Roy Spencer

I think GISS is not trustworthy. Honestly, they engage in data tampering and manipulation and they're not honest about historical climate data and it's limitations (prior to satellite era). The margin of error for data prior to satellite era is higher than the observed warming in the 20th century. UAH is a good resource (University of Alabama-Huntsville in conjunction with NASA, albeit a different department than GISS) and they show a 0.13C per decade trend since the 80s. That being said, because global temps are not evenly distributed, some areas are experiencing cooler temps and some areas are experiencing warmer temps. Averages hide a lot of nuance. See below for latest chart from UAH: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-…

There are no models from standard institutions that I'm aware of in which projected climate change destroys all multi-cellular life, that's exactly the kind of absurdly over the top claim the article is arguing against. Go look at long term temperature graphs over time and then look at current temperature trends as measured by satellites: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ They show a slight warming trend, but still quite under the projections and nowhere near enough to cause more than economic disruption, let alone destroy humans, let alone all multi-cellular life. The climate has had far greater extremes in the past and multi-cellular life was just fine.

Thanks for the link, that's interesting. But, please, have a look on this site as well: http://www.drroyspencer.com.

Knowledge needs to be cheaper to verify than to produce. Otherwise it's simply not worthwhile to produce at all. Choosing to trust "authority" doesn't fix anything. One still has to be the smartest person in the world at determining who's right. If you show me a battery you say lasts longer, I can verify your claim quite easily. If it doesn't last longer, without knowing a single thing about batteries, I have every reason to believe I'm right and you're wrong. There's a chance I am in fact wrong, but I'll be expecting you to put in the effort to convince me otherwise. If someone tells me to significantly change my life based off their climate models, and they laughably fail [0], I have every reason to believe they don't have a good climate model. If they don't have a good explanation, and even worse, get angsty when asked for one, I'm out. It's perfectly possible some small group of people or even an individual possesses knowledge that could save the world from imminent destruction or produce some great benefit. But if there's no way to verify such knowledge, there's no reason to care about it. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-J…

You can't see predictions come true by watching the news because, as climatologists love to say every time there's a cold snap, climate isn't weather. And they're right. Climatology is all about long term averages. Unfortunately whenever there's a fire or hot spell somewhere on Earth, they stay rather silent whilst the media and even their colleagues ignore this and use it to ramp up the fear factor yet again. For example the recent hot weather in western Europe should be recalled with colder/wetter than average weather last year, and in other parts of the world this year. Also note that the news never reports on climate-related good news (the recent coral growth being a rare exception). The models have always over-estimated warming. Things haven't been warming faster than they predicted, they've warmed slower. Claims to the contrary are the sort of retroactive rewriting of history that makes climatology seem so untrustworthy. If you plot model predictions against reality you get charts like these: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-… The blue dotted line is satellite observations. The green dotted line is temperature as measured by averaging surface level thermometers from weather stations. Notice how those two measurements don't agree at all. That's because the surface datasets are heavily corrupted by various factors (ask for details if you're curious). But also notice that both are running well below the…

I can only ask that you read some Stuff From The Other Side Of The Argument... http://www.drroyspencer.com/ is a good start on that. I'm already being downvoted on here - proof that there are a substantial number of HN users who have Made Up Their Minds on this, and simply do not want to even consider that they have been bamboozled by various interested parties. I realise that no one likes to either admit they've been fooled by someone/a group of people, or simply that their view of the world around them is simply wrong - still, no reason to use HN's downvoting as a weapon against those who would otherwise try to post a contrary view. Still, it's fascinating to be downvoted simply for offering a contrary opinion. As an interesting but connected sidenote: I've noticed on here that numerous HN submissions which tend towards CO2 demonization get upvoted and are filled with the Convinced, whereas the various articles I have submitted which tend to question this either get zero attention or are downvoted to obliviion. Whatever, and so be it.

It may be a heat pulse from the core - which is related to the recent rotational speedup. This can release large quantities of heat into the ocean. https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/ Excerpt: Observation 7 (Deductive-Falsifying-Consilient) – El Cuervo Blanco – Spring 2023 Global and North Atlantic Heat Plume – 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 weeks of 2023, far too fast for the atmosphere or man to serve as the cause. A record level Antarctic ice melt-off occurred simultaneously to this and during a record cold winter The abrupt ocean heating is also reflected in the recent spike in satellite tropospheric temperature measurements. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for…

I found this forecast https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CO2-model-vs-MLO-1950-…

According to the satellite data, this June was fairly average: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Bundling with ocean surface temperature may make it hotter. But then again, why would you do that?

Interesting that until Remote Sensing Systems revised their historical data six years ago, no warming trend was evident. How could they have been so wrong for such a long time? https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-1… https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tro…

Isn't that a repetition? Predictions based on assuming a perfectly understood relationship that led to 6 degree predictions, combined with no reduction in CO2 growth and yet a much less than 6 degree rise = way off base. What else would you call such a prediction? BTW I don't think many people were actually predicting 6 degrees so this is a bit academic. 6 degree rise sounds more like the IPCC's discredit "business as usual" RCP8.5 scenario. Most models predict a linear-ish trend of about 0.25C per decade, as you'd expect given their underlying premise that warming is all driven by CO2 and CO2 increases more or less linearly: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global… https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

There's nothing incomprehensible about it. There are plenty of reasons for it with a large high temperature contribution. Certainly it's disastrous and tragic but it's not new. In 1974-1975, almost 15% of the total area of Australia was burnt. As of 7th January, the area burnt (it will clearly increase) is less than 10% of that destroyed in the earlier conflagration. https://www.australiasevereweather.com/fires/history.htm 'An integral part of the Australian environment' https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/6C98BB75496A5AD1CA2569DE002… https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/are-australia-bushfires-worsening…

I follow some websites casually, usually daily, to get an idea of what the numbers are showing me. It's just a ritual I go through in the mornings before going to work. When I want to see where we are temperature-wise, I go to http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ for the latest satellite monthly temperatures. The What's Up with That? website (which is strongly biased towards the "denier" side of the debate) has a great collection of graphs related to arctic and antarctic sea ice: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ I go to http://spaceweather.com/ to watch the sunspot numbers (just for curiosity sake), http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ for sea level information, and http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyea… to see if we're in an El Nino or a La Nina (or somewhere in the middle).

Good question! According to this article, the bottom of the emergency spillway is indeed bedrock: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/why-the-oroville-dam-wont-fail/

> ...and is in fact an ardent denier who compared those who do believe that climate change is a serious threat 'nazis'. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-glob… You're putting a spin on what he believes, and how the nazis thing got started.

Apparently there's nothing to see here - check out this as a counterpoint: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/06/climate-system-scientist-claims-je…

Here's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-f… 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-e…

Not the most credible looking site, but the graphic seems well cited: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-f…

That blog post is from 2009. Five years later, there has been no temperature spike. In fact, there has been no increment. But what is interesting is not anyones definition of pause or hiatus or whatever. It's the comparison between predictions of climate models and real temperatures. And the models are really, really bad at predicting reality: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-obs… If this trend continues, real temperatures will fall below the error range of all models.

'As humans, it’s clear we need to tackle the direness that is global warming' rather assumes we have access to the knobs that do the controlling. Meanwhile 'ocean surface warming appears to have stalled since at least the early 2000′s. The global average sea surface temperature (SST) update for Feb. 2013 is -0.01 deg. C, relative to the 2003-2006 average. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/global-microwave-sea-surface-tempe…

Considering how strongly your sources disagree with the OP, I find it surprising that the opposing graphs are not all that far off from each other. The graph from the last article you linked to: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png The graph from the OP: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-… In both cases the actuals are at the low end of the predicted range. They disagree as to how low, obviously, but not as much as I expected.

>> Not sure how this would even be accomplished. Essentially an end to fossil-fuel combustion as far as is technologically feasible. A large-scale rollout of nuclear power, replacing literally everything, with enough capacity to cover the peaks. Large-scale electric vehicle rollout where feasible, large-scale synthetic-liquid fuel (derived from nuclear energy and atmospheric sources) rolled out where direct electric is infeasible (colder climates and aircraft). http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jrse/4/3/10.1063/1.471972… There is no technical impediment to a large-scale nuclear rollout. We literally have unlimited power at our fingertips and we cannot find the will to use it. The only thing we need is the political will to solve the waste disposal problem - which is another of those problems that humanity refuses to solve until their house is burning down. Between reprocessing and our geologically-sound repositories we can easily solve the problem until we have cheap and reliable launch capability in 50-100 years (eg launch loop) and launch it into the sun. Arguably we have that now - the Atlas-V has done 106 consecutive successful launches now. This is actually why I say that we need to solve energy consumption on a long-term basis as well. Nuclear is so good that we will literally poison our planet with waste heat unless we preemptively solve that problem. Depending on your figures the impact of waste heat is between 1% and 50% as significant as the…

I'm typically not a fan of ad hominem dismissals, but I think there are exceptions for climatologists that say; "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." Or; "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." Dude's a quack. A well-trained quack to be sure, but still a quack. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-glob…

> You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change. > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher. Some of that data is reviewed in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421… The way too high predictions are plotted in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-… > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature…

Thanks ctstover for getting the ball rolling... An even more egregious quote is "Last week, I wrote about new evidence that shows Earth’s climate system has moved into an unprecedented state over the last several months, at least since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago." We have no exact data on what temperatures were like during the Medieval Warm Period or other earlier warm periods (Roman and Minoan, both less than 4000 years ago). There is no way to say whether or not El Niño conditions caused higher spikes during those times, but it's highly likely they did based on simple statistics. http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png The other rather important data is that the biggest spike in average global temperature during the 1998 El Niño was considerably higher than the current spike so far. In fact, so far this spike has not even topped 2010. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Octobe… In short, this is breathless hype from Salon, promoting climate related panic in the hopes of pushing through a globalist agenda at the upcoming climate conference. Shameful!