Members banned from this thread: evince, moon, domer76, CharacterAssassin, Jade Dragon and Charoite


Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 2019 the Third Least-Chilly in the Satellite Temperature Record

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default 2019 the Third Least-Chilly in the Satellite Temperature Record

    .
    Dr.Roy Spencer is the man, he had an uncanny ability to cut right through all the climate bullshit we are subjected to these days!!

    It’s that time of year again, when we are subjected to exaggerated climate claims such as in this Forbes article, 2019 Wraps Up The Hottest Decade In Recorded Human History. Given that the global average surface temperature is about 60 deg. F, and most of the climate protesters we see in the news are wearing more clothing than the average Key West bar patron, I would think that journalists striving for accuracy would use a more accurate term than “hottest”.

    So, I am announcing that in our 41-year record of global satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, 2019 will come in as 3rd least-chilly.


    For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (2000-2009). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.

    If you are wondering how your neck of the woods has fared this year, the latest year-to-date plot of 2019 temperature departures from the 30-year average (1981-2010) shows the usual pattern of above- and below-normal, with little visual indication that the global average for 2019 is now running 0.36 deg. C above normal.


    Latest 2019 year-to-date average surface temperature departures from the 1981-2010 average from the NCEP CFSv2 global data assimilation system (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com).
    The use of the term “hottest” to describe recent warming belies the fact that the rate of warming we have experienced in recent decades is minuscule compared to the several tens of degrees of temperature change most people experience throughout the year — and sometimes from one week to the next.

    So, how are we supposed to react when the arithmetically-averaged temperature, across all extremes, goes up by only a small fraction of a degree in ten years? With horror? Outrage? Is the term “hottest” in a headline supposed to move us? Seriously?

    Should we all get someone to fly across the Atlantic so they can transport us to Europe on a luxury yacht to help Save the Earth™ on our next European vacation?

    The click-bait journalism typified by terms like “hottest”, “climate emergency”, and now “climate catastrophe” helps explain why the public is largely indifferent to the global warming issue, at least if we are asked to spend more than a few dollars to fix it.

    This is why the alarmist narrative has moved on from temperature, and now focuses on wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, and sea level rise. Yet, none of these have worsened in the last 100 years, with the exception of global sea level rise which has been occurring at a rate of about 1 inch per decade for as long as it has been monitored (since the 1850s, well before humans could be blamed).

    And, just in case some new visitors to my blog are reading this, let me clarify that I am not a denier of human-caused climate change. I believe at least some of the warming we have experienced in the last 50 years has been due to increasing carbon dioxide. I just consider the fraction of warming attributable to humans to be uncertain, and probably largely benign.

    This is fully consistent with the science, since the global energy imbalance necessary to explain recent warming (about 1 part in 250 of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system) is much smaller than our knowledge of those flows, either from either theoretical first principles or from observations.

    In other words, recent warming might well be mostly natural.

    We just don’t know.
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12...rature-record/

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9,164
    Thanks
    3,635
    Thanked 6,593 Times in 4,192 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 1,203 Times in 1,060 Posts

    Default

    Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer's oil-industry ties

    A research scientist with the University of Alabama at Huntsville's Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Roy Spencer is a climate contrarian with solid academic credentials. And his website bio notes that he "has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

    But Spencer doesn't disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what's been dubbed the "climate denial machine": the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity.

    https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/...stry-ties.html

    Roy Spencer Is The Worst Person In The World

    Roy Spencer is of course, most famous for consistently misreading his own data for some decade or more, insisting that the planet was cooling, even during some of the fastest warming trend of the last millennium.

    He remains the “official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show”.

    Must be a good gig. The wronger you are, the more fans and funding you attract.

    https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...n-in-the-world
    BLUEXIT
    A Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red

    Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
    Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.


    It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.

    This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.


    https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america

  3. The Following User Groans At Cinnabar For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-09-2019)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cinnabar View Post
    Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer's oil-industry ties

    A research scientist with the University of Alabama at Huntsville's Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Roy Spencer is a climate contrarian with solid academic credentials. And his website bio notes that he "has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

    But Spencer doesn't disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what's been dubbed the "climate denial machine": the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity.

    https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/...stry-ties.html

    Roy Spencer Is The Worst Person In The World

    Roy Spencer is of course, most famous for consistently misreading his own data for some decade or more, insisting that the planet was cooling, even during some of the fastest warming trend of the last millennium.

    He remains the “official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show”.

    Must be a good gig. The wronger you are, the more fans and funding you attract.

    https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...n-in-the-world
    I am surprised that you didn't go to DeSmogBlog and HotWhopper!! You people are truly pathetic, here are Roy Spencer's awards from Wikipedia.

    Awards

    1989 – Marshall Space Flight Center Center Director's Commendation
    1990 – Alabama House of Representatives Resolution
    1991 – NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with John Christy)
    1996 – American Meteorological Society Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." (with John Christy)

    The real experts on climate change advise President Trump
    Happer, Lindzen and Michaels lead the way

    President Trump has an incredible team of climate experts advising him, compared to the climate alarmists who are advising Congress.

    Democrats offer as experts for their Green New Deal Greta Thunberg, a high school student from Europe, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a former bartender from the Bronx. No wonder climate change alarmists are not willing to debate their views in public.

    Mr. Trump’s experts include Will Happer, the former Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University, recently serving on the National Security Council. Mr. Happer has been a long-term member of JASON, a private organization of scientists advising the federal government. He also served as director of the Energy Department’s Office of Science.

    Mr. Happer has long argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are good for the environment, indeed essential for the survival of all life on the planet. CO2 promotes photosynthesis in plants, which is the foundation of the entire food chain. Without plants, animals would not survive.

    The increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 has produced a literal greening of the planet, supporting increased plant growth that has been photographed by satellites in orbit and measured by scientists here on Earth.

    Richard Lindzen is an impressive atmospheric physicist who is also advising Mr. Trump. He is formerly the longtime Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as an author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He also authored 230 peer-reviewed papers and articles from 1965 to 2008. Mr. Happer was likely to appoint Mr. Lindzen to join him on a climate change advisory commission for the president.

    Still another climate expert advising Mr. Trump is Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Mr. Spencer also served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Mr. Spencer received a special award from the American Meteorology Society for his work developing the methodology for U.S. satellites to monitor the global temperature of the atmosphere. Mr. Spencer was another likely Mr. Happer appointee to his climate change advisory commission for the president.

    Still another climate realist expert and likely Happer appointee is Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who formerly served as research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. Mr. Michaels is also a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a former senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

    The most senior of Mr. Trump’s experts on climate change is S. Fred Singer, an Austrian-born atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Mr. Singer established the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center in 1962 and authored numerous peer-reviewed papers and books on a wide variety of important scientific topics. During recent decades, he has placed special emphasis on the climate change issue.

    The Heartland Institute drew heavily on Mr. Singer’s work for several volumes of its peer-reviewed “Climate Change Reconsidered” series. “Climate Change Reconsidered” comprises thousands of pages of science summaries written by scientists, as well as citations to thousands of peer-reviewed studies and objective data sources.

    Messrs. Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels and Singer have each spoken at one or more of the Heartland Institute’s 13 international conferences on climate change. Their presentations are archived on the Internet and demolish alarmist climate propaganda and alarmist lies asserting an overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change.

    It is no wonder climate alarmists realize they cannot publicly defend their hysterical views about climate change in a public debate. Greta Thunberg, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and other climate alarmists are all hopelessly overmatched.

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...vise-presiden/
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 12-09-2019 at 04:13 AM.

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Another excellent article by Roy Spencer.

    Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation

    Do the global warming wars ever change anyone’s mind?

    I suppose there are a few people whose minds have been changed. As I recall, Judith Curry has said Climategate (now “celebrating” its 10 year anniversary) was her wake-up call that institutionalized climate science might not be all it claims to be. She is now a well-informed and unabashed skeptic of the modern tendency to blame every bad weather event on humans.

    While I’m sure there are other examples, the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth.

    The journalist who broke the Climategate story, James Delingpole, yesterday posted an article entitled The Bastards Have Got Away with It!, James concludes with,

    “Climategate was the event when, just for a moment, it seemed we’d got the climate scamsters bang to rights, that the world’s biggest scientific (and economic) con trick had been exposed and that the Climate Industrial Complex would be dismantled before it could do any more damage to our freedom and our prosperity. But the truth, it would seem, is no match for big money, dirty politics and madness-of-crowds groupthink. We’ve lost this one, I think, my friends. And the fact that all those involved in this scam will one day burn in Hell is something, I’m afraid, which gives me all too little consolation.”

    You see, it does not really matter whether a few bad actors (even if they are leaders of the climate movement) conspired to hide data and methods, and strong-arm scientific journal editors into not publishing papers that might stand in the way of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mission to pin climate change on humans, inflate its seriousness, and lay the groundwork for worldwide governmental efforts to reduce humanity’s access to affordable energy.

    The folks were simply trying to Save the Earth™, and we all know that the ends justifies the means, right? So what if they cheated? Boys will be boys, you know. The science is sound, and besides, 97% of all scientists agree that… something.

    The Roots of Polarization

    One would think that the practice of science would be objective. I once believed this, too. As a fresh post-doc at the University of Wisconsin, when I discovered something new in satellite data, I was surprised to encounter NASA employees who tried to keep my work from being published because they feared it would interfere with a new satellite mission they were working toward. I eventually got it published as a cover article in the prestigious journal, Nature.

    But the subject I was dealing with did not have the profound financial, political, policy, and even religious import that climate change would end up having. Furthermore, 35 years ago things were different than today. People were less tribal. There is an old saying that one should not discuss politics or religion in polite company, but it turns out that social media is far from polite company.

    From a practical standpoint, what we do (or don’t do) about human-caused climate change supports either (1) a statist, top-down governmental control over human affairs that involves a more socialist political framework, or (2) an unconstrained individual-freedom framework where capitalism reigns supreme. So, one could easily be a believer (or non-believer) in the ‘climate emergency’ based upon their political leanings. While I know a few socialists who are skeptical of human-caused climate change being a serious issue, this is the exception rather than the rule. The same is true of capitalists who think that we must transition away from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy (unless they stand to make money off the transition through subsidies, in which case they are financially rather than ideologically driven).

    Or, on a spiritual level, a human who desires to worship something must ultimately choose between the Creation or the Creator. There is no third option. I find that most Earth scientists are nature worshipers (showing various levels of fervor) and consider the Earth to be fragile. In contrast, those who believe the Earth was created for the purpose of serving humanity tend to view nature as being resilient and less sensitive to lasting damage. Both of these views have equally religious underpinnings since “fragile” and “resilient” are emotive and qualitative, rather than scientific, terms.

    So, I would argue it really does not matter that much to most alarmists or skeptics what the evidence shows. As long as 8 billion people on the planet have some, non-zero effect on climate — no matter how small or unmeasurable — the alarmist can still claim that ‘we shouldn’t be interfering with the climate system’. As a counter example, the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg actually believes the alarmist science from the IPCC, but claims that economics tells us it’s better to live in and adapt to a warmer world until we have more cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels. For this stance regarding policy, he is labeled a global warming denier despite fully believing in human-caused climate change.

    The Role of the Disinformation Superhighway

    Baylor Professor Alan Jacobs has an interesting essay entitled On Lost Causes regarding the tendency for people to believe anything they see on the internet if it supports their biases.

    He mentions a recent novel in which a high-tech billionaire, fed up with the disinformation he sees on the Web, concocts an elaborate online story that Moab, Utah has been obliterated by a nuclear explosion. He has CGI video, actors, witnesses, and an elaborate (but fake) social media presence to support the story.

    The plan is to then show the world how easily they were duped, so that people would become less credulous when digesting information.

    But instead, people cling to their belief. Even after many years, the ‘Moab truthers’ claim that anyone who disputes that Moab was destroyed are trolls or paid shills. People could actually travel to Moab to see for themselves, but virtually no one does.

    In the climate wars, I see this behavior from both skeptics and alarmists. The alarmists point to increasing storms, heat waves, wildfires, etc. as evidence that humans are making weather worse. When they are shown evidence from a century of more of data that, no, things are not getting worse, these ‘storm truthers’ still bitterly cling to their beliefs while calling us skeptics “deniers”.

    On the flip side, I routinely engage skeptics who claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and that it is physically impossible for the cold atmosphere to make the surface warmer by increasing its CO2 content, anyway. No matter how many different ways I try to show how they are wrong, they never change their stance.

    As a result, despite being a skeptic on the subject of humans having a serious effect on global climate, I’ve had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog than I have blocked alarmists. So, I get attacked from people on both sides of the issue.

    I partly blame the public education system for the current state of affairs. Students are increasingly taught what to think, rather than how to think. Also to blame is the (probably unavoidable) funding of science by government, which President Eisenhower warned would cause science to become corrupted by a handful of powerful elites who did not have the advancement of scientific knowledge as the central goal.

    When politicians have control over the purse strings, is it any wonder that politicians would preferentially fund the science which benefits certain policy outcomes, usually involving more government control over the lives of citizens? There have been innumerable funding programs to explore the human influence on climate (spoiler alert: every change we see is human-caused), yet almost no money goes to understanding natural sources of climate change.

    Both Delingpole (describing the failure of Climategate to change attitudes) and Jacobs (describing the tendency of people to believe anything that supports their tribal beliefs) end their articles on a sour note. I have already quoted Delingpole’s conclusion, above. Here’s how Jacobs end his essay:

    “..if at this stage of the game, given what we know about how social media work and about the incentives of the people who make TV, you’re still getting your dopamine rush by recycling TV-news clips and shouting at people on the Internet, you’re about as close to beyond hope as a human being gets. There is no point talking to you, trying to reason with you, giving you facts and the sources of those facts. You have made yourself invulnerable to reason and evidence. You’re a Moab truther in the making. So, though I do not in theory write anyone off, in practice I do. It’s time to give you up as a lost cause and start figuring out how to prevent the next generation from becoming like you.”

    Delingpole and Jacobs come to sobering — even depressing — conclusions. Unfortunately, like these two authors I do not have much reason to be hopeful that things will get better anytime soon.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11...isinformation/

Similar Threads

  1. June 2019: Earth's Hottest June on Record
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-19-2019, 04:15 PM
  2. Satellite Data Reinstates Global Temperature Pause
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-29-2016, 08:39 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 05:13 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 04:39 AM
  5. Run from Red China the satellite killers!
    By uscitizen in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-19-2007, 12:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •