Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction Caused by Cold?

Deuce said:

You'll notice your chart only deviates significantly after 1998 or so.

Short-term variations do not statistically disprove the models.

Furthermore, solar output was lower than these models expected.

There's also a reason you were shown surface-50,000 foot temperatures instead of surface temperatures

Click to expand...

20 years is short term now..

When does it become long term?

flogger said:

You mean you want to smooth out all the of divergence to make the models seem to work ? Funny thing is I'll bet you'll be the first on the bandwagon when Schmidt proclaims a new hottest year ever as he does every year


There is nothing whatsoever that is 'unusual' about the start date as you have already been told


Do you somehow imagine the slope of that divergence is going to suddely change over that period using the same models ?

This divergence between model predictions and observations has been widely accepted. Sorry fella but you lost just take the hit
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

In short if the known climate behavior cannot be well-captured by the models, no case can be made for the veracity of projections, from the same models, of the future evolution of our climate — the projections which underlie current climate/energy policies.

Click to expand...

Good grief, are you honestly under the impression that you're somehow disproving or falsifying climate models here?

I showed that Dr. Spencer has circulated such comparison graph/s with large and unaccountable discrepancies between not only between known observations and what's marked on his graph, but even between his 'observational' data and Christy's! Discrepancies which tend to imply less warming and greater model/observation divergence. You haven't even attempted to address this point, instead desperately trying to provoke speculation about motivation for that deception.

The unreliability of Spencer's data raised legitimate concerns about the objectivity of information from his colleague Dr. Christy. I noted in my second post on the subject that the issue is "not that the data is incorrect, but that it has multiple, unusual display features (baseline, smoothing and uncertainty/spreads) which all serve to increase the visual appearance of model-observation divergence:

1-year baseline, inconsistent smoothing from 2013 forwards, no model and observation spreads:

10-year baseline, consistent smoothing, observational spread and 95% model envelope:

That was five posts ago now. The model-observation divergence is the same in both graphs (besides inconsistent smoothing in the former), so a key question here is why are you so obsessed with using the first graph rather than the second?

Hell, you haven't even been talking about models:
- In which years/period do models and observations match?
- Are they compatible in periods where historical values for variables like solar, ENSO and volcanism are used?
- In which years/period do models and observation diverge?
- Are they divergent for periods where preset values for variables like solar, ENSO and volcanism are used?
- If so, does that tell us anything about the reason for divergence?
- If not, what other factors might account for the difference - clouds, lapse rate, albedo...?
- If the divergence is an issue of CO2-forcing sensitivity, what sensitivity value would resolve the divergence?
- How does the CMIP5 crop of models fare in the long-term, since that's what they are most importantly used for? How well do they mirror surface temperatures hindcasted over the past century?

Instead of actually discussing climate modelling, you've been working very hard at childish and conspiratorial smears against Gavin Schmidt; not showing any evidence that his work has been wrong in any way, shape or form, but crowing over what you imagine to be a poor television performance and making baseless accusations that the GISS temperature record to which he is one contributor is a fraudulent product (and thus apparently the NOAA, BEST and HadCRUT records which agree with it, some kind of giant international conspiracy :roll: ). Schmidt isn't even relevant to the discussion, he just happened to have written an analysis of Christy's unusual graph. Character assassination of Schmidt does not change the fact that a 1-year baseline is unusual, that inconsistent smoothing is unusual and misleading, or that the absence of any indication of spread or 'uncertainty' is very, very unusual.

So let's try to get back on track, shall we?

For starters, since they show the same thing are you happy to use the less unusually-presented graph?

Mithrae said:

Good grief, are you honestly under the impression that you're somehow disproving or falsifying climate models here?

Click to expand...

Disproving yes falsifying no. There are others on the alarmist side currently posting who are far better at that

I showed that Dr. Spencer has circulated such comparison graph/s with large and unaccountable discrepancies between not only between known observations and what's marked on his graph, but even between his 'observational' data and Christy's! Discrepancies which tend to imply less warming and greater model/observation divergence. You haven't even attempted to address this point, instead desperately trying to provoke speculation about motivation for that deception.

Click to expand...

And I've shown you Schmidts graph deviating from satellite observations by over 0.2 C in just the period since 1979

The unreliability of Spencer's data raised legitimate concerns about the objectivity of information from his colleague Dr. Christy. I noted in my second post on the subject that the issue is "not that the data is incorrect, but that it has multiple, unusual display features (baseline, smoothing and uncertainty/spreads) which all serve to increase the visual appearance of model-observation divergence:

Click to expand...

There is no unusual display base line and there is no reason whatsoever to question his objectivity unlike Schmidt Christy is not a political activist. Why is Christy's unusual and Schmidts not ?

That was five posts ago now. The model-observation divergence is the same in both graphs (besides inconsistent smoothing in the former), so a key question here is why are you so obsessed with using the first graph rather than the second?

Click to expand...

Because I trust the objectivity integrity of Christy over Schmidt. You are yet to provide evidence of why Christy would deliberately mislead and now that is followed on by the affirmation of his graph by Steve MacIntyre and Judith Curry

Instead of actually discussing climate modelling, you've been working very hard at childish and conspiratorial smears against Gavin Schmidt;

Click to expand...

Well its not like he doesnt have a track record. This man is a bona fide liar (and a coward) and you know I would rarely if ever use that word about someone on this forum

not showing any evidence that his work has been wrong in any way, shape or form, but crowing over what you imagine to be a poor television performance and making baseless accusations that the GISS temperature record to which he is one contributor is a fraudulent product (and thus apparently the NOAA, BEST and HadCRUT records which agree with it, some kind of giant international conspiracy :roll: ). Schmidt isn't even relevant to the discussion, he just happened to have written an analysis of Christy's unusual graph. Character assassination of Schmidt does not change the fact that a 1-year baseline is unusual, that inconsistent smoothing is unusual and misleading, or that the absence of any indication of spread or 'uncertainty' is very, very unusual.

Click to expand...

Take that up with Curry Spencer and MacIntyre because they don't seem to concerned and are a darned sight more qualified and objective than you or I are to judge

So let's try to get back on track, shall we?

For starters, since they show the same thing are you happy to use the less unusually-presented graph?

Click to expand...

I'm happy to use graphs from the most objective sources possible.

Do you know of any other scientists other than climate activist Gavin Schmidt that have criticised or disagreed with Christys graph or publicly spoken out about it ? Its not like his is the only source illustrating this divergence after all

http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated Warming.pdf

flogger said:

Disproving yes falsifying no. There are others on the alarmist side currently posting who are far better at that


And I've shown you Schmidts graph deviating from satellite observations by over 0.2 C in just the period since 1979

Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You've shown the GISS temperature record and displayed nothing but your own stunning ignorance in thinking a) that it's "Schmidt's graph," b) that it measures the same thing as the satellite records and c) that the other surface records (HadCRUT, NOAA etc.) are all part of some grand collusion to produce the same fraudulent results you are accusing of GISS.

flogger said:

There is no unusual display base line and there is no reason whatsoever to question his objectivity unlike Schmidt Christy is not a political activist. Why is Christy's unusual and Schmidts not ?


Because I trust the objectivity integrity of Christy over Schmidt. You are yet to provide evidence of why Christy would deliberately mislead and now that is followed on by the affirmation of his graph by Steve MacIntyre and Judith Curry


Well its not like he doesnt have a track record. This man is a bona fide liar (and a coward) and you know I would rarely if ever use that word about someone on this forum

Click to expand...

You have not provided a single jot of evidence that he is a liar or an activist, and your notion that a five minute TV spot is suitable for discussing the "tough questions" of climate science betrays only your own laughably shallow perspective.

flogger said:

I'm happy to use graphs from the most objective sources possible.

Click to expand...

Given your continued obsession with Schmidt, obviously you are not at all interested in evaluation of climate models. Christy's unconventional display choices are ideally suited for your purposes - simply to pretend that "the models are wrong" and that's the end of it.

They are not of course, unless one happens to be an ideologue for whom 'wrong' means anything less than 100% prediction of all possible variables. It seems you are of the opinion that rather than using the best available information about the future to inform our socio-political opinions, we should use no information whatsoever and the future be damned.



Climate models have a very high level of accuracy in forecasting the sign of most relevant outputs (temperature, cryosphere, sea level, precipitation etc.), considerable success in forecasting their general magnitude or distribution on quarter-century and longer timeframes, and a high level of accuracy in hindcasting historical data (which is one of the lines of evidence suggesting that divergences of short-term forecasting result from input variables such as ENSO and volcanism rather than issues likely to substantially affect long-term projections).

Thread: A simplistic evaluation of climate modelling

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 (Evaluation of Climate Models) Figure 8; 130 year hindcasting of models vs. historical data:

IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 1.4; forecasting from 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2007 envelopes, updated with 2013-16 annual data points:

Mithrae said:

No, you haven't. You've shown the GISS temperature record and displayed nothing but your own stunning ignorance in thinking a) that it's "Schmidt's graph," b) that it measures the same thing as the satellite records and c) that the other surface records (HadCRUT, NOAA etc.) are all part of some grand collusion to produce the same fraudulent results you are accusing of GISS.

Click to expand...

The objectivity of GISS has been politically compromised for nearly three decades now first by Hansen then by Schmidt

You have not provided a single jot of evidence that he is a liar or an activist, and your notion that a five minute TV spot is suitable for discussing the "tough questions" of climate science betrays only your own laughably shallow perspective.

Click to expand...

Well yes I already did in spades and his cowardice when confronted by his skeptical peers has been very publicly demonstrated

Given your continued obsession with Schmidt, obviously you are not at all interested in evaluation of climate models. Christy's unconventional display choices are ideally suited for your purposes - simply to pretend that "the models are wrong" and that's the end of it.

Click to expand...

So because Schmidt says Christys choices are 'unusual' you just take that as read that they are ? So I ask again what other scientists have ever spoken out about the validity of Christys comparison ?

They are not of course, unless one happens to be an ideologue for whom 'wrong' means anything less than 100% prediction of all possible variables. It seems you are of the opinion that rather than using the best available information about the future to inform our socio-political opinions, we should use no information whatsoever and the future be damned.

Click to expand...

Well I know better than to trust the objectivity of the IPCC so thats at least something in my favour :wink:

Roy Spencer puts it pretty well here

IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0. « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate models have a very high level of accuracy in forecasting the sign of most relevant outputs (temperature, cryosphere, sea level, precipitation etc.), considerable success in forecasting their general magnitude or distribution on quarter-century and longer timeframes, and a high level of accuracy in hindcasting historical data (which is one of the lines of evidence suggesting that divergences of short-term forecasting result from input variables such as ENSO and volcanism rather than issues likely to substantially affect long-term projections).

Click to expand...

So the IPCC models have a very high degree of accuracy eh ? You are simply in denial now frankly

https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
https://www1.ethz.ch/iac/people/knuttir/papers/knutti12natcc.pdf

Whether its the old NASA computer model simulations or the newer variety of IPCC climate models, Hansen's 1988 prediction of rapidly accelerating and dangerous global warming from human CO2, and other greenhouse gases, has done poorly in comparison to actual observed temps.

Climate change and global warming scientists seeking grants for continuing research use computer model simulations to justify why they need more budget monies from the government - it is a constant doomsday whining that inflicts (and impacts) the entire science community.

As with all computer climate simulations, this is junk science that policymakers and the public have no need for. It's a disaster-distraction used to pretend that "scientists", with just a little more money (but always turns out being a whole lot more), will be able to quantify doomsday from natural climate reality - not very likely.

flogger said:

Well I know better than to trust the objectivity of the IPCC so thats at least something in my favour :wink:

Roy Spencer puts it pretty well here

IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0. « Roy Spencer, PhD

Click to expand...

If you wanted to prove Spencer's dishonesty and bias (even more than I already have; in fact much more effectively than I did!) you couldn't have picked a better way. He refers to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9, bemoaning the fact that it uses the phrase "external forcing" 91 times and the phrase "internal forcing" 0 times.

Of course, it uses the phrase "internal variability" 83 times, probably because things like oceanic circulations are not considered a form of climate forcing (perhaps depending on context). Spencer displays his own ignorance and/or his own dishonesty and bias very effectively here, and it's a good opportunity for highlighting how thoroughly the IPCC has considered these alternative variables.



You haven't offered any substantive comments of your own on the subject of evaluating climate models, just some more of your political opinions - which are just as valid as mine and worthy of discussion don't get me wrong, but they're even more off-topic than we already were :lol:

I'll read your link to Curry's site later perhaps, though I seriously question whether you have done so yourself. I say this because your other link (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's perhaps only the third or fourth scientific paper I have ever seen you cite so kudos for that) does not really seem to support your position very much at all. From the abstract:

Mithrae said:

If you wanted to prove Spencer's dishonesty and bias (even more than I already have; in fact much more effectively than I did!) you couldn't have picked a better way. He refers to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9, bemoaning the fact that it uses the phrase "external forcing" 91 times and the phrase "internal forcing" 0 times. Of course, it uses the phrase "internal variability" 83 times, probably because things like oceanic circulations are not considered a form of climate forcing (perhaps depending on context). Spencer displays his own ignorance and/or his own dishonesty and bias very effectively here, and it's a good opportunity for highlighting how thoroughly the IPCC has considered these alternative variables.

Click to expand...

So why would this award winning climate scientists with a career of decades at NASA and elsewhere and at the cutting edge of climate research during that time have dishonesty and bias ? You talk of his ignorance when in fact there are probably few better qualified to critique the IPCCs methodologies

You haven't offered any substantive comments of your own on the subject of evaluating climate models, just some more of your political opinions - which are just as valid as mine and worthy of discussion don't get me wrong, but they're even more off-topic than we already were :lol:

Click to expand...

The models failings most eloquently speak for themselves

But lets cut to the chase here. Its academic what you or I want to believe, ever increasing public apathy about this issue means the sort of worldview you would doubtless like to see imposed upon us is politically undeliverable given growing public realisation of just how weak the science behind this is. It might have been a decade ago but certainly not now

Sorry to bring a dollop of reality into your world but basically you lost

Mithrae said:

If you wanted to prove Spencer's dishonesty and bias (even more than I already have; in fact much more effectively than I did!) you couldn't have picked a better way. He refers to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9, bemoaning the fact that it uses the phrase "external forcing" 91 times and the phrase "internal forcing" 0 times.

Of course, it uses the phrase "internal variability" 83 times, probably because things like oceanic circulations are not considered a form of climate forcing (perhaps depending on context). Spencer displays his own ignorance and/or his own dishonesty and bias very effectively here, and it's a good opportunity for highlighting how thoroughly the IPCC has considered these alternative variables.



You haven't offered any substantive comments of your own on the subject of evaluating climate models, just some more of your political opinions - which are just as valid as mine and worthy of discussion don't get me wrong, but they're even more off-topic than we already were :lol:

I'll read your link to Curry's site later perhaps, though I seriously question whether you have done so yourself. I say this because your other link (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's perhaps only the third or fourth scientific paper I have ever seen you cite so kudos for that) does not really seem to support your position very much at all. From the abstract:

"Models improve, representing more processes in greater detail. This implies greater confidence in their projections, but convergence may remain slow. The uncertainties should not stop decisions being made."​

Click to expand...

So, are we to conclude?

"forcings" = politically approved climate factors
"variables" = politically inconvenient climate factors

Is that it?

Jack Hays said:

So, are we to conclude?

"forcings" = politically approved climate factors
"variables" = politically inconvenient climate factors

Is that it?

Click to expand...

Thats about it, and who needs accurate values for those when they've already decided the answer anyway :wink:

Jack Hays said:

So, are we to conclude?

"forcings" = politically approved climate factors
"variables" = politically inconvenient climate factors

Is that it?

Click to expand...

No comment from Flogger about your flag waving? Disappointing, but predictable. Especially since you're picking up the ball for his "playing dumb" game. All climatic factors which are subject to change are variables; solar, greenhouse gases, plate tectonics... everything which is, you know, variable :roll:

Some are internal variables (eg. oceanic circulation or albedo) and some are external variables (eg. volcanism since its causes are not part of the climate system, and anthropogenic influences). Some internal variables are considered climate forcing mechanisms (eg. oceanic circulation; looks like I was wrong about that in my last post) and some are not (eg. snow/ice albedo is a feedback mechanism to changing temperatures). But there is no such thing as an 'external feedback,' and since one of the key questions which everyone wants to know the answer to is how much the anthropogenic variables have been influencing the climate as opposed to natural variables, the former needs only to be distinguished first from internal variability of all kinds, and then from other external forcings.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) uses the term "external forcing" 91 times, as Dr. Spencer emphasizes.
It also uses the term "natural forcing" 89 times and "internal variability" 83 times.

For comparison, it uses the term "solar" 181 times, and "volcan"-(ic, ism) 140 times.
At 317 uses, "anthropogenic" get slightly less showing than those two combined.

Of course there's another 45 occurrences of "human in"-(induced/influence). But then the chapter refers to oceanic oscillations over 60 times (ENSO, AMO, NAO and PDO), clouds 35 times, water vapour 16 times, atmospheric circulation 15 times and albedo 12 times.

In other words, the chapter clearly and carefully attempts to distinguish and quantify each element of climatic change as distinct from human influences:


So how does Dr. Spencer respond to this?

On his blog he writes a post declaring what a travesty it is that the chapter doesn't use the phrase "internal forcing." He insists this is proof that "a glaring blind spot exists." He claims that it is "The IPCC’s view... that such changes in the climate system do not occur."

Spencer, in other words, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order. I'm very grateful to Flogger for pointing that out - it's far more than I could ever do by merely showing discrepancies in his graphs. And to you, for stepping in to wave your colours on this, of all issues. Great job thinking in terms of teams, instead of truth :doh

Mithrae said:

Spencer, in other words, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order.

Click to expand...

Would that be this same Spencer, Gavin Schmidt so embarrassingly ran away from live on air ?

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Would you now enlighten us as to who he is lying and propagandising for or what is motivating him to speak out other than his own professional integrity ?

I suspect its this ?

UN IPCC, Climate Science, Climate Change, Corruption

flogger said:

Would that be this same Spencer, Gavin Schmidt so embarrassingly ran away from live on air?

Click to expand...

Probably because of Spencer's lies, now that you've proven them :lol: Who wants to deal with an avalanche of bull**** on national TV?

Would you now enlighten us as to who he is lying and propagandising for or what is motivating him to speak out other than his own professional integrity?

Click to expand...

Motives don't change the lies. It really is pathetic that you keep trying to drag this towards speculation, rather than dealing with the facts.



In a remarkably ironic (to put it mildly) 2009 blog post - IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0 - Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH satellite record fame made particular emphasis of the fact that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, uses the term "external forcing" 91 times and the phrase "internal forcing" 0 times. He was right about that.

From this he claims that the IPCC are "ignoring natural variability" and "end up claiming that natural variability does not exist." But what he decides not to mention is the fact that the chapter does use the term "natural forcing" 89 times and "internal variability" 83 times (and "natural variability" 14 times).

It uses the term "solar" 181 times, and "volcan"-(ic/ism) 140 times.
At 317 uses, "anthropogenic" gets slightly less showing than those two combined.

Of course there's another 45 occurrences of "human in"-(induced/influence). But then the chapter also refers to oceanic oscillations over 60 times (ENSO, AMO, NAO and PDO), clouds 35 times, water vapour 16 times, atmospheric circulation 15 times and albedo 12 times. In other words, the IPCC very clearly attempts to distinguish and carefully quantify each element of climatic change, human and natural alike:

But Dr. Spencer knew that his 'sceptic' blog readers could be trusted to blindly swallow whatever he chose to feed them. So with breath-taking dishonesty, he insists that the lack of the phrase 'internal forcing' is proof that "a glaring blind spot exists." He claims that it is "The IPCC’s view... that such changes in the climate system do not occur."

Spencer, in short, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order. I'm very grateful to Flogger for pointing this out; and in a thread where my own meagre efforts had consisted of nothing more than demonstrating inexplicable trend-cooling discrepancies in Spencer's graphs!

Mithrae said:

Spencer, in short, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order.

Click to expand...

Spencer like many other high profile skeptical climatologist has watched (in no doubt in some horror) at the bastardization of his climate science discipline for political ends and the subsequent 'McCarthyism' of those who dare to dissent.

When you see the actions of Schmidt and others on the alarmist side building careers based on this nonsense its not hard to see where he is coming from. The debate was over before it ever started the conclusions arrived at without any needed

Thankfully your day is done and your side lost . The worldview you are trying to realise is politically undeliverable now so you can trawl through the minutae of the IPCCs subjective deliberations as long as you like because its not going to happen

Mithrae said:

Probably because of Spencer's lies, now that you've proven them :lol: Who wants to deal with an avalanche of bull**** on national TV?



Motives don't change the lies. It really is pathetic that you keep trying to drag this towards speculation, rather than dealing with the facts.



In a remarkably ironic (to put it mildly) 2009 blog post - IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0 - Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH satellite record fame made particular emphasis of the fact that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, uses the term "external forcing" 91 times and the phrase "internal forcing" 0 times. He was right about that.

From this he claims that the IPCC are "ignoring natural variability" and "end up claiming that natural variability does not exist." But what he decides not to mention is the fact that the chapter does use the term "natural forcing" 89 times and "internal variability" 83 times (and "natural variability" 14 times).

It uses the term "solar" 181 times, and "volcan"-(ic/ism) 140 times.
At 317 uses, "anthropogenic" gets slightly less showing than those two combined.

Of course there's another 45 occurrences of "human in"-(induced/influence). But then the chapter also refers to oceanic oscillations over 60 times (ENSO, AMO, NAO and PDO), clouds 35 times, water vapour 16 times, atmospheric circulation 15 times and albedo 12 times. In other words, the IPCC very clearly attempts to distinguish and carefully quantify each element of climatic change, human and natural alike:

"Detection and attribution studies routinely assess if the residual variability unexplained by forcing is consistent with the estimate of internal variability (e.g., Allen and Tett, 1999; Tett et al., 1999; Stott et al., 2001; Zwiers and Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the variability in palaeoclimatic reconstructions that is not explained by forcing is stronger than that in models, and simulations of the last 1 kyr show similar variability to reconstructions (Section 9.3.3.2). Chapter 8 discusses the simulation of major modes of variability and the extent to which they are simulated by models (including on decadal to inter-decadal time scales)."


"Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th century warming than the recent warming. A number of studies detect a significant natural contribution to early 20th-century warming (Tett et al., 2002; Stott et al., 2003b; Nozawa et al., 2005; Shiogama et al., 2006). Some studies find a greater role for solar forcing than other forcings before 1950 (Stott et al., 2003b), although one detection study finds a roughly equal role for solar and volcanic forcing (Shiogama et al., 2006), and others find that volcanic forcing (Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007) or a substantial contribution from natural internal variability (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2007) could be important. There could also be an early expression of greenhouse warming in the early 20th century (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007)."


"This pattern of change, which differs from the principal patterns of temperature change associated with natural internal variability, such as El Niño, helps to distinguish the response to greenhouse gases from that of natural external factors. Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another ‘fingerprint’ of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been responsible for the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed."​

But Dr. Spencer knew that his 'sceptic' blog readers could be trusted to blindly swallow whatever he chose to feed them. So with breath-taking dishonesty, he insists that the lack of the phrase 'internal forcing' is proof that "a glaring blind spot exists." He claims that it is "The IPCC’s view... that such changes in the climate system do not occur."

Spencer, in short, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order. I'm very grateful to Flogger for pointing this out; and in a thread where my own meagre efforts had consisted of nothing more than demonstrating inexplicable trend-cooling discrepancies in Spencer's graphs!

Click to expand...

LOL.

Nice takedown!

I will have to say that you probably want to mention this gem - Spencer's on the executive board, although he may have resigned when the deniers pointed out that it was embarrassing.

Cornwall Alliance ? For the Stewardship of Creation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mithrae said:

No comment from Flogger about your flag waving? Disappointing, but predictable. Especially since you're picking up the ball for his "playing dumb" game. All climatic factors which are subject to change are variables; solar, greenhouse gases, plate tectonics... everything which is, you know, variable :roll:

Some are internal variables (eg. oceanic circulation or albedo) and some are external variables (eg. volcanism since its causes are not part of the climate system, and anthropogenic influences). Some internal variables are considered climate forcing mechanisms (eg. oceanic circulation; looks like I was wrong about that in my last post) and some are not (eg. snow/ice albedo is a feedback mechanism to changing temperatures). But there is no such thing as an 'external feedback,' and since one of the key questions which everyone wants to know the answer to is how much the anthropogenic variables have been influencing the climate as opposed to natural variables, the former needs only to be distinguished first from internal variability of all kinds, and then from other external forcings.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) uses the term "external forcing" 91 times, as Dr. Spencer emphasizes.
It also uses the term "natural forcing" 89 times and "internal variability" 83 times.

For comparison, it uses the term "solar" 181 times, and "volcan"-(ic, ism) 140 times.
At 317 uses, "anthropogenic" get slightly less showing than those two combined.

Of course there's another 45 occurrences of "human in"-(induced/influence). But then the chapter refers to oceanic oscillations over 60 times (ENSO, AMO, NAO and PDO), clouds 35 times, water vapour 16 times, atmospheric circulation 15 times and albedo 12 times.

In other words, the chapter clearly and carefully attempts to distinguish and quantify each element of climatic change as distinct from human influences:

"Detection and attribution studies routinely assess if the residual variability unexplained by forcing is consistent with the estimate of internal variability (e.g., Allen and Tett, 1999; Tett et al., 1999; Stott et al., 2001; Zwiers and Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the variability in palaeoclimatic reconstructions that is not explained by forcing is stronger than that in models, and simulations of the last 1 kyr show similar variability to reconstructions (Section 9.3.3.2). Chapter 8 discusses the simulation of major modes of variability and the extent to which they are simulated by models (including on decadal to inter-decadal time scales)."


"Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th century warming than the recent warming. A number of studies detect a significant natural contribution to early 20th-century warming (Tett et al., 2002; Stott et al., 2003b; Nozawa et al., 2005; Shiogama et al., 2006). Some studies find a greater role for solar forcing than other forcings before 1950 (Stott et al., 2003b), although one detection study finds a roughly equal role for solar and volcanic forcing (Shiogama et al., 2006), and others fi nd that volcanic forcing (Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007) or a substantial contribution from natural internal variability (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2007) could be important. There could also be an early expression of greenhouse warming in the early 20th century (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007). "


"This pattern of change, which differs from the principal patterns of temperature change associated with natural internal variability, such as El Niño, helps to distinguish the response to greenhouse gases from that of natural external factors. Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another ‘fingerprint’ of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been responsible for the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed."​

So how does Dr. Spencer respond to this?

On his blog he writes a post declaring what a travesty it is that the chapter doesn't use the phrase "internal forcing." He insists this is proof that "a glaring blind spot exists." He claims that it is "The IPCC’s view... that such changes in the climate system do not occur."

Spencer, in other words, is a brazen propagandistic liar of the first order. I'm very grateful to Flogger for pointing that out - it's far more than I could ever do by merely showing discrepancies in his graphs. And to you, for stepping in to wave your colours on this, of all issues. Great job thinking in terms of teams, instead of truth :doh

Click to expand...

Actually, flogger weighed in at #59, and your post just confirms our suspicions.

Threegoofs said:

LOL.

Nice takedown!

I will have to say that you probably want to mention this gem - Spencer's on the executive board, although he may have resigned when the deniers pointed out that it was embarrassing.

Cornwall Alliance ? For the Stewardship of Creation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

As ever we can always rely on the resident alarmist court jester for a laugh :lamo

flogger said:

As ever we can always rely on the resident alarmist court jester for a laugh :lamo

Click to expand...

Maybe you think it's funny that a leading denier is a committed creationist, but i find it more than suggests a motive for his denialism.


I just wonder what's YOUR motive?

Jack Hays said:

Actually, flogger weighed in at #59, and your post just confirms our suspicions.

Click to expand...

Its clear from the tone of this response that his interests here are of an entirely political nature and the pseudoscience of AGW is his primary vehicle for the engineering the worldview he would like to have imposed upon us

I've asked more than once now what Spencers motivations for speaking out are or who he is allegedly propagandising for .

I've also asked more than once what scientists (other than the ever 'evasive' Gavin Schmidt) have spoken out against either Christy or Spencers graphs of climate models vs observations.

So far the silence on those has been deafening but not as deafening as the vitriol aimed a Spencer for having the professional integrity to speak out.

Threegoofs said:

Maybe you think it's funny that a leading denier is a committed creationist, but i find it more than suggests a motive for his denialism.


I just wonder what's YOUR motive?

Click to expand...

Are you also bigoted against Muslim scientists? Hindus? What are the other objects of your bigotry?

Jack Hays said:

Are you also bigoted against Muslim scientists? Hindus? What are the other objects of your bigotry?

Click to expand...

So you don't consider someone who thinks God would never let us hurt the Earth to not have a potential motivation to spin the truth to fit his religious views?

Threegoofs said:

So you don't consider someone who thinks God would never let us hurt the Earth to not have a potential motivation to spin the truth to fit his religious views?

Click to expand...

No. He's no more likely than anyone else to be dishonest. My views aren't colored by religious bigotry as are, apparently, yours.

Jack Hays said:

No. He's no more likely than anyone else to be dishonest. My views aren't colored by religious bigotry as are, apparently, yours.

Click to expand...

With 3G its always a case of 'if you can't beat em smear em' :wink: