New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[mistermack]

Of course it's going to be a sceptic who will produce this kind of work.
The alarmists simply do not WANT to know, so they are not going to do this kind of work.
However, Spencer is a well qualified climate scientist. And like any good scientist, he is prepared to look again and again at anything that needs correcting, as in 2005.
There's not much sign of that on the AGW side.

I see that all the criticism of this work is ad hominem in nature, and coming from activist bloggers, rather than scientific organisations.

He is pointing to discrepancies between the IPCC models, and the NASA Ceres figures.
It's not just him.
Before this, there was a widely accepted problem that nobody could find the extra heat that the Earth was supposed to have trapped.
The missing heat is the biggest ACKNOWLEDGED problem with AGW. It's accepted by activists and critics alike.

This explains that problem perfectly. It's not missing, It didn't stay. It was radiated and never trappped.

The IPCC models rely on speculative feedback mechanisms between CO2 and H2O vapour that clearly are not happening.

It's about time they admit that they overstated their case, and start again.

[Mysturji]

I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design.

Yeah, I saw that too.
If Yahoo! News didn't tip me off, "Alabama" should have. [/ad-hom]

[Animavore]

I see that all the criticism of this work is ad hominem in nature, and coming from activist bloggers, rather than scientific organisations.

Except I also quoted a link from a scientific source too. So you still lose.

Here it is again http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -feedback/

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.

As I've said. Come back to me when you have something.

[Eriku]

Keep at it, Mr. Mackey.

[Eriku]

In the book The Evolution Crisis[20] Spencer is quoted as saying:
"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..."

Yeah, I'll hitch my wagon to this man's keen sense of scientific reasoning.

[Animavore]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

[mistermack]

I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised when anybody supports that stuff. But intelligent design isn't any more or less ridiculous that the usual Christian creation rubbish. And if you only accepted science from atheists, you would be missing an awful lot.

The pro AGW side would lose a lot more supporters than the anti side, if you ignored all non-atheist opinion.

[Animavore]

I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised when anybody supports that stuff. But intelligent design isn't any more or less ridiculous that the usual Christian creation rubbish. And if you only accepted science from atheists, you would be missing an awful lot.

The pro AGW side would lose a lot more supporters than the anti side, if you ignored all non-atheist opinion.

Actually I only accept science from scientists. Not just from atheists. I also accept when a scientist's thesis has been absolutely excoriated instead of persisting in claiming it's right because my ideology dictates it.

[Santa_Claus]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

Yeah, I prefer the term "Climate Creationist"

Heat rising? who could have imagined that one?

[mistermack]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

[Animavore]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

Bye-bye.

[Eriku]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

I thought you weren't a big fan of ad homs?

[mistermack]

Actually I only accept science from scientists.

Well, actually, I judge the argument, not who is making it.
You can obediently take what you're fed, if you like.
I question all of it.

[mistermack]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

I thought you weren't a big fan of ad homs?

I simply repeated the accusation "you lose".
If you lose, you are a loser.

[Animavore]

Actually I only accept science from scientists.

Well, actually, I judge the argument, not who is making it.
You can obediently take what you're fed, if you like.
I question all of it.

Complete and utter bullshit. I didn't just judge who made it I also gave you a link which stated.
1. The results can not be replicated.

The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.

2. The model didn't account for oceans, El Nino, and clouds.

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -feedback/

Also, the ad hominem is valid in this case because it shows that he is incapable of making sound judgement on scientific issues (being an ID proponent) and that he has admitting doing something like this before in 2005 (see my third link on previous page).