Pages

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 Charles Johnson  May 8, 2010 10:07:40am

This is complete, 100% unmitigated bullshit. Dr. Roy Spencer is a creationist, and he has ZERO credibility as a climate scientist. I’m honestly disgusted and appalled that you’re posting this pseudo-scientific garbage at LGF.

2 freetoken  May 8, 2010 1:03:01pm

One thing about which to be very careful, when dealing with the AGW-skeptic industry in particular, is the mis-representation of published papers.

In particular, a paper may be about a very specific issue, yet in a blog or opinion piece somewhere that paper is referred to as somehow supporting a different idea.

A link to Spencer’s paper, pre-release, can be found at the JGR web page ( agu.org ) but is not available to the general public.

One of the slippery pieces is in this paragraph:

Without going into the detailed justification, we have found that the most robust method for feedback estimation is to compute the month-to-month slopes (seen as the line segments in the above graph), and sort them from the largest 1-month temperature changes to the smallest (ignoring the distinction between warming and cooling)…

“Most robust” is a comparison… and one must ask exactly what Spencer is comparing, and why. He most certainly is not addressing the hard problems in paleoclimatology, where in the past it has been shown that smaller changes in CO2 than what man is accomplishing yielded very significant sensitivity.

Spencer and his cohort Christy have been at this for a while, continually arguing the same assertion over and over. They have been rather bludgeoned by their colleagues in the past, and I expect Spencer to be so again this time.

Again, beware of what Spencer actually publishes in his scientific papers (which have to be edited by people who know the subject) versus what he says on his blog.

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  May 8, 2010 6:50:52pm

Is there some particular reason you are incapable of looking at actual science rather than this complete pack of lies?

This starts with falsehoods and continues to more falsehoods leading to a false conclusion.

The second you see a “graph” as shoddily produced and unreadable as the one presented, you know you are dealing with bullshit.

Then you have:

Simple linear regression yields a net feedback factor of 5.8 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating with global warming, then it would amount to only 0.6 deg. C of human-caused warming by late in this century. (Use of sea surface temperatures instead of tropospheric temperatures yields a value of over 11).

First off, he did the math wrong. You can not just do a simple linear regression. Rather than typing an essay as to why, I invite you to learn some basic science and statistics as to why. To those who do know science this does not pass the giggle test.

More importantly, if what he was saying was true, and it is not, the Earth would be cooling… Yet it is not. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and it contained three of the warmest years on record. The second warmest decade on record was the 90’s, the third was the 80’s, and the forth was the 70’s.

Now I want you to re-read that last part. If what you have stupidly regurgitated was true, the Earth would be cooling.

It is not.

That puts paid to your argument and ends it right there. That is how science works. Your hypothesis was disproved by the data.

4 studentpatriot  May 9, 2010 8:08:03am

re: #1 Charles

Spencer is routinely publishing in top-ranked journals, and has obviously earned his seat at the climate science table. Science is an ongoing discussion, and attacking someone for religious or political beliefs is simply outside the scope of the science discussion. It is poor form.
Does the head of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project fame, have credibility issues because of his faith?

It is clear that the accurate diagnosis of short-term feedbacks – let alone long-term
climate sensitivity
— from observations of natural fluctuations in the climate system is far
from a solved problem. As we have seen, the presence of non-feedback, internally
generated radiative forcing confounds the identification of radiative feedback.
Nevertheless, it is hoped that the insights provided here — all explained within the
forcing-feedback paradigm of climate variability – will lead to new and more accurate
methods of feedback and climate sensitivity diagnosis from satellite observations, as well
as better metrics for the testing the climate sensitivity of coupled climate models.

This is from Spencer’s peer-reviewed paper (thanks for the link freetoken). If it was as objectionable as some on here imply, the reviewers and editors would not have let it be published.

I believe Spencer’s paper delivers a new tool to improve climate modeling that is the driving force behind a billion dollar global industry.

Finally, humankind should hope that people like Spencer are correct in their assertation that CO2 caused warming isn’t as dire as currently predicted - that would give more time for greener technologies to mature and less death and destruction from climate change.

Direct your vitriol at charlatans, not serious scientists that actually publish their work in top journals.

5 studentpatriot  May 9, 2010 8:14:57am

re: #3 LudwigVanQuixote

From your post:

If this was the feedback operating with global warming, then it would amount to only 0.6 deg. C of human-caused warming by late in this century.

Spencer says there is warming, just that it would only be 0.6 deg C by 2100.

Dial it down 3 notches and go read the peer-reviewed, published paper to which freetoken links.

6 Charles Johnson  May 9, 2010 7:34:49pm

re: #4 studentpatriot

Spencer is routinely publishing in top-ranked journals, and has obviously earned his seat at the climate science table. Science is an ongoing discussion, and attacking someone for religious or political beliefs is simply outside the scope of the science discussion. It is poor form.

No, what is “poor form” is presenting the pseudoscientific raving of a creationist as if it were equivalent to real science. It has nothing to do with religion — this is about reality.

You don’t get to just say, “Sure, he’s a creationist, but we should listen to what he says about climate science.”

When someone is enough of a crackpot that they promote creationism, that destroys their credibility as a scientific expert on anything. There’s no better example of a charlatan than a creationist pretending to be a scientist.

7 studentpatriot  May 10, 2010 3:37:03am

re: #6 Charles

You don’t get to just say, “Sure, he’s a creationist, but we should listen to what he says about climate science.”…When someone is enough of a crackpot that they promote creationism, that destroys their credibility as a scientific expert on anything. There’s no better example of a charlatan than a creationist pretending to be a scientist..”

There is no purity test for scientists other than their ability to publish in top ranked journals and add to the discussion. Religion, race, or sexual orientation do not play a role in their credibility or their ability to contribute.

I come back to Francis Collins, the head of the National Institute of Health which oversees the funding of 90% of U.S. biomedical research. He believes in at least intelligent design working through the process of evolution. I don’t think he is quite a creationist, but I also don’t think that Francis Collins would ignore everything Spencer says because he is a creationist.

Purity tests are a slippery slope.

No, what is “poor form” is presenting the pseudoscientific raving of a creationist as if it were equivalent to real science. It has nothing to do with religion — this is about reality.

Again, I come back to publications in top ranked peer reviewed journals. For someone so far outside the mainstream to be able to publish in a journal of JGR caliber, the work is probably better than average. The editors might be holding their nose as they do it, but they have the scientific integrity to let real, important contributions see the light of day.

Admitting Spencer has some valid arguments doesn’t mean you have to give up your belief in man-made global warming.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Playing With AI-Generated “Art”I haven't really explored NightCafe's free online AI Art Generator (creator.nightcafe.studio) tool yet. I have only done some preliminary tinkering around with it but, I have to say, I'm more impressed with the results than I anticipated considering how little ...
dat_said
23 hours, 21 minutes ago
Views: 137 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 •
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Views: 1,450 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •