Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Editor of MPDI "Remote Sensing" publishes editorial claiming Spencer and Braswell (2011) should have never been published....

chris87

By chris87,
in Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Sunny and Warm

Sunny and Warm

Posted
Posted

Spencer is a denier of mainstream science. One of a very few active climatologists who rail against the consensus, such as the often cited 97% - 3%. Spencer resides in the 3% of opinion. As such, he is an activist for his agenda, which is to refute AGW on his blog, for profit book sales and in his attempts at peer-reviewed science.

He does make predictions. He predicts that AGW is crap science and offers up as of yet unsupported science to back it up.

similar to Galileo I suppose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunny and Warm

Sunny and Warm

Posted
Posted

You're taking your science lessons from Rick Perry I see? That was one of the more amusing comments of the debate.

Galileo was up against the CHURCH and the church's pseudo-scientists. NOT the consensus of rigorous scientific work and the scientific method.

that is an adequate description of AGW scientists. Your use of the word "rigorous" is almost as comical as when these pseudo-scientists use the word. Let us remember that the use of the word rigorous is a defensive mechanism deployed when the author already knows he is being less than rigorous. Please point out the use of the scientific method by the AGW crowd while you're at it in the context of making a direct prediction of future warming due to CO2. What I see is a use of the scientific method to prove CO2 has a positive feedback, but nothing that proves all the wild claims about temps, extreme events, ocean level rise, blah, blah, blah as related back to CO2. Please connect the dots. Finally, don't you ever get tired of defending these booobs who masquerade as scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chris87

chris87

Posted
  • Author
Posted

you can't be so dense as to misunderstand the intent of my comment, can you?? My God, take off the AGW glasses for a change and see what the real world is like.

making fun of your ridiculous comment has nothing to do with my viewpoints on climate change....laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chris87

chris87

Posted
  • Author
Posted

still smarting over the comment I made about your capabilities I see. My opinion of you hasn't changed either sunshine. Now back to our regular programming. :arrowhead:

you're right I'm dense....my background in this field is significantly more dense than yours...do you mind stating your background?

I hope you're a hobbyist.....big mouth...bigger gap in knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WeatherRusty

WeatherRusty

Posted
Posted

that is an adequate description of AGW scientists. Your use of the word "rigorous" is almost as comical as when these pseudo-scientists use the word. Let us remember that the use of the word rigorous is a defensive mechanism deployed when the author already knows he is being less than rigorous. Please point out the use of the scientific method by the AGW crowd while you're at it in the context of making a direct prediction of future warming due to CO2. What I see is a use of the scientific method to prove CO2 has a positive feedback, but nothing that proves all the wild claims about temps, extreme events, ocean level rise, blah, blah, blah as related back to CO2. Please connect the dots. Finally, don't you ever get tired of defending these booobs who masquerade as scientists?

Two things here:

1) The derivation of 1.2C per doubling of CO2 is found from the scientific study of radiative transfer and the application of fundamental principles of science such as the Planck Law, Wein's Displacement Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law which relate how radiative energy determines temperature. No one disputes that 2X CO2 = a Planck Response of ~1.2C.

2) Feedback is not to CO2. Feedback is to temperature change. Feedback is to the 1.2C forced by a doubling of CO2. By studying how climate has been affected by past climate forcings, it can be roughly determined how much total temperature change will be created by a forcing the equal of 1 doubling of CO2 or 3.7W/m^2. This will not be 1.2C, or the simple Planck Response, because the climate system will react to a semi- permanent change in temperature by either amplifying or muting the Planck Response as physical processes dependent on temperature adjust to the new temperature. We know the net feedback to be positive because any of the past radiative forced changes of the past 3 million years fail to account for anywhere near a Planck Response sufficient to explain as much as 6C or more temperature variation evident in the record.

Sounds like science to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

I haven't commented on this until now. But I think this type of behavior is a disgrace to science in general. And I do not think it is exclusive to Spencer...I am fully aware that this goes on elsewhere. But it just shows that we have to be careful in believing what we read. They provide evidence, but its up to us to interpret it. Most of the time (esp those not very geared into the sciences), we just have to take their word for it....but for science savvy people, its often reading the evidence and coming to your own conclusions.

I think Spencer is a bit of a hack personally, but I'm disappointed this paper got bad press not because its a good paper (it wasn't), but because the idea behind it is extremely valid...he is trying to start digging into the biggest problem with AGW theory of the last decade....no global temp increase and no OHC increase. That is slight hyperbole for anyone who wants to get extremely nitpicky but you know what I mean.

But the premise behind this is a question I think every single objective scientist is trying to answer...why is OHC and Global temp basically flat lining the last decade for all intents and purposes? I'm sure there will be a lot more papers on this soon because Trenberth just got a uber fast peer review out disputing this, and now Spencer will probably retort....but I think its the most important question in AGW at the current time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CAD_Wedge_NC

CAD_Wedge_NC

Posted
Posted

I know this is slightly "off topic" but I agree that the increase in CO2 has, and will, lead to more energy in the earth's atmosphere. It is pure physics. What most alarmists don't realize is the way the earth will handle that additional energy. How much more energy will be released into space with more potent storms brought on by this increase? As I have said before, this is where the science should be heading. The flat-line in global temps, and the more extreme weather, over the past few years must mean that the earth is attempting to balance out the effects of CO2 forcing. This will cause more severe weather and more violent storms but not the overall temperature increases that the AGW folks seem to think will happen. There is still a lot that we don't know about our climate system and hopefully the science will be pure and un-biased as we attempt to solve this riddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunny and Warm

Sunny and Warm

Posted
Posted

I know this is slightly "off topic" but I agree that the increase in CO2 has, and will, lead to more energy in the earth's atmosphere. It is pure physics. What most alarmists don't realize is the way the earth will handle that additional energy. How much more energy will be released into space with more potent storms brought on by this increase? As I have said before, this is where the science should be heading. The flat-line in global temps, and the more extreme weather, over the past few years must mean that the earth is attempting to balance out the effects of CO2 forcing. This will cause more severe weather and more violent storms but not the overall temperature increases that the AGW folks seem to think will happen. There is still a lot that we don't know about our climate system and hopefully the science will be pure and un-biased as we attempt to solve this riddle.

good post. I wish our tax money was better spent researching ALL of the science, and not cherry picking just the warm signals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chris87

chris87

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know this is slightly "off topic" but I agree that the increase in CO2 has, and will, lead to more energy in the earth's atmosphere. It is pure physics. What most alarmists don't realize is the way the earth will handle that additional energy. How much more energy will be released into space with more potent storms brought on by this increase? As I have said before, this is where the science should be heading. The flat-line in global temps, and the more extreme weather, over the past few years must mean that the earth is attempting to balance out the effects of CO2 forcing. This will cause more severe weather and more violent storms but not the overall temperature increases that the AGW folks seem to think will happen. There is still a lot that we don't know about our climate system and hopefully the science will be pure and un-biased as we attempt to solve this riddle.

I have never been sure why all the focus on climate change has been about temperature increases...human-induced changes with regards to water and food security (which goes beyond just CO2 forcing) is a much bigger threat than any human-induced increase in temperature, at least in a climatic short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunny and Warm

Sunny and Warm

Posted
Posted

I asked you for your qualifications...and you went back into your shell?

The definition of lame is someone who starts a thread and then continually trolls anyone that has a differing opinion than theirs in said thread. You fit in well with the AGW clique. You mock yourself without even knowing it. I know of no more closed mind on these forums than yours, and that says a lot. Take a break, seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tacoman25

tacoman25

Posted
Posted

it's not all focused solely on temperature in the wider literature, and there are tons of interdisciplinary papers and books being published which are addressing land use, scarcity issues, etc.

it's just that the vast majority of active posters in this forum only read wattsupwiththat.com.

Personally, I haven't read that blog in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...