement but you don’t prove them. You must understand that when you posit a hypothesis it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not declare the debate over and discredit people who present challenges to said hypothesis. Listen, your circle wants to force the world to change their lifestyle and reduce the quality of everyones life based upon an AGW hypothesis. Nothing you have posted here nor anything the pro-AGW crowd has put forth, could be considered proof. I think your political friends and the media call it “Settled Science” No real science teacher would allow that term to be taught their students cshorey, shame on you. Settled Science. BTW – East Anglia conveniently forgot to input certain data into their man made computer program in order to manipulate the model to arrive at a false outcome that fit the script. End Story.
I corrected your spelling, not grammar. There’s a difference. And then I went on to correct your erroneous ideas. Since you keep claiming Roy is one of the top three climate scientists, perhaps you should give a reference and some way to back that claim up other than “I saw a movie once”. Oh and how off you are. Michael Mann made the “hockey stick” you are probably referring to, but his is far from being the only “hockey stick” out there. Today I showed students the Arctic plankton record that shows sea ice in the north dropped in a way that hasn’t been seen for over 2000 years. The Inconvenient Truth was a movie by a politician and thus is not really intelligent to bring up in a science discussion. Try again.
I corrected your spelling of agains, which I don’t really criticize, just pointing out your double standard. Sea ice melts and reforms check the current levels that are on the rise. Allow me to remind you that YOU are claiming global warming so the burden of proof lies in your camp and you have shown none. How many times do I have to tell you that Global Warming activists have named Dr. Spencer as one of 3 top authorities not I. I will get you a link to the source but, name one of the several discredited articles and the editor who resigned please. My apologies on Michael Mann I was wrong. Answer honest that political movie you pooh pooh, do you approve of it being shown in public schools around the country as a science documentary and have you shown it in your class?
Oh by the way, here is the other side of your rejected paper/resigning editor slander of Dr. Spencer. And people claim that science isn’t political. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/
How sad for science that Professor Dr Spencer, was pressed to resign over a paper that has not been withdrawn. This is in line with the moral position of politicians aspiring to be the Prime Minister of Britain, calling for Climate denial to be criminalised.
It seems more than reasonable that this debate should also ask about political motivations.
I don’t take a position because of my employment or business interests, and I always post in my own name. My drive is from my understanding of scientific methods, and a revulsion against what I perceive to be political corruption of the truth. I attended a Grammar School where science was taught by masters in Gowns and mortar boards, these schools have all gone now and I understand that instead of teaching the sciences, they teach about science. I later got an HND in Physics and worked in a bio physics lab on electronics.
Sandy had nothing to do with the building on the ocean side of Rt 9. Where are your models? 10 years ago none of the CAGW people were taking a moderate approach. Character assignations, conflicting arguments, implied evidence, mental, problems with accepting authority, sick are what CAGW used to describe anybody that disagrees with them You just stated that higher sea levels and warmer seas caused Sandy to inflict more damage… How is it that the oceans are becoming more acidic when they are warmer? Isn’t it a fact that a warmer ocean holds less co2 than a colder one? Outside of adjusting records to keep the global warming myth up, AGW theory has nothing. Its math is in error and the models are in error. CO2 levels have kept increasing while temperatures have not, did the oceans eat your heat? Drought never happened in CA before? Worse droughts have happened before and not in the far distant past either. What happened to your worst drought than the dust bowl in the rest of the country? For sure, weather isn’t climate. Care to take credit for all the disaster that haven’t happened due to AGW? We can start with more frequent and stronger hurricanes. When was the last time there were published results of incoming versus outgoing heat?
Yes, if you could prove them as lies. As an educator I teach this material and I must be sure to stick to the peer reviewed primary literature. This point you make is a bit of a misunderstanding of science though. Science does not speak of knowing the TRUTH, and we simply have ideas that explain the set of facts as we currently know them. Science gropes for the truth, without being the TRUTH, but that does not make it a lie.
cshorey: Having
some one like you acting “As
an educator” fully explains how and why the United States education system is failing. You should NOT be teaching anyone anything
because you have NO idea what the truth is.
“Students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making
gains in academics three times faster than American students, while those in
Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia and
Lithuania are improving at twice the rate.
The study’s findings support years of rankings that
show foreign students outpacing their American peers academically. Students in
Shanghai who recently took international exams for the first time outscored every other school system in the world. In the same test, American students ranked 25th in
math, 17th in science and 14th in reading.
Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the
advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006.
That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/education-olympics-how-do_n_1707968.html
You are free to waste your own life; but, you should not be allowed
to degrade the lives of young people with impressionable minds that might
actually believe you.
Not on topic John.
But summers aren’t getting milder. We’ve seen a global warming trend there and in the winter. Locally other things can take place. There are a group of scientists trying to work out attribution of the changing climate on individual weather events. Not easy to do, but the preliminary results are mixed. Some events don’t appear to be affected and some do.
Summers vary, the don’t enter long term patterns based on CO2, same for the climate which has oscillated around the planet since before man let alone pre fossil fuel man. Here is an obvious, weather happens differently in different places. Weather patterns are driven by jet streams. The world was first warned that the globe was warming irreversibly until it stop and then the message shifted to oh wait we didn’t mean that we meant this. The climate is changing and cause DEADLY, CATASTROPHIC, (place your own fear inducing superlative here) weather events. My point is this. CO2 and AGW don’t make weather anymore than weather correlates to climate change. Shit changes. Get on with your life and stop manufacturing evidence that man is spoiling the ride. And stop extorting taxpayers money to do so.
This is a nice story, but not much mostly a fictional one. If we didn’t understand how CO2 interacts with radiation in our atmosphere, heat seeking missiles wouldn’t work. They do. You seem to have a political beef, but this is a science issue.
Talk about a political maneuver, that’s a real nice Alinsky tactic. The old “I know I am but what about you.” Every point I made is true and irrefutable. Go ahead shoot down each point with science. Wait you can’t. The Global warmin…I meant climate change all along movement is all politics and no real science. The science, which you can not articulate here, is all unproven hypothetical s. Feel free to present the empirical science that proves that the globe is in imminent danger from the burning of fossil fuels anytime. Oh and please do so without the non science propaganda from that political body also known as The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Reputable scientists such as Chris Landsea, have quit the IPCC because it is all about politics. Note any publication from the IPCC is riddled with Possibly, might be, could, probably and that cshorey is not settled scientific proof. Start explaining now your provable scientific evidence. I am guessing you are going to come back with some type of Alinsky style political rebuttal. Personalize and then demonize your opponent. Deflect from the truth.
Who is Alinsky? Sorry, didn’t mean to be evasive. I’m very serious though. Look into the Navy work with thermal missile imaging. Look into why Thematic Mapper band 6 is so blurry compared to the other bands. Research the concept of atmospheric windows. Look into heat content of atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere. When you take the blinkers off and stop taking secondary sources as your primary source, you will find a very different story. I’m deflecting you to what I currently know about the climate system. I don’t call it THE TRUTH. and you shouldn’t say I’m deflecting from the truth. I don’t need the IPCC to argue this either. This story goes back centuries, and the paleoclimate evidence covers Gy.
Alinisky was a 70’s advocate of Marx who penned a how to book on political obfuscation to advance a progressive agenda. It is obvious that I cannot make you understand what is wrong with your argument. Let me put it this way.
1.You still haven’t explained this story that goes back centuries. You’re an educator apparently in the field of science, so explain to anyone reading this comment board what we can conclude empirically from the studies you point to. As it reads you might as well say that Man Made Global Warming is real because the peanut in the satchel is hyper-evidential of the back stroke on the carburetor. This is obfuscation. You know I have better things to do that read Thematic mapper band 6 so how does that study prove AGW? In layman’s terms. I wouid bet it doesn’t or the IPCC would be quoting it.
2. Your story, which goes back centuries, time wise, is a pimple on an gnats arse for a planet 4.5 billion years old. We can prove empirically with geological science that the climate has been changing since the big bang created mother earth. You or the IPCC or Al Gore has yet to prove that man making additional CO2 which is an essential element to life on earth is going to be catastrophic. Note I avoided sarcasm with “end of day hyperbole and used Al Gore dire message.
I found a good source on Roy Spencer and his scientific credibility with proper citation and links: Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials. That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however. Here I’ve collected links to critiques of Roy’s work. I’m starting with the posts I’ve made on my blog, including my 3-part review of his new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.
Christy and Spencer’s Satellite Temperature Record Mistake
1. Andy Revkin writes about the episode in the New York Times.
Dr. Spencer Goes to Salt Lake City
1. Politicizing Science. Roy Spencer testified before a committee of the Utah House of Representatives. Read all about what he said, and the response of local scientists and politicians.
The Great Global Warming Blunder
1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1. In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on. Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover. He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is. Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.
2. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2. Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.
3. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3. Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.
Blog Posts
1. Roy Spencer’s Non-Response. Many of Roy’s readers were asking him to respond to my 3-part review of The Great Global Warming Blunder, which Roy said he wrote because he couldn’t get some of his work published in the peer-reviewed literature. (Due to foul play, naturally.) Now he says he won’t waste time responding to blog critiques, because he’s too busy trying to get his work published in the peer-reviewed literature.
2. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet. 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. In any case, a simple 1-box climate model does not appear to be adequate for this kind of analysis over only a few decades. But 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.
3. Just Put the Model Down, Roy. Roy Spencer’s wild and crazy curve-fitting adventures never seem to end! The following excerpt from my critique says it all. “Well, give me more than 30 parameters, and I can fit a trans-dimensional lizard-goat and make rainbow monkeys shoot out its rear end.”
L’Affaire Spencer
1. Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback (RealClimate.org). Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell published a paper in which they once again botched their statistics in an attempt to show that the climate sensitivities of standard climate models are too high. This created a media bubble, with some media outlets claiming a “gaping hole” had been blown in global warming “alarmism”. Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo took it apart on the RealClimate blog.
2. Remote Sensing Editor Resigns Over Spencer/Braswell Paper. The editor of S&B’s paper figured out that the criticisms of the paper were devastating, and that S&B had ignored previously published research that they should have addressed in their paper. Given the big media frenzy, the editor decided to resign (probably to save his journal from a reputation for publishing anything submitted.)
3. Roy Spencer Persecuted by Own Data. Roy Spencer’s latest paper, published in Remote Sensing, supposedly “blew a gaping hole” in the standard theory of climate change. A new paper by Andrew Dessler shows that this is just another in a long string of Roy’s faulty claims to prove that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought. The main problem in all of these attempts has been rampant abuse of statistics. Typically, Roy would brush off such criticisms, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience and the media, and claim he is being persecuted by the “IPCC gatekeepers”. In this case, one of Dessler’s figures shows very clearly how Spencer and his co-author Danny Braswell left out of their analysis all the data that didn’t fit with their hypothesis. It’s so clear that even people who don’t know much about statistics can see the problem. There is no running from this one–no claiming that Spencer is being persecuted–unless he wants us to believe he’s being persecuted by his own data.
4. Roy Spencer Responds With More Excuses. Spencer responded to Dessler’s criticisms by misconstruing some of the arguments and sweeping away the statistical concept of “error bars” with a wave of his hand. He also couldn’t understand why he needed to report all that missing data.
5. Remote Sensing Publishes Rebuttal. Remote Sensing published a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell’s paper. The rebuttal, written by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo, and John Abraham, is mostly based on an earlier RealClimate post by Trenberth and Fasullo, but tidied up and updated for publication.
It’s rich that you accuse the skeptics of politicizing Climate Change. You are using one of the many Alinsky tactics I spoke of before. Turn your opponent’s strongest
argument about you back on them. The IPCC was chartered by the United Nations for the express purpose of finding an adverse link between man and the environment. It doesn’t get any more POLITICAL than that. Why? Well, if you don’t find a link our funding stops. That is
strong motivation to find AGW for the Politicians. The politicians then use your findings to implement new regulations that adversely effect us all. Many Billions of tax dollars have been spent and the flow will continue as long as these pesky experts like Dr Spencer don’t expose our politically motivated theory. If so the government funding runs dry. Can’t have that.
I post this not for you cshorey, but on the outside chance that there is any other reader still hanging around this
comment board. I highly doubt it. It is not my responsibility to defend Dr. Spencer I will let him defend himself. He
does so as an expert. I say to the casual reader, if you are still out there,
go here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/e
Visit his website. Check it out. Peruse his
many links. Great information! Dr Spencer will enlighten you with facts and real science. He doesn’t claim that CO2 has no effect on climate but he does suggest the sky isn’t falling and we all need to take a step back. Who
will you then believe, an 8th grade science teacher, like CSHOREY who just wrote a scathing character assassination on a person that he knows absolutely nothing about for no other reason than political
beliefs or a Climate Scientist who isn’t slandering anyone but simply, in layman’s language, presenting you the truth?
Thanks for the link, a balanced man it seems. I still stick to my belief that CO2 has little to do with Warming but would like to see some positive proof on re-radiation, and how bigger molecules seem to lower this radiation frequency.
You might be right in your belief Brin, which is my primary
point on any of these comment boards. That point being that there is no ESTABLISHED truth here. And even if the truth was what CSHOREY claims, although the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, there isn’t a damn thing all the governments and all the governments’ men can
do about it. This isn’t a controllable situation even though Al Gore, with his get rich scheme aka the carbon credit scam, would have you believe otherwise. There is not an ideal CO2 level that will set earth’s climate to a Government recommended state. The earth will cool and then it will warm. We know as fact that cooling and warming took place before we discovered the burning of fossil fuel as energy and before the Population reached 7 billion (which is what these politicians are really worried about). CO2 is necessary for plant life and plant life is necessary for us. It is not an element to be reviled. And if it is causing a little extra warming that is good for all, for the next Ice age cannot be avoided and it will certainly thin the herd.
Powers2be. Your statements are logical. Climate Change is socialism and nothing more. Obama does not like America’s capitalism and will destroy it a any way possible. Climate Change is just another way of destroying America just like Obama care.
We were talking science here. This is small minded politics based in ignorance and fear. Would you like to discuss science?
All our energy comes from the sun!
We do not create energy, we do not destroy energy, we only convert it from one sort into another. Heat, potential, and kinetic. Coal and oil being potential energy, all from the sun by means of radiation.
The most efficient green house gas is water vapor, ie clouds. When clouds obscure the sun the heat reaching the planet falls. We feel colder. With cloud cover the planet cools. This insulation effect works both ways, The planet warms quickly with clear skies and cools at night just as quickly. With cloud cover the earth warms less but retains heat longer at night. Where is the extra energy coming from to cause global warming?
CO2 is water soluble, the colder the water the more gas is retained. Heating water releases CO2, We can see this in a glass as bubbles form on the inside of the glass when the water warms. A cause, heat – releases gas, the effect – gas bubbles forming after the heating.
We should be unhappy with any theory that needs to reverse a cause and its effect to support its action. CO2 can not cause the heat, it is the effect of the heating. A theory is only a possible explanation of a mechanism, not always the truth. Explaining the thermionic valve the flow of electron theory is reversed when transistors are taught. A theory is not a law of science.
A lot of guys are looking at various forms of perpetual motion machines. These are ingenious devices but can not work as they breach the energy laws. This applies to the complexity of explanations bandied around explaining Climate Change/warming/catastrophe. The energy comes from the Sun, all of it and with increased Sun activity our climate must follow the pattern.
Not all our energy comes from the sun but most of it does. We can make an analogy as one can put a pot on a stove and say the stove is the only source of energy. Without changing the output of the stove, we can change the equilibrium temperature of the pot of water by putting on or removing a lid, increasing or reducing air flow, or changing the ambient temperature of the room. So it is with the earth’s climate system. We can keep the sun constant but retain more heat as we are currently doing. In fact, we measure a reduction in solar output over the last half century, so the stove is being turned down slightly.
On another of your points, you should look into why CO2 and H2O have such different residence times in the atmosphere, and why we only call the later a condensable greenhouse gas.
Your wrong, and the stove is no analogy at all. The stove’s fuel is the potential energy, and this came from the Sun when the trees grew. This potential energy is converted into heat by burning it in the stove.
If you still think otherwise, where do you think the stoves energy came from?
How much time gases spend in the atmosphere is unimportant. Your looking at the complexity of perpetual motion when it flaunts the laws of physics.
We can not create energy. we can not destroy energy, we can only convert energy from one sort into another. This is not open to question, it is a fundamental law not a theory.
And the sun has potential energy stored as nuclear fuel, so . . . in the end, energy is energy but can be stored and released in a variety of ways. The sun stores and releases, the electric grid stores and the stove releases, so the analogy holds. No one is arguing the first law of thermodynamics with you. We are talking about energy entering a system and altering the retention of the energy within that system. No perpetual motion machines are needed here. Just look into how a greenhouse works. Sun stays constant, we build a greenhouse, and it gets warmer in there.
The sun is not a constant though, the energy radiated fluctuates in long, and very long cycles. It radiates less heat and the Earth cools down, more heat and it warms up. Why do the Global fraternity ignore the Sun in their theories?
Green house, yes I have one, plated with glass. Take the glass away and the trapped heat would disappear. The earth is not in a glass dome. We are surrounded by gases retained by gravity. There is an insulation effect by atmosphere that works in both directions, this is best illustrated with clouds because they are visible. This works both ways and in cloud cover we heat up less in daylight but lose less at night. For Global warming to take place we would have this insulation at night only. I suppose it would be like insulating your greenhouse every night fall, and removing it for clear blue skies at daybreak. This clearly does not happen.
An American Physicist questioned the theory of infrared radiation and green houses over a century ago. Building two structures, one plated in glass and the other in basalt crystal to block all infrared. He noted temperatures and there was little variation between the two, suggesting infrared has less effect than was thought on green house operation. One might wonder why similar experiments have not been used today to prove how a green house does in fact work.
I guess we can pinpoint your error in thinking now. Climate scientists who model past and possible future climates, do take the sun’s variability into account. Now that you know that, I guess all your issues will be relieved. Probably not.
Of course not, guessing is poor science. Theories like the vaunted Carbon Theory that need to reverse a cause and its effect are rubbish. You can spend too much time examining the complexities, rather like the inventor trying to make his perpetual motion machine work, just a small adjustment to the angles or a new way to reverse magnetic polarities and it will all work.
Do you really not believe thermal insulation works both ways?
Computer models are fine, but they don’t run in reverse and if the formula are wrong they produce rubbish anyway.
Look, I am firm in my belief that we have natural long cycle climate changes, and media panicking over flooding after drainage was neglected don’t convince me that we make any global difference.
On the other hand developments that can store and reuse energy I support fully. Like wind pumped water under pressure, stored in Armstrong hydraulic accumulators. A chum has been working on an invention for a Tornado Generator rather than silly wind operated devices that cost so much and deliver so little.
There is much that might be developed in conservation rather than a misplaced zeal in Climate variations.
You do understand that a Theory is a highly tested hypothesis? Thanks for giving it the proper term. We really do understand this and your comment about thermal insulation in both directions evidences a further lack of basic knowledge in the science on your part. Please look into the difference between primary incoming wavelengths of EMR vs. outgoing. You will find they are not equal and that causes the imbalance due to differential resonant frequencies of atmospheric gas components. Oh, and by the way, guess is very much a part of science. Without imaginary guesswork, there would never be new hypotheses to test and science would cease. Good thing it’s not in your hands.
I do understand pretty well actually, and your statement that a theory is highly tested hardly holds up when the basic flow of electrons can be changed 180 degrees in still useful theories. They remain but a possible explanation of a mechansim.
You have not explained where the extra heat is coming from, and getting yourself bogged down in complexities of a flawed Carbon theory.
If CO2 can be both a cause and the effect of heating then we have a positive feed back loop. This does not occur in Nature, and such a system should have destroyed itself millions of years ago.
Are you able to explain the difference in incoming radiation and its reflected wave lenghts? And how does this matter in any way. With missiles I can see the doppler effect would be apparent due to speed differentials, this might well be of use but green houses move little unless we consider the rotation of the earth.
Perhaps part of our problem is that this nu global warming/cooling/chaos science is in the hands of folk who are too clever in some ways!
Put your car out in the sun and then explain where the extra heat comes from to make the inside hotter than the outside.
Very straight forward of course, its exposed to radiation and conduction. Heat is retained until the Sun’s influence is removed, then the stored heat is lost in the same manner. The heat is all from the Sun and the mechanism understood. The car/box is sealed, allow air through your box and heat would dissipated back into the atmosphere.
The planet has a climate system of rain, winds and the Suns influence rotates daily.
The carbon theory suggests that a small increase in CO2 will cause the planets heat storage effect to increase. Now as its the heating that released CO2 from cold water I fail to see how it can also be the cause. Cause and effect again you must never reverse them.
What you fail to see is positive feedback in which reservoir trend is both cause and effect. Example: less sea ice means more solar radiation absorbed, which warms the area and reduces sea ice. Here you see that reduced sea ice is both cause and effect. Same for CO2’s solubility in water. And so, as you note, the car did not break the first law of thermodynamics and no “extra heat” ever existed. It’s the same for the greenhouse effect. When larger molecules (with more than two atoms) with lower resonant frequencies absorb and re-emit thermal IR, statistically half that reemitted EMR will keep going out to space, but the other half will be kept in the lower atmosphere. More large molecules to absorb and scatter means more photons that would have simply escaped to space coming back to the lower atmosphere. No extra heat, the sun can stay constant and temperature increase through a change in incoming versus outgoing flux. You’re asking me to exchange this good science for a story in which trained PhD climatologists don’t think to look at the sun and ignore the first law of thermodynamics in order to get more funds, which they can’t use for personal gain. I hope you can find the absurdity of this story and join in the science.
Not sure I follow you here, “Less sea ice means more solar radiation is absorbed”?
Ice absorbs heat, it melts at 32F approx, and then water absorbs heat. Are we talking of the hysteresis temperature curve here, this is capable of absorbing a great deal of heat as it is changes state?
Or the reflective index of the ice?
What you refer to as reflective index (albedo) is the key here. This is called the ice-albedo feedback and was originally proposed by Einstein. It is the process by which ice is more reflective than sea water, so if you grow sea ice you will reflect more energy to space to allow more sea ice to grow, etc. Or do it in reverse like we are now. CO2 and temp have a similar relationship. CO2 really does absorb and re-emit thermal IR and we can’t get around that, so more CO2 leads to increased temps which allows more CO2 out of sea water and from wetland methane conversion. This allows more warming and more CO2 release. It doesn’t matter what was the first mover in such a feedback cycle. So when orbital parameters allow for a warmer planet, the CO2 feeds back in the system to make the climate change more than it would have without that feedback. Now we are going against orbital parameters which started a cooling trend 6000 years ago which should continue for another 23,000 years (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1980). We kicked up the greenhouse gasses first, which has caused a warming, which has started the other feedbacks in the system. To be fair, there are some negative feedbacks in the system too, but paleoclimatology tells us the positive feedbacks dominate.
Richard 3 posted this on another blog and I have his permission to re-post. It covers the re radiation on infra red.
Brin
_______
If you can get hold of a copy of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook you will see in Chapter 5 fig. 21 a graphic of carbon dioxide AND water vapour spectral emittances after RADCAL when temperature is 1,500K (1,227C). The graph clearly shows CO2 emittance is almost completely swamped by H2O emittance. Only the 4.3 micron band is fully available to CO2.
Problem is only the SUN can generate photons in the 4.3 micron band in sufficient quantities to have any effect. The peak radiation temperature is about 400C and ALL CO2 molecules will be at local atmospheric temperature so they will be capable of absorbing a 4.3 micron photon (also a 2.7 micron photon if any got passed the H2O molecules). When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. The vibration level of the CO2 molecule, NOT the kinetic speed, will increase sharply. The
question is what exactly happens now? If the CO2 molecule collides with an N2 or O2 molecule then some of the vibrational energy can increase the kinetic speed of the N2 or O2 molecule. So what happens to the rest of the energy? Well, the CO2 molecule has some 3,800 spectral emittance lines centred on the 15 micron band covering 13 to 17 microns. The CO2 molecule is thus very, very effective at emitting excess energy.
Another point to consider is the CO2 molecule is a unique entity. IT IS NOT PART OF THE SURFACE OF ANYTHING. That CO2 gas molecule can radiate over better than 360 degrees CUBED directions and the higher the altitude of that molecule the more likely is the radiation to escape to space.
To conclude, this befuddled layman simply cannot see how carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere traps heat.
Reply
This was a major scientific issue over 60 years ago. In lab settings at 1atm pressure you do see overlap of the CO2 and H2O absorption bands, but when the Navy and Air Force of the U.S. began research into heat seeking missile technology they had to look at absorption and scattering at all levels of the atmosphere, and it was found that in the mid to upper troposphere there is not an overlap in absorption and thus CO2 can independently retain heat when concentration increases. CO2 is thus A) independently efficient at heat retention and B) not an easily condensed gas like H2O. Climate scientists actually are the best able to gauge climate science. The debates are settled in peer review as you know, and people who don’t agree with the consensus view have a pretty poor track record. Take a closer look at Roy Spencer. He claims that his new model shows lower climate sensitivity than the consensus, but a quick overview of his model shows the following failings:
1) The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered
2) The model assigns an ocean process (El Niño cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
3) The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
4) The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
5) The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature
6) The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
7) The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
8) The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
9) The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Why is Roy considered a quality scientist able to refute the great majority of his colleagues? His presence in this debate is way out of proportion to his skill set. I think politics may be a factor with Roy’s popularity. He sure isn’t a good scientist.
I have just found this ref to Radiation from:- Prof Spencer global warming.
That climate modelers can only explain our current warmth by including extra carbon dioxide in their models only displays our lack of understanding
of natural climate variability
_________
The jury is not agreed on CO2 at all. If we need to argue a theory of particle physics ref. radiating the lower frequencies, and most remaining on the earth. Also adding extra CO2 into their models to get the answer that was decided first, then it still looks dubious to me.
Look, I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have an RAF HND in physics from the 50’s, I have worked with Bio Physicists and learned to ask logical questions.
The question of cause and its effect never being reversed still holds for me.
In the past (35 years ago) I wrote a basic computer program to simulate a set of accounts. The answer was already known, and the program was adjusted to produce it.
I don’t trust anyone who follows an agenda to achieve the desired result.
This is the Dr. Roy Spencer who made sign errors in his satellite work, has made models shown to have ignored some of the most important known physics and cherry picking other forcers and exaggerating them to the point that editors have resigned their post over the embarrassment of having let Dr. Spencer’s paper into publication (Remote Sensing, 2013 incident)? This is the Roy Spencer who despite having geology training is a young earth creationist? There is a reason we have to point out that 97% of climate scientists disagree with Roy, not just to be disagreeable, but because Roy has made repeated errors in his work that belie a prejudice in his work. His own history has eroded his scientific credibility. Last time I visited Roy’s website, he mentioned clouds being a positive feedback was a central tenet of the IPCC 4AR. I looked it up and clouds were still categorized as either positive or negative in it’s error bars. Water vapor was solidly a positive feedback. This is too simple of an error for Roy to make and hold credibility. He is mostly doing politics, and his science is very suspect. So you know I’m not just making ad hominem attacks on Dr. Spencer (though I know my bringing up his creationist stance borders on it), I have reposted a thorough examination of Dr. Spencer’s work and errors as a response to Patriot above. Roy has a pattern of making errors in a way that allow him to contradict the current best science.
A small point, and I feel sure that you probably never meant to say the grid stores energy, it stores nothing of course, its just a very inefficient electrical distribution system, The best we have but the here in UK we allow for 28% energy losses. That lost from wind turbines and photovoltaic cells makes a cost efficiency joke of green energy.
We don’t need to understand a mechanism to enable its use.
It happens that we don’t understand the direction of electrical flow, and we have conflicting theories that are all useful. They can not all be true, however we can still use electricity. A theory is only one possible explanation of a mechanism, it is not always the truth nor is it a substitute for a law of science.
Thermionic electron transmission, and Transistor theory are examples.
And when we do understand a mechanism, how much more useful for prediction. The Navy studies showed the exact absorptive characteristics at various levels of the atmosphere, and because we know this, we can talk with certainty about the greenhouse effect.
THX-MUCH
So can we assume that this Seth Borenstein is a self serving, bought and paid for lousy stinking filthy liar?
NOAA always puts out the monthly average in the following month, usually half way through the month. I can’t speak to Borenstein’s motivations, but NOAA had none and just reported the fact that August 2014 is the hottest month ever recorded. Strange that people would have a problem with someone reporting this fact.
Cold in winter…global cooling
Warm in spring…global warming
Hot in summer…global warming
Cool in autumn…global cooling
All of the above – weather. Not climate.
people who believe in global warming are ATHEIST !!!!
Sorry, but you have been misled. I regard myself as an atheist and I am against the AGW promotion. You need to re-examine your beliefs.
IanM
He did not say all atheists believed in global warming.
It is true that many climate science refuters are also creationists. I often think that getting climate science from CFACT, Heartland, ALEC, AEI, or the Marshall institute is like get evolution science from the ICR or Discovery Institute. We need to teach people that science does not work through secondary sources.
So called “research” with guessing at the distant past temperatures and composition of the atmosphere from ancient ice cores and tree rings is at best “maybe” or “somewhat accurate”. The only real data has been experienced in the last 6 decades, not near enough for their claim. Besides, their e-mail exchanges from the past decade show a dubious side of manufactured data and climate models that are manipulated to support their political agenda. The Earth/Sun system shows that the Milankovitch effect plays a minor role in cyclic heating/cooling while the Suns varying energy out put (solar storms) cause significant climate changes. After all the Sun is a massive nuclear furnace without a thermostat. In addition the Earths massive molten core, ~2,000*F, “leaks” in thousands of locations. Volcanoes, both land and ocean bottom, and geothermal zones release massive amounts of energy and toxic “green house” gasses that disrupt the worlds economies and populations. But the enviro-mental whackos can’t control these events, so the next best thing to control is the political environment. Oh, I just remember another heat source …. hot gasses from the liberal, progressive elites that think they know better how to manage things. Their utopia universe has failed numerous times, but they refuse to give up. That’s what communist do.
“hot gasses from the liberal, progressive elites ” Does this mean that when they open their mouths to speak that they have fart breath?
And since the Sun’s output has been decreasing over the last half century, and Milankovitch is still in the cooling trend, we will have to look elsewhere for a cause of the temperature increase of the last half century.
Long-Haired, Maggot-Infested, Dope-Smoken’, F.M.-Type, Environmentalist-Wackos, They all need their breathing curtailed. It would also help clean-up the Gene-Pool problem.
FACT: The world has been warming since the last ice age. So does that mean that the cave men have been using to much fuel for hundreds of years? This is nothing more than taking from those who produce and giving it to those who can steal from the pile then dole out penny’s to the groups they pick. The same people who believe the Global warming crap also believe everything Barak Obunghole says.
Not exactly a fact. Since the last ice age we have not been warming. Milankovitch forcing did start a cooling trend 6000 years ago which should continue for another 23,000 years, but clearly something has hijacked that trend. Can’t be the Sun because its output has been decreasing since the mid 1900’s. Can’t be the oceans because they’ve warmed too. We do know greenhouse gases warm and that we are introducing more greenhouse gasses due to burning of fossil fuels.
If we have not been warming since the last ice age, what made the ice melt? Climate Change due to cave men burning fuel?
We obviously warmed since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 23ky. But that warming forcer has turned around and are now in their cooling phase. The orbital forcers took a turn from warming to cooling 6000 years ago. This comes from the paper by Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979. They pointed out that Milankovitch forcing went from warming to cooling 6000 years ago, and that absent of other factors should continue that cooling trend for the next 23,000 years. The warming in this last century is in direct opposite direction of this type of forcing. But another thing to note is that because orbital forcers work on the tens of thousands of years scale, it doesn’t have much of an effect over the century time scale we have been seeing this recent warming.
Climate Change is a joke!! It is all political and for MONEY! intelligent Americans can see through this lie!
If you read CFACT or Gordon above, yes it is all political. The science is not.
Climate change garbage is nothing more that a way to tax people, bring in revenue, and make a few billion for the priviledged few. Al Gore has made almost two hundred million on climate change speeches. Other’s stand to make as much or more. And Al Gore doesn’t know any more about climate change than I do or anyone else does for that matter. He, like all the others are in it for the money and you can bet they care nothing about the adverse effect on the economy, industry, lower and middle class that use wood, oil or coal for fuel. I wish the temperature would suddenly drop to 100 below zero while Gore is outside taking a whiz in the woods. But then on the other hand, I wish the same for Obunhole, his female chimp, Reid, Holder, Pelosi, Biden and every other libera ahole in congress and those that support these criminals. WHEW………What a rant, so I must stop.
THE OBABA WH IS USING THESE REPORTS TO FURTHER HIS CAP AND TRADE POLICIES. WHICH MEANS THE PRES IS USING FRAUDULENT REPORTS TO FURTHER HIS MUSLIM MARXIST STRATEGIES. BASICALLLY HE IS LYING AND CHEATING TO FURTHER HIS FANTASIES OF A US MARXIST of AMERICA. FREEDOM STRIPPING HAS ALREADY BEGUN…..GOD HELP US
The newest defense of the CC people are to claim that there has never been any fraud and people just do not ( are incapable) of understanding reality. I was watching “Breaking Bad” last night and realized that Obama must be a huge fan of it. Especially the “If anything could go wrong” aspect of it.
There has not been fraud in the science. What do you feel like you can’t understand?
AAARRRRRGGgggggggggg!
lmao…. I wonder where the term ‘Junk Science’ came from. Actually, I no longer have to wonder after digging deep into supposedly “scientific” research of which have become so politically biased I’ve seen peer-reviewed papers where the data collected went one way and the “scientific” conclusion was EXACTLY the opposite.
It’s utterly horrible what activists and hype has done to the scientific field.
You guys never seem to be able to give specifics. Here is the source of your junk term: “Author Dan Agin in his book Junk Science harshly criticized those who deny the basic premise of global warming, while former Fox News commentator Steven Milloy has extensively denounced research linking the fossil fuel industry to climate change, on his website junkscience.com.” That is more a political term than a point of rational discussion. Waiting for a single issue to be presented.
Specifics are all over the place – Below are just a few but getting at the truth requires a lot of time so you want more examples I’m sure if your dedicated you’ll find them.
Junk Science is so abundant – some students experimented with how far junk can go ( http://www.dhmo.org/ ).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcibsUqN2A
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-reveals-that-a-lot-of-psychology-research-really-is-just-psycho-babble-10474646.html
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
That was the opposite of giving a specific example. Peer reviewed gets extra attention.
Your just making stuff up now and being utterly lazy. These are actual case studies from well known outlets.
2nd link peer-review list @ https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1913/2517753
3rd link having 27-listed right at the top
4th link you must purchase to see.
Here’s one detailing Propaganda in Junk Science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2173898/
It’s as plain as day for anyone who has 1/2 a brain – just about any main stream “Political Debate” is lined with Junk Science. Do we debate harmful effects of eating rat poison? NO – because that’s real science and EVERYONE knows and sees it; its repeatable and constant. No one is seeing the earth fall apart and they’ve been saying it will since 1980s. Ever heard of the Ice Age?? OMG – talk about ‘Global Warming’ except humans weren’t even evolved yet.
We are discussing climate science specifically in this thread. I asked if anyone could give a single example of a fatal issue with climate science as it stands. You gave a shotgun of non-related posts, not related to climate science, and think you did something worthwhile here. Try again. Or now that we see you just think science you don’t like is “junk science” and don’t even note when the posts you’ve made have been overturned (e.g. the Penn and Teller piece they themselves have walked back on if you pay any attention). If you had 1/8 of a brain . . .
Actually, no, this all started with your “belief” that, “There has not been fraud in the science.” That is your exact statement. I’ve demonstrated a debunking of the so called main stream junk science and now you try to grab at straws saying its off subject.
And as expected of the ‘religious’ cheerleader mentality –
stating that Penn & Tellers on the spot drilling by an angry guest ( a disgruntled cheerleader of course ) reply that perhaps ONE recent study may have a tiny amount of substance as “walking back” on everything they’ve ever researched, all court rulings ever made, and all the other items ever presented.
Just proves that the subject isn’t science at all but their own personal religion instead.
How do we know the earth is falling?? BOOM, you claim, “…because a drop of rain fell from the sky.” Doesn’t matter that science has demonstrated the rain is water always and consistently; the sky is falling screams the faithful cheerleader.
The worse part of the ‘religious’ cheerleader pack is that no amount of human suffering they cause will ever sway their attempt at self-preserving a BELIEF setup against all odds.
And still not a word on climate science. If you have such a problem with science in general, stop using your computer.
If my computer was as “Scientifically” reliable as Climate Science its dust collection off-state 0.2 degree temperature increase would’ve already knocked out all its microchips and ended the world.
Thank goodness it’s not based on Junk Science or nothing about it would work as predicted, expected or with any amount of repeatable consistency.
Believe what you want – but until your “religion” contains some amount of consistency and predictable repeat-ability of the cause and effect claimed – keep it the the heck out of the legislative system. Face it; there’s more promising statistics around UN-wed mothers and criminal children than there is around climate science and neither one has any right to be part of the FORCE behind the legislative system.
Hey look, you finally used the word climate in a climate science discussion, and yet said nothing useful nor specific as requested. I think we’re done here. You’ve shown what you can do.
August 2014 = the hottest August ever recorded. September 2014 = hottest September ever recorded. NH Summer 2014 = hottest Summer ever recorded. Hype that CFACT.
Not here in Cornwall UK, the best summer for ten years perhaps but I do remember better ones. Observation over 70 plus years and not hype at all.
2017 – Record low temperatures not seen since early 1900s sweep across the nation.
So now it’s “local climate change” that counts? Guess you discounted roads melting in Australia due to its recent heat wave. But do tell us how global climate science is contrary to local weather. Let me tighten my head vice.