Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Roy Spencer in Washington


jethro

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Much of the AGW theory rests upon positive feedback being in control of climate, CO2 alone cannot raise temperatures to the projected future levels forecast by the IPCC.

    Here is a testimony, made yesterday by Roy Spencer, in which he demonstrates climate sensitivity is actually dominated by negative feedback systems. The expected "warming in the pipeline" has been drastically over-estimated.

    The basis for this paper is observational evidence, taken from NASA and NOAA satellites; predictions made on this basis predict a warming of below 1c by the year 2100.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...te-sensitivity/

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 8
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Much of the AGW theory rests upon positive feedback being in control of climate, CO2 alone cannot raise temperatures to the projected future levels forecast by the IPCC.

    Here is a testimony, made yesterday by Roy Spencer, in which he demonstrates climate sensitivity is actually dominated by negative feedback systems. The expected "warming in the pipeline" has been drastically over-estimated.

    The basis for this paper is observational evidence, taken from NASA and NOAA satellites; predictions made on this basis predict a warming of below 1c by the year 2100.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...te-sensitivity/

    Best read in conjunction with this Real Climate critique imo. It's clear that the RC author (who's a Dr) think the assumptions Dr Spencer makes are unwarranted.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    Best read in conjunction with this Real Climate critique imo. It's clear that the RC author (who's a Dr) think the assumptions Dr Spencer makes are unwarranted.

    I'm sorry Dev but the vitriolic tone of that blog site instantly turns me off. I've had a quick scan as you'd posted the link, but I'd rather read a scientific denouncement of Spencer's work. RC, for me, is like trying to decipher impartial news from The Sun or any other red top.

    To put it into context, perhaps the testimony should be read in conjunction with this: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/essc/.

    I think it should be noted that Roy Spencer is a genuine scientist, working for a genuine, respected establishment; he has had a long and distinguished career. If he were not a respectable scientist with valid work and a qualified, informed opinion, he would not be testifying in Washington.

    Let's not forget, he has satellite data to substantiate his work - observed, real world, empirical evidence has always been used to test the validity of a theory. The theory is the weaker argument of the two, empirical observation the superior; regardless of what it shows.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    I'm sorry Dev but the vitriolic tone of that blog site instantly turns me off. I've had a quick scan as you'd posted the link, but I'd rather read a scientific denouncement of Spencer's work. RC, for me, is like trying to decipher impartial news from The Sun or any other red top.

    To put it into context, perhaps the testimony should be read in conjunction with this: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/essc/.

    I think it should be noted that Roy Spencer is a genuine scientist, working for a genuine, respected establishment; he has had a long and distinguished career. If he were not a respectable scientist with valid work and a qualified, informed opinion, he would not be testifying in Washington.

    Let's not forget, he has satellite data to substantiate his work - observed, real world, empirical evidence has always been used to test the validity of a theory. The theory is the weaker argument of the two, empirical observation the superior; regardless of what it shows.

    Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert is one of the worlds top atmosphere scientists. Of course ignoring him is an option (I pretty much ignore the vitriolic tone of 'Climate Audit'' and What's up with That' so I can understand the approach) but I have at least read both sides in this case...

    Imo 'RPH' makes some pretty compelling arguments - to me it's clear Dr Spencer makes a number of debatable assumption. I'm sure you'd urge me to ignore some of the extreme vitriol on WUWT and listen to the message, I'd urge you to do the same wrt RPH if that is how you perceive his piece.

    As to testifying in Washington, well, yes, Dr Spencer is a genuine scientist with several published papers. Dr Michael Mann also testified in Washington, has published numerous papers and, as we both know, its the continuing recipient of a torrent of abuse across the internet at the mention even of only his name - I fond it odd that so many people don't think his work valid when for the same reasons Dr Spencer's is :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert is one of the worlds top atmosphere scientists. Of course ignoring him is an option (I pretty much ignore the vitriolic tone of 'Climate Audit'' and What's up with That' so I can understand the approach) but I have at least read both sides in this case...

    Imo 'RPH' makes some pretty compelling arguments - to me it's clear Dr Spencer makes a number of debatable assumption. I'm sure you'd urge me to ignore some of the extreme vitriol on WUWT and listen to the message, I'd urge you to do the same wrt RPH if that is how you perceive his piece.

    As to testifying in Washington, well, yes, Dr Spencer is a genuine scientist with several published papers. Dr Michael Mann also testified in Washington, has published numerous papers and, as we both know, its the continuing recipient of a torrent of abuse across the internet at the mention even of only his name - I fond it odd that so many people don't think his work valid when for the same reasons Dr Spencer's is :)

    I too have read both sides.

    I'm not a lover of WUWT either; the last time I posted a piece on Spencer testifying in Washington, I posted the testimony alone. This was greeted with (I believe, if memory serves me, by yourself) a questioning of whether he had actually testified or whether it was merely a pre-presentational piece, as you could see no evidence of it actually having taken place. I figured this time, if the piece came from a well known site, then there would not be the same doubts.

    Could you please outline the number of assumptions Spencer has made, that are obvious to you?

    Manns's work or in particular, the hockey stick graph has been shown to be in-accurate - even the IPCC do not use it in it's original form. It's in-accuracy (in original form) is I believe, accepted?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    I too have read both sides.

    I'm not a lover of WUWT either; the last time I posted a piece on Spencer testifying in Washington, I posted the testimony alone. This was greeted with (I believe, if memory serves me, by yourself) a questioning of whether he had actually testified or whether it was merely a pre-presentational piece, as you could see no evidence of it actually having taken place. I figured this time, if the piece came from a well known site, then there would not be the same doubts.

    Can't remember that, but clearly he has now testified, just like Dr Mann has :)

    Could you please outline the number of assumptions Spencer has made, that are obvious to you?

    It's all in RPH's piece in particular the part headlined 'a cooking lesson', RP can explain it better than I can.

    Manns's work or in particular, the hockey stick graph has been shown to be in-accurate - even the IPCC do not use it in it's original form. It's in-accuracy (in original form) is I believe, accepted?

    Actually, it is in the IPCC report with all the other peer reviewed recons, and, afaik, accept by the science community as a valid paper. Of course in places like CA or WUWT it is normally describes as shown to be in-accurate but this is a matter of view really since none of us are going to be able to go back in time to find out...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Real Climate graph stops at 1998. How convenient to ignore the huge increase in manmade CO2 and the corresponding stable and then dropping temps of the last ten years.

    Can Real Climate explain the huge increase in manmade CO2 and no corresponding temp increases for the last ten years?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "Actually, it is in the IPCC report with all the other peer reviewed recons, and, afaik, accept by the science community as a valid paper. Of course in places like CA or WUWT it is normally describes as shown to be in-accurate but this is a matter of view really since none of us are going to be able to go back in time to find out...

    Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid."

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Washington...kersaddress.pdf

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
    Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid."

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Washington...kersaddress.pdf

    The PDO only really switched into the negative mode last year, the atlantic is still in the warm cycle. Any cooling or reduction in the rate of warming in the last 10 years prior to the middle of 2007 (when la nina and the negative PDO kicked in) is IMO down to a different factor. That's not to say that the PDO doesn't have an effect though.

    <_<

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...