My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment

May 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

The report findings are in bold and italics. My comments follow each finding.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.

Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through “homogenization” adjustments. But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities…”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are “unprecedented” cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.

There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with modest warming. The statement panders to the publics’ focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the past.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.

This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond. Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes – there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isn’t from severe weather events…it’s from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the news media.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change. Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You don’t engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to handle any possible scenario…it would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods. Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

This is largely a non sequitur. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate change…to the extent that substantial human influences exist.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.

I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life. Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.

O..M..G. So let’s help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.

Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they weren’t so serious. Nature changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are being “overwhelmed”? I don’t think so. Ecosystems are not static.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.

There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read lately, more realistic lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean….just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I think the jury is still out on this issue…but, of course, we can’t expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes, to provide balance on such things.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences. Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.

Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.

Caveat emptor.

(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming “Big Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)


122 Responses to “My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. rossbrisbane says:

    You have well and truly excelled and exceeded all expectation as a CLIMATE DENIER.

    • why, thank you, Ross. I do indeed deny that the climate system exists. It’s just a figment of our imagination. 😉

      • rossbrisbane says:

        Roy, That is exact answer I expected. Let me put it another way – You are are a DENIER of the multiple lines of empirical evidences found within earth’s climate system that show a rapid trend of global warming unprecedented since the regional occurrences of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. You are as a Climate Scientist grandstanding and exaggerating your own narrow focus on the data and drawing conclusions that are generalised on earth’s latitude, atmospheric layer specific and USA centric. You are also applying quite questionable economics on the global impact of our trending global warming impacts. This is outside of your level and field of expertise. I find you are deficit in acknowledging the collective and broader body of evidence of huge global scientific body of data. You are too much in the denial camp and allow wing nuts to have to much sway in the comments. Anyway loose with the truth.

        • R2D2 says:

          Ross, can you provide a graph of the last 20 years of rapid trending unprecedented global warming?

        • anpog says:

          “… since the regional occurrences of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.”

          You reveal yourself to be both deceived by extremely inaccurate assertions made by others, and someone who has not taken the time to validate those assertions.

          In point of fact, it has been revealed severally via both the Greenland ice core samples, as well as the Vostok, Antarctica ice core samples, that the warming exhibited during the MWP, and the subsequent ‘Little Ice Age’ were anything but ‘regional,’ and were in fact world-wide events. This is further supported by analysis of the lakebed sediments in Turkey.

          Additionally, the geography of the European region is sufficiently varied such that any localised weather pattern could not be sustained for an extended period of years, as one might expect of the American Southwest, or even central Asia, both of which are largely plains.

          Localised weather patterns are predicated upon the surrounding geography, and the prevailing climate which exists as a result of other external factors, i.e., large bodies of water, prevailing winds, seasonal variations, etc.

          • rossbrisbane says:

            I am standing in reality as we speak. But you sir have taken a measurement of temperature NOT the historical trends of temperature. Now if you can afford it for a reality check, I suggest you fly to Alaska and other Northern parts and take a good look at your claimed lack of global warming. Reading just one layer of atmosphere blind sides Roy Spencer to the truth. The truth is outing all over the world – just don’t be lazy and accept the scepticism your marinated in. Armchair participants in this climate change denial are evaporating and are actually changing their minds in droves.

        • Phyte On says:

          Let’s face it. We are doomed and the end is near. There is zero scientific basis that US Government Policy is capable, competent, cost-effective to reverse the pending climate doomsday.

          For example, there is ZERO evidence that California’s cap & trade scheme has ANY discernible impact on the climate. None, nada, zippo empirical evidence. The only thing we know about California’s Cap & Trade scheme is that is a regulatory and taxation scheme to enrich the pocket of the government of California.

        • TonyM says:

          Rossbrisbane:
          Went to your “actual REGIONAL graphed data” and what I saw was that T was higher in the 40’s than the present in the Arctic. Does this mean the IPCC is mistaken?

          Others have observed that the increase in the 30’s was much faster than this century – from your data. Could it be my glasses playing up.

          You say that you are “standing in reality as we speak.” I’d suggest you stop standing there as it sounds much like you are standing in an odiferous quagmire of oleiferous rotting whale flesh. Come out into the light and see it from a fresh air perspective.

          Ask the polar bears; they seem content despite Gore’s predictions. Lake superior has the most ice for at least 50 years. Similarly Antarctica has the most ice since satellite records began; the emperor penguins are clapping.
          Perhaps you might check what you are standing on. All you need do is list all the forecasts/predictions made in the past and answer truthfully – true/false. You would not want to skip all those model predictions now would you?
          I promise you will feel far better and safer; even saner I might suggest. If my football team kept kicking out on the full on the right side of goals all the time it would not be long before I concluded that they had been trained to do that.

        • Arno Arrak says:

          I was about to comment on the twelve points Roy brought out but then comes this rossbrisbane with his pseudoscientific claims. He puts it this way “…. you are deficit in acknowledging the collective and broader body of evidence of huge global scientific body of data.” I hate to tell you that I am a denier too and it is provable that this “huge global scientific data” totally lacks any scientific foundation. Let’s start from the beginning. In 1988 James Hansen announced to the Senate that he had observed the greenhouse effect. What he did was to show a rising temperature curve that went from a low in 1880 to a high in 1988. This high point, he said, was “…the warmest point within the last 100 years.” According to him, there was only a one percent chance that it could have happened by accident. Hence, there was a 99 percent probability that this warming was greenhouse warming and the greenhouse effect was thereby confirmed. But checking the Congressional Record you find that he includes as part of his 100 year warming a non-greenhouse warming that starts in 1910 and stops in 1940. Radiation laws of physics demand that if you are going to start an enhanced greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This did not happen in 1910. Hence, this warming is not greenhouse warming. The same conclusion follows from its sudden cessation because a greenhouse warming cannot be stopped without removing the absorbing molecules from the air. It follows from this that the 1910 to 1940 period must be subtracted from his 100 year warming. Even IPCC-AR5 does not claim ability to detect greenhouse warming before the year 1950. If we now lop off Hansen’s 100 year warming curve at 1940 what is left of it is a see-saw temperature curve: 25 years of cooling followed by 23 years of warming. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that no way can this prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. Hansen’s claim that he has observed the greenhouse effect is simply false. And neither has anyone else seen it. But nobody checked his science and he has been able to get away with it for all these years. As a consequence, we have the IPCC built upon the belief that greenhouse warming caused by carbon dioxide exists. In view of the absence of the greenhouse effect this belief must now be considered pseudoscience. They rely upon Arrhenius hypothesis that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the atmosphere by absorbing outgoing longwave radiation. But now we find that even this is not true because we have not had any warming for 17 years while carbon dioxide constantly increased. This by itself is enough to prove Arrhenius wrong. But more direct evidence is available from Ferenc Miskolczi. He used NOAA weather balloon database to observe the absorption of IR by the atmosphere over time. And found that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. That is sufficient to prove the absence of the greenhouse effect and to take the feet out from under the anthropogenic global warming theory, AGW. There simply is none. But how do you then account for the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that absorbs energy? The answer is very simple. When you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it starts to absorb as Arrhenius says. But Miskolczi greenhouse theory tells us that when carbon dioxide and water vapor simultaneously absorb in the IR there exists a joint optimum absorption window which they jointly maintain. Its optical thickness is 1.87. Addition of carbon dioxide will increase the optical thickness but as soon as this happens water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the optimum optical thickness is restored. This is the explanation of why we have the warming pause – as more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere its expected greenhouse warming effect is simply blocked by this condensation of water vapor. Note that this is the exact opposite of what IPCC is telling us. They found that the direct greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide alone was not big enough to be threatening so they added the water vapor feedback effect to create a more threatening greenhouse warming. More than half, possibly two-thirds of the greenhouse warming they report is caused by nothing more exotic than atmospheric water vapor. Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT) proves that this is complete fabrication.
          See E&E 21(4):243-262(2010).

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Ross, I think it’s unfair to label Dr Spencer a denier… One of the main reasons that I come to this blog is because Dr Spencer won’t hesitate to debunk “stupid skeptic arguments”. I don’t trust “real climate” no “skeptical science” to do that with out pulling the wool over my eyes. There are climate change deniers out there (and I do think that label is apt) but Dr Spencer is not one of them. His is merely the voice of reason…

    • Col Mosby says:

      The only “climate deniers” out there are folks like rossbrisbane, who continue to get hysterical about a global warming that hasn’t even existed in the lifespan of any teenager now alive. So why are you denying reality, ross?
      I guess some folks can deny anything. It helps if you can lie without any qualms.

    • Ray says:

      Roy is the very antithesis of a “climate denier”.
      He doesn’t deny there is a climate.
      But I don’t think that’s what you meant.

    • David L. Hagen says:

      rossbrisbane
      Dr. Spencer brings a welcome degree of sanity and the proper scientific scepticism that is essential to the scientific method. Take a look at the blunt facts he exposes that 95% of 34 year climate models fail as too hot for reality.

      Your ad hominem rant shows you have very weak arguments with little grasp of the breadth and depth of climate issues.

      For a dose of objective scientific reality, see ClimateChangeReconsidered.com and TheRightClimateStuff.com
      If you dare to dig a little deeper and you will find that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age were global not regional.
      For a brief glimpse of the foundational limitations of global climate models see Robert Brown of Duke “The Global Climate Model clique feedback loop”
      Hopefully you rise to the challenge and dig into real science and begin to apply Richard Feynman’s challenge to scientific integrity.
      David L. Hagen, PhD

      • rossbrisbane says:

        David, I think you have got me completely packaged incorrectly. When I say Roy Spencer IGNORES global data sourcing – he does just that. As does many cohorts caught up in this climate Change Denial. They all feel to have this urgent mandate. It aren’t a mandate. That’s not science – that’s ignorant science. A seminal paper on this subject was published in Nature Geoscience in 2013 by the PAGES 2k team, with 78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate scientific institutions around the world. PAGES (Past Global Changes) is a scientific network which supports research aimed at understanding the Earth’s past environment in order to make predictions for the future. It’s funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

        In 2006, scientists in the PAGES network decided to organize an initiative to reconstruct the climate of the last 2,000 years, which they called The PAGES 2k Network. This network consists of scientists from 9 regional working groups, each of which collects and processes the best paleoclimate (past climate change) data from their respective region. It’s a clever approach because it allows the experts in their local proxy data to contribute to a much larger global project.

        The PAGES 2k team found that a global surface cooling trend over the past 2,000 years has been erased by the global warming over the past century. Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years, including during the Medieval Warm Period. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

        • Orson says:

          Uh huh. Ross – I looked at the paleoclimate paper you reference, which attempts to contrast older temps with those since 1971. Here’s the problem: we know where the “handle” comes from – the problem is where the “blade” of your hockeystick like sudden recent warming comes from.

          In other words, suddenly, the super accurate satellite temps for 35 years, together with the globally deployed weather balloon system going back a couple decades more (with .90ish correlation coefficient), is trumped by paleo findings?

          All the usual suspects are there from Mann to Crowlye and Hegrel, etc. With – to those who follow such things here – the many, many unacknowledged caveats that call into question how much real mensuration really is involved in paleoclimatology.

          Your arm-waving claims to have sources that trump Spencer are weak because paleo as a field is quite weak. Among many sympathetic to spencer here, the field is only marginally a worthy of calling a “science” at all.

          • rossbrisbane says:

            Orson, Yes all those INTERNATIONAL scientists are wrong and this one lone ranger fellow Roy Spencer has pitted himself against the den of scientists that are liars. Problem: this aren’t an ordained mandate from God against the corrupted science. Rather it is simply the contrary human nature of a VERY FEW like Christy and Spencer. The tricky tongue in cheek jibes do not wash with me. Let then the more unqualified gather with the very few contrary qualified – but that’s not being serious is it. That’s being simply one who is not open to the serious nature of its reality.

    • catweazle666 says:

      I think it is becoming increasingly evident that is you climate alarmists that are the DENIERS now, Ross, you abusive little fellow.

      Time will tell – is doing so as I type, in fact.

  2. You are so correct..

    If one wants to point to extremes look at the decade of the 1930’s. This decade had more drought more extreme high temperatures all over the U.S.A which today can not compare to.

    And CO2 concentrations were lower.

  3. Eli Rabett says:

    Your statement on #3 contradicts itself.

    3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. ………

    This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

    The relationship of higher greenhouse gas concentrations to an increased greenhouse effect and thus hotter surface temperatures is beyond rational doubt. Anyone (including Dr. Roy) claiming that this will not happen has to invoke a:) majic or b:( a model of future responses.

    If you don’t like models you have no basis for believing that it will not warm. Much of the rest of your wishful thinking fails on the same basis

    • No, I did not claim there is no human-induced warming, so don’t put words in my mouth.

      And why do you continue to hide behind that silly pseudonym?

      • TINSTAAFL says:

        Eli Pigeon would be a better pseudonym. It flies in, sh!ts on your head and flies away again.

        • DaveO says:

          Nobody, not Josh to be sure, would speak in mystic inscrutable language. That would be conduct unbecoming to a sound mind.

      • Eli Rabett says:

        Eli didn’t put words in your mouth.

        If you agree that human induced warming is a result of increased concentrations of non-condensible greenhouse gases, you agree with the NCA that further increases will lead to further warming. If not, where is your a:) majic or b:( model?

        • David L. Hagen says:

          Eli
          The challenge is HOW MUCH warming is due to human contributions. >>50% per IPCC or some, or << climate noise.
          Spencer also challenges on how much warming is due to CO2 and how much CO2 is due to global warming.
          Until you can quantitatively answer those questions, the NCA's alarmism is just wasting trees and our hard earned taxes.

        • Phyte On says:

          Is that the best you can do?

    • catweazle666 says:

      “The relationship of higher greenhouse gas concentrations to an increased greenhouse effect and thus hotter surface temperatures is beyond rational doubt.”

      What a simplistic, one-dimensional little chap you are, Eli!

      Do you really believe that the Earth’s climate is entirely ruled by linear relationships?

    • Manfred says:

      Doesn’t this depend on climate sensitivity and feedbacks?
      The paleo-temperature record and CO2 conc. records bear no clear relationship: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
      As for titanically expensive GCM’s, little relationship to reality and headed the same way as the blighted ship:
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/models-vs-datasets.jpg

  4. Eli Rabett says:

    Here is another one:

    Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through “homogenization” adjustments.

    Problem is, as you well know that warm biases do not make a difference if one is measuring differences, i.e. anomalies. It is only when the biases themselves are changing that it makes a difference and comparisons of changes with satellite measurements over forty years, show that when principle errors have been chased from the computer models upon which satellite measurement are made, the agreement is excellent (see for example Cowtran and Way about how the two types of measurements can be used to support each other).

    This one falls under wishful thinking.

    • I said INCREASING warm biases, silly Rabett. There is no way to distinguish a warming trend due to climate change from one due to a increase in manmade structures around the thermometer site.

      C’mon don’t waste my time with straw men. Think.

      • TINSTAAFL says:

        Prof.Rabett might better work on his teaching performances instead of wasting our times here…:http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236

        • Orson says:

          HEY – no blows below the belt (even if they affect the man above the neck)! People have got toe eat.

      • Michael Hauber says:

        No way?

        Such as testing to see if the satellite measurements roughly agree with thermometer measurements?

        Its obvious that much of the increase in temperatures is real, and that the majority of the warming trend is due to factors other than measurement biases.

        • Eli Rabett says:

          Right. Note that the strong rise in surface temperature started at about the same time as the MSU record (1979). So which is it Dr. Roy, the MSU records are chimeras or the surface temperature anomaly rise is valid

          • catweazle666 says:

            For well-documented reasons such as UHI and questionable “homogenisation” of the databases by NASA et al. to name but two, the surface temperature anomaly rise is no longer remotely trustworthy.

  5. AlecM says:

    Most professional Scientists and Engineers taught standard physics immediately see that IPPC pseudoscience, based on the imaginary ‘Enhanced GHE, is incorrect physics. It’s a failure of science teaching dating from mistakes made by Carl Sagan who messed up aerosol optical physics. This led him wrongly to conclude the surface of a planet emits net IR to the atmosphere as if to a sink at absolute zero.

    

This mistake, to confuse a Thermal Radiation Field with a real net energy flux, has been taught to Atmospheric Scientists for about 40 years, and has even crept into mainstream Physics. However, the real science has lived on in engineering, which has to get the right answer.

    The best Physics’ institutions, e.g. Brookhaven, are throwing Engineering Thermodynamics at problems to solve this mainstream science failure.

 The Earth’s surface emits net IR at c. 0.16 black body level, most of it directly to space. There is near zero CO2-AGW, no ‘extended GHE’.

    The real GHE was from clouds; this accounts for the warming from the end of the Last Glacial Maximum to the present. There has been some AGW from decrease of cloud albedo due to Asian industrialisation.
, but it saturated about year 2000.

    What we see with the Obama administration is a last ditch effort to survive by those most deeply compromised by Green Corruption. They are using the near monopoly of publication which Obama’s $70+ billion has bought for the fake ‘consensus’, to pressurise the public into accepting the enrichment of crony capitalists and mass poverty.

  6. The relationship of higher greenhouse gas concentrations to an increased greenhouse effect and thus hotter surface temperatures is beyond rational doubt.

    Eli Rabett, you don’t know what you are talking about.

  7. Ossqss says:

    Thanks Dr. Roy. Those are the words of a true “Climate Realist”

    Perhaps this report will spawn a new hit TV show, Desperate Climate Housewives!

    They both should share the moniker of “for entertainment purposes only” 🙂

  8. Chart in my above post shows no correlations between CO2 and temperature.

    In addition look at CO2 concentrations before ,during and after the Ordovician period, and then look at the temperature changes.

    Weaker solar energy output has nothing to do with the temperature trend during the short time of the Ordovician Period and the significant rapid temperature changes
    independent of CO2 through out that period of time.

    Then again those who subscribe to AGW do not look or believe the data.

    On that note in more recent times the Minoan, Roman, and the Medieval warm periods were warmer then today while CO2 concentrations were lower.

    Then again that is what data shows. Let us not believe it ,if it don’t conform to AGW theory.lol

    How about the 1930’s?

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Salvatore, IMNSHO the warming of a hundred years ago is an inconvenient truth which warmists cannot deny…

  9. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Excellent post Dr. Spencer. I post links from your blog and others to Facebook, for what it’s worth. It spreads the message and I have made a few converts.

    As for the bunny? A total weirdo.

  10. A rare case of good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is provided by ice-core records of the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the last million years of so. But these records show that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that the levels were an effect of temperature changes. This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.

    The most recent continental ice sheets began to melt some twenty thousand years ago. During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years.

    The above a small piece of an article on climatedepot.com web-site.

    Note all records show temp. changes proceed CO2 changes.

  11. David Johnson says:

    Excellent

  12. The most recent continental ice sheets began to melt some twenty thousand years ago. During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years.

    That says it all. Climate change today is not even close to past climate changes. Not in the same ball park.

  13. SDB says:

    On there being “no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change”…

    I’m a pure layman on this topic, but skeptical for the doom and gloom. Recently I was told “Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less
    energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.”

    Where is that person wrong? Or what are they missing?

    Anyone who understands, feel free to respond. Thanks!

    • AlecM says:

      No downward IR radiation ‘warms the surface’. What really happens is that higher CO2 15 micron band Thermal Radiation Field causes reduced net surface IR emission in that band.

      If there were no other process, there would be a rise in surface temperature to increase convective and evaporative heat transfer of 160 W/m^2 SW thermalised at the surface.

      However, there is another process which keeps CO2-AGW near zero, as proved by nearly 18 years zero statistically significant atmospheric warming desite 16% increase in CO2 concentration.

      In about 20 years’ time, at c. 450 ppmV CO2, the system will stabilise as plants grow more quickly.

      • MikeB says:

        No Alec, I think the question was “Anyone who understands, feel free to respond. Thanks!”
        That didn’t mean you.

  14. Alan says:

    I am waiting to see and hear the Joe Bastardi response to the new National Climate Assessment. 🙂

  15. gbaikie says:

    The glitzy, 840-page report, is exhibit A of government forcing the working poor to pay for luxuries that make rich feel better about their oppression of the poor.
    Just as government war of poverty did nothing to help poorer people make their lives more prosperous, climate policy has done and will do nothing about imagined and lied about weather problems.

    The only way which has risen wealth of the poor is free markets and competition, and not government management and promotion of people who are poor. Everyone knows this, yet government policies take tax dollars to buy votes and political support feels like a better idea, but everyone knows *only* causes government dependence on hand out, crime, and more poverty. And encourages isolation of governing class from the class that does the work and provides the wealth which government mindless squanders on their political cronies and enrich themselves thru various government corruption and various schemes.

  16. Mike Maguire says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    Extremely well stated and debunked using KNOWN science.

    As a tv meteorologist for 11 years(been trading commodities using the influence of the weather on crops and energies the past 21 years) I took special interest in reading this yesterday:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/06/barack-obama-climate-change-us-weather-forecasters

    “Barack Obama to make climate change case to weather forecasters”

    “A 2010 study by George Mason University’s centre for climate change communications found that only 19% of TV weather forecasters accepted that human activity was the main driver of climate change.

    “Many TV meteorologists remain climate change sceptics, in part because they are skilled at forecasting weather over short time periods, which can make them doubt long-range projections from climate science computer models,” wrote Andrew Freedman, who covers climate change for Mashable. “Many TV meteorologists also lack specific training in climate science.”

    My thoughts were: TV meteorologist actually use atmospheric(weather) models every day. They forecast using real world empirical data and must be accountable when their forecast busts……….which is does often enough to give them the humility to recognize limitations in forecasting ability based purely on mathematical equations that represent the physical laws of the atmosphere fed into a computer.

    Many meteorologists don’t have PHD’s but we studied the same atmospheric principles that drive the atmosphere as did climate scientists and took the same classes.

    Jeff Masters was a friend in college and in many of my classes at the University of Michigan(Dr. Spencer got his undergraduate degree in meteorology taking those same classes).
    How does one account for people with similar educational backgrounds having such different views on science in their area of expertise?
    “Specific lack of training” is clearly not the case(but is sited often by those wanting to discredit the great number of meteorologists that are skeptics.

    Climate scientists and global climate models that project 50 or absurdly 100 years out are not held accountable because we will all be dead when the true skill level can be assessed………at the end of that forecast.

    Currently, this is causing an increasing denial(ok, let’s use lack of acknowledgment) on the part of those using theory to project global temperatures. The divergence between the real world, that meteorologists must acknowledge every day on the job, and the forecast is not there.

    15 years of the climate models busting the forecast is being explained away by half a dozen possible, temporary factors but not one of them is that the global climate models need some adjustments.

    BTW, those weather forecasters that Obama was supposedly making the climate change case to, were all hand picked.

    “The meteorologists interviewing Obama on Tuesday include: Al Roker, co-anchor of NBC’s Today Show; Ginger Zee, meteorologist on ABC’s Good Morning America; John Morales, chief meteorologist of NBC 6 in Miami, Florida, and Jim Gandy, meteorologist of WLTX-TV in Columbia, South Carolina.”

    Why not take his case to John Coleman, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer or Judith Curry?

    This would be like the pope, having a press conference and announcing he will be taking his case, about why the Catholic faith is the true religion, to pastors and leaders of all faiths by inviting a group of his bishops over.

    • Dr. Strangelove says:

      That 4 out of 5 TV meteorologists are skeptical of AGW is telling. They are more credible than the writers of the National Climate Assessment because they actually observe the weather, and climate is the average weather according to textbooks. “Climate scientists” of the AGW kind are often disguised environmental activists. They are driven by their passionate advocacy, fertile imagination, theoretical arguments and climate computer games.

  17. Don says:

    Dr. Spencer et al.,, re your point #11.
    A recent review paper on the geologic record of ocean acidification over the past 300 million years (Science, 335, p.1058, 2012) has a graph indicating that the ocean pH (the measure of acidity) is as basic (opposite of acidic) recently (pH ~8.1) as it has been in the past 280 Myr. During the intervening 280 Myr, the pH was more acidic, with a pH as low as 7.6. Atmospheric CO2 280 Myr ago was similarly low to today’s value, whereas for the intervening years atmospheric CO2 was likely considerably higher compared to today, i.e., ~1000 ppm.

  18. Just about every single nonsensical argument,claim or prediction they make can NOT be supported through data.

    Data is going against them and will continue to do so and will eventually take care their asinine theory.

  19. Mike Maguire says:

    “The divergence between the real world, that meteorologists must acknowledge every day on the job, and the forecast is not there.”

    Should be RECOGNITION of the divergence between the real world, that meteorologists must acknowledge every day on the job, and the forecast is not there.

  20. Nabil Swedan says:

    Methane is not a potent greenhouse gas, 20-80 times that of carbon dioxide. Because its molecular weight, 18, is smaller than that of air, 28.8. In fact it is not a greenhouse gas at all. If burned, then it becomes equal to carbon dioxide. Computer “experiments” only find methane a potent greenhouse gas. The conclusion is based on “virtual” observations and not based on hard observations or experimental data.

    In the Appendix 3, Climate Science, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, Tyndall (1861) experiment and heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases are referenced as basis of the climate science. Tyndall never mentioned heat trapping properties of CO2, only absorption and radiations. He never tested the real scenario of air with and without o.o4% CO2. In the experiment, which was for pure gases and vapors, the absorbed and radiated infrared radiations came from sources of heat which included heated oil to 250 °C and heated copper ball to low redness. Radiations were observed from very hot pure gases over a copper ball heated by argand burner. The experiment at low and ambient temperature showed nothing. So what good is this experiment for the real scenario where carbon dioxide temperature is at ambient temperature or cooler and infrared radiation is coming from surface at ambient temperature? Clearly, Svante Arrhenius (1896) was correct when he said that the greenhouse gas effect was not tested.

    • Don says:

      The molecular weight of methane is 16, not 18.
      Ask someone who uses an IR spectrometer if CO2 absorbs IR radiation.

      Many of the comments on this blog talk past one another, giving opinions, not debating facts.

      • Nabil Swedan says:

        And who disagrees with you? Gases absorbs IR, and Tyndall’s experiments show that. But there are no heat trapping gases, neither in the Tyndall’s experiment nor in practice.

        • Don says:

          You apparently. Here are your words above:
          “Methane is not a potent greenhouse gas ….. its molecular weight, 18…..it is not a greenhouse gas at all…….Computer “experiments” only find methane a potent greenhouse gas.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            I do not understand your point. Are you saying that a gas that absorbs IR exhibit a greenhouse gas effect? If so, you should review the greenhouse gas theory. The theory states that Methane (and greenhouse gases) act as a solid wall that prevents heat from escaping and surface temperature increases as a result. One government website at one time explained that greenhouse gases act as a floating ceramic tile in that air that keeps radiating heat long after sunset. Is carbon dioxide a ceramic tile? If so we would all be having asthma big time and probably dead by now.

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Methane degrades to CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere over a period of ~ 5-10 years, mostly driven by reactions with OH.

      And yes, methane is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs IR light and is thermally excited in the atmosphere to emit IR. You can see the emission from the atmosphere directly

      • Nabil Swedan says:

        First, your link smears Arrhenius, for he did not say that his work is correct or proved the existence of the greenhouse gas effect. He said the theory has not been tested and “I lay this work before the public and critics.” Second, all gases absorb IR and methane absorbs less than CO2, but absorption of IR does not make a gas a greenhouse gas by definition. You should review the greenhouse gas theory. The theory states that Methane (and greenhouse gases) acts as a solid wall that prevents heat from escaping and surface temperature increases as a result. One government website at one time explained that greenhouse gases act as a floating ceramic tile in air that keeps radiating heat long after sunset. Is carbon dioxide a ceramic tile floating in air?

        • Go Whitecaps!! says:

          Totally wrong partner. Greenhouse gases cool the earth by radiating energy into outer space. Ergo, not a solid wall.
          And, who gives a rats behind about some mysterious government web site.

  21. I say before decade end if prolonged solar minimum conditions resume in earnest and the secondary /primary climate effects of this (which I feel are real) start to manifest themselves in the climate system.

    AGW theory is on borrowed time.

  22. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    Thank you for a well thought out post. You wrote:

    “Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.”

    In a previous “GREEN NAZI” post I dealt with this issue. Assume Jacques Cousteau’s fantasy of eliminating 2/3ds of the human race becomes a reality. Well that still leaves over 2 billion people on the planet to screw it up again. In fact, 2+ billion people represents the earth’s population in the early 20th century which from everything we can tell had rising CO2 levels then.

    Other interesting questions arises. Assuming, some psuedo scientist quack determines some arbitrary CO2 level and/or temperature should be humanity’s IDEAL, how much energy must humanity expend and how much CO2 added to the atmosphere simply to prevent people from emitting too much CO2?!!! What if he’s wrong and the actions taken INCREASE the very problems meant to be addressed. Think of Newton’s 3rd Law. For every human action their is an equal and opposite reaction. How much environmental damage will humanity suffer as a result of actions taken to prevent environmental damage and/or to reach some perceived goal?!!! Economics becomes more relevant than ever.

    Have a great day!

  23. Nate says:

    So let me get this straight.

    Government = bad = dumb = lies.

    Big corporation = good = smart = truth.

    Does that about sum it up?

    • Peter Yates says:

      Well, not really.
      We weren’t talking about all governments, or all government decisions. Just some decisions that might be influenced by advice that we think isn’t based on empirical evidence.

      Also, we weren’t talking about big corporations, or any corporation for that matter.

      Those are ‘straw man’ arguments. A fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument.

      We know that governments are not all bad, are not all dumb, and do not all tell lies. And.. we know that corporations are not all good, are not all smart, and (occasionally) do not always tell the truth.

      • Nate says:

        This is my (only slightly exaggerated) summary of Roy’s Caveat emptor at the bottom. I think it illustrates his philosophy and that of many others on this blog.

        The problem is that the fundamental equation is

        Big corporations = profit

        There are many instances when science has shown

        profit = BAD for public interest

        and the response of Big corporations is always the same: work to keep the public DUMB for years about the science, with LIEs and lots of $$.

        Examples:

        Oil industry and Leaded gasoline – Lie: Lead in the environment is natural, not harmful, beneficial. Science is wrong, uncertain.

        Big tobacco: Smoking is not harmful, science is uncertain.

        CFC industry: Ozone hole is natural, science is uncertain.

        And now climate change:

        Coal and oil industry: GW is not happening. If it is happening its natural. If its happening, and its caused by us, then its a good thing. Oh and the scientists are lying.

        And in all these cases the industry (or industry think tank) finds and/or funds Experts (Roy) to raise doubts about the science.

        Its the same story over and over. And it has been effective.

        • David Johnson says:

          Please name and provide validation of which coal/gas corporations are funding the doubters

          • Nate says:

            Exxon-The Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, many others-Google for documentation.

            See also “Merchants of Doubt”, Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, which has LOTS of documentation.

            Similar one, though I havent read, is

            “Doubt is their product”, Davis Michaels

        • TonyM says:

          Nate:
          Argument by analogy is not necessarily correct and often extremely misleading. You do indeed exaggerate and conflate issues.

          Tobacco: The problem here was that the companies lied about the knowledge in their possession. This is no less dishonest than some of AGW sagas. Have a look at Mann; he is still fighting to keep from disclosing data. Have a look at the Cook/Lewandowsky debacle. There are others like Murcott etc.

          Petroleum – Lead: I don’t believe that lead alkyls were ever clearly implicated and it may have been correct at the time that there was not a scientific case. If you believe they had undisclosed information and lied about it please give us the source.

          Petroleum/Gas: It is really quite naïve of you to promulgate the idea that oil interests are against CAGW. Shell’s own strategic plans are based around more renewables. If you don’t understand the reason you should perhaps do some homework or at least ask yourself who stands to benefit if more renewable sources are built given they are very unreliable. That might provide the answer as to why the likes of Shell are exhorting Govts to legislate for more renewable energy.

          Climate skeptics are not skeptics because they wish to withold information or don’t want scientific testing. We are skeptics because all the usual hypothesis testing shows the CAGW is baseless in practice. Name the specific predictions which have come true. Name any model which has been found to predict correctly.

          Now list all the failures.

          In science it only takes one failure to throw an idea into question if not outright rejection. CAGW is Mickey Mouse science in that the more numerous and greater the failures then the higher is the confidence in it being correct – IPCC and Obama mentality.

          Who wud have thunk it??

          • Nate says:

            Sure.

            Hansen, et. al. Science 28 August 1981:
            Vol. 213 no. 4511 pp. 957-966 predicted surprisingly well the rise in temperature over the next 30 years (slightly underestimated it actually). This was before anyone heard of GW.

            I was asked to give examples, documentation, and I did. Noone, including you found fault with these.

            The organizations I named, plus many others, tend to be industry funded think-tanks, e.g. The Greening Earth Society, which was funded by Western Fuels a coal industry consortium group. Their goals are to raise doubts about science that, if accepted by the public, could affect their profits. There are many many more examples, if youd care to learn about them, or you can take a look at the books I mentioned.

            I didnt say all oil companies are behaving the same way. Shell’s approach is interesting. I assume they realize that this is good PR. Just as I believe not all tobacco co. took the same approach.

            The Leaded gasoline case is well-documented-just look up the bio of Robert A. Kehoe.

    • Nate says:

      To clarify, this is in response to Roy’s Caveat Emptor statement.

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        Nate: there are many instances where people who run corporations lie. There are also many instances of where people who work in or for government lie. There are also many instances where other people lie. The common factor is people – not corporations or government. Their purpose is the same: to enhance their own position.

        I find, after years of reading, that climate changes and we can’t predict it exactly. (see Chaos by James Gleick) What is known is that we are probably in between ice ages. Not that is a scary thought.

        Beyond that the issue of AGW and what, if anything, to do about it, is pointed out quite clearly by Dr. Spencer at the beginning of this blog. Why, please tell us, would you want to make the poor and unfortunate suffer the privations of high priced energy? Why, please tell us, would you want more snow and ice, an extended winter, when already in the south, where I live, we only have an late April to early October (6 months or 1/2 year) growing season. Please tell us what benefits the actions of those who support the ideas of (C)AGW will give us, which will outweigh the costs, human and otherwise, of not following them.

        I, for one, am not so concerned about Miami flooding, but am concerned about the ability of mankind to feed himself.

        Further, to be perfectly clear, I believe those who support AGW policies usually have some personal benefit in mind or are sheep. Finally, if President Obama really believes what comes out of the White House on this subject, I suggest he start living like it is important to him, curtailing his flying around and other CO2 producing activities. Otherwise it seems to be something for the people to do, which should not affect the rich etc.

        Explain those away.

        • Nate says:

          Lewis,

          I’ve never heard from anyone else, except Roy, the very speculative idea that the poor would starve if AGW is regulated.

          But I have heard the idea climates would change, in some cases improved, some cases made worse. In many cases the bad effects impact poor people the most, e.g. Bangladesh, other sea-level communities.

          Point is that societies and infrastructure are setup for the climates they have currently. California is dry and moderate, but just wet enough with the help of irrigation, to be a major food growing state. If its climate trends toward drier, its not clear what would happen to its agriculture, and economy.

          If you say that AGW is too small to have major effects, consider El-Nino. It changes Pacific ocean temperatures by only ~ 1 C and global temperatures by ~ 0.2 C, and yet it dramatically affects weather (short-term climate) on the West coast of N. and S. America, Australia, etc.

          We do have examples, in the case of Leaded gasoline, and Ozone, where govts have made a difference, world-wide. World-wide lead levels and its neurological effects on children, have been reduced significantly.

          In the U.S., like it or not, due to the clean air act we have much much lower air pollution than in 1970. Just look at pictures of NYC from the 1960s, it looked like Shanghai does today. Is that preferable?

          • gbaikie says:

            — Nate says:
            May 12, 2014 at 6:00 AM

            Lewis,

            I’ve never heard from anyone else, except Roy, the very speculative idea that the poor would starve if AGW is regulated.–

            Well people are starving now, and have been starving for thousands [or millions] of years. And the people who have starved and are starving are mostly the poor. [other girls that who want to be skinnier- this is a mental problem rather than inability to get enough food.

            So,,,
            “842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. This number has fallen by 17 percent since 1990.

            The vast majority of hungry people (827 million) live in developing countries, where 14.3 percent of the population is undernourished.

            Asia has the largest number of hungry people (over 500 million) but Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence (24.8 percent of population).

            Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five – 3.1 million children each year.”
            http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

            Now to be clear poor nutrition has nothing to do with eating at Mcdonald’s or eating fast food. It’s related to starving. Starving and surviving mean you probably 4 foot tall instead of 5 or 6 feet tall. Starving children is like and is associated children which suffer from diseases- they may live thru it and may not live thru it, but chance dying is much higher, and particularly if you are young.
            And here is another ref:
            “Total number of children that die every year from hunger 1.5 million
            Percent of world population considered to be starving 33%
            Time between deaths of people who die from hunger 3.6 seconds
            Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition 800 million
            Total number of people who do not have enough to eat 936 million people
            Total percentage who do not have enough to eat who live in developing countries 98%
            Total percentage of world’s hungry that live in 7 countries 65%
            Number of people who died of hunger today 20,864
            Total number of people who will die of hunger this year 7,615,360
            Total percentage of U.S. households that are at risk of hunger 11%”
            http://www.statisticbrain.com/world-hunger-statistics/

            Every year or decade there has lower level of people starving, but it does have to be improving. Or world hungry has been lessening, but just time does bring this about, rather it’s reflection increase in global wealth.
            So it’s possible to having decreasing levels of global wealth- so more people die from starvation, or possible for global wealth to not improve- which means level of deaths, such as 7,615,360 people dying per year from it. Or we can continue to increase global wealth and less people can die each year.

            And then you have acute starvation caused by government policy, such as:
            THIRTY-SIX million people in China, including my uncle, who raised me like a father, starved to death between 1958 and 1962, during the man-made calamity known as the Great Famine. In thousands of cases, desperately hungry people resorted to cannibalism. ”
            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/opinion/chinas-great-shame.html?_r=0
            China [or India] were famous for amount people who were starving, now look graph of world:
            http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
            And currently China world leader in total CO2 emission
            and now have rate of malnutrition similar to US.
            There is a relationship, and it’s also why Chinese are not going to cut CO2 emissions.

            –But I have heard the idea climates would change, in some cases improved, some cases made worse. In many cases the bad effects impact poor people the most, e.g. Bangladesh, other sea-level communities. —

            Deaths from floods in places like Bangladesh have reduced despite higher population in present, as compared to past, and this reduction is related to economic growth of Bangladesh- no other reason. Well also having access to satellites data- but that is related to general global increase in wealth. As well as Bangladesh having their own satellites.

          • Nate says:

            gbaike,

            I agree with much of what you say. As you point out, there are many reasons why people are starving or malnourished- govt policies, high birthrates, poverty, drought, warfare, access to healthcare, etc.

            Do you think China’s one-child policy has impacted hunger? I would think so.

            So I think to correlate starvation with CO2 emissions is oversimplifying things and mixing correlation with causation.

            China hopefully will come to grips with the environmental costs of industrialization, just as we did. Poor air quality in cities causes thousands of deaths per year.

            But I think everyone recognizes that any regulation of GHG would have to be implemented more gradually in the developing world.

    • Phyte On says:

      Government is not capable, competent, or cost-effective to regulate the climate, reverse climate change, control global temperature.

      It would require blind faith to suggest otherwise.

      • Lewis Guignard says:

        Blind Faith takes exception to your association.

        And to emphasize your point, it is a matter of faith to believe we, people can, by our actions or inactions, control the climate.

        Yet these true believers are often the same people who decry others their belief in God or…..

  24. Bud Nalton says:

    Thanks Alec M,take away the basic lies and all the rest will collapse.

  25. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    A good post.
    I feel they still mingles with the two definitions of Climate Change in a very smart way. The real changing climate and the IPCC definition, that climate change is only the human part of it.
    First they use the fact that climate changes, and then they switch to the other definition and conclude it must be human.

    They too contineously mix climate change and warming, so that if you see some warming you believe that all climateparameters also change, and if you see some climate change, then you combine it with warming, and so it goes in circles.
    Climate change could also mean cooling, but we are so brainwashed that we always connect it to warming.
    And by their definition, any change is always to the worse.
    Case closed, we are doomed. (Unless……).

  26. Ed Caryl says:

    Roy, an excellent rebuttal. Lead on.

  27. “11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.”

    Isn’t the amount of CO2 in the oceans like 40 times greater than that in the atmosphere? It’s my understanding that 1 ppmv weights 8 billion tons, so about 3.2 trillion tons in the atmosphere. For oceans I cannot find the number right now but it seems there are 36 trillion tons of carbon, or 130 trillion tons of CO2 – equivalent to 16,000 ppmv.

    So assuming we’ve added 120 ppmv to the atmostphere, and the same amount to the ocean, that would increase CO2 content by 0.3%. Big flaming deal.

    Also: when did “affect” become a negative? These guys assume Gaia was Heaven before Man invented the SUV, therefore every time we “affect” something it’s a bad thing.

    And other thing: anybody has any idea how much CO2 is there in a typical city’s atmosphere? We always hear nature changes so slowly and cannot adapt to man, but plants and trees in cities seem to be doing fine (and presumably CO2 levels are much higher than 400 ppmv).

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Yes, but most of that CO2 is in the deep ocean and is not found in the top layer and corresponds to the CO2 concentration a millenia or so ago. It takes several centuries if not more to equilibrate the CO2 in the deep ocean with the upper ocean and the atmosphere.

      FWIW plants and trees in cities are much more negatively effected by tropospheric ozone produced from nitrogen oxides and volatile organics that any possible CO2 fertilization effect.

    • llew Jones says:

      Here in Australia the safe standard for worker exposure to CO2 is 5,000 ppm for 8 hours.Australia is considered to be over regulated compared with say the USA and one could be very sure that 5,000 ppm for 8 hours exposure is well within health safety limits.

      It’s generally accepted that at 30,000 ppm short term exposure humans should start to get really worried.

  28. Thanks, Dr. Spencer. Well said.
    You wrote:
    Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet.

    See “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2” (CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Australia’s national science agency. 3 July 2013), at http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

  29. Ed Mihelich says:

    Dr. Roy,
    I have been following the UAH MSU column for the contiguous USA48 for a number of years. Given the focus of this report on our country, I’m wondering if you would be willing to add such a column to your monthly update. It looks to me like there is just enough room. This would give readers a view to the immediate past and I think will be an interesting trend to follow as time goes by.

  30. Lawrence MacIntyre says:

    I am a layman, not a scientist, but as a longtime follower of the debate on this issue, I just want to thank you and John Christy for being the best source I know of for straight talk — and good data — on this issue. I hope you guys aren’t thinking of retiring anytime soon. We’re gonna need you for some time to come it appears. The exaggerations and dishonesty in this White House report are astounding. It scares me to think of the damage these people will do to the human race if they ever succeed in making energy scarce. Again, thank you, and hang in there.

    • rossbrisbane says:

      Lawerance, It scares the hell out of me to think that these two men, John Christy and Roy Spencer could be responsible for complete inaction on their biased contributions about Climate Change within the US congress. In a future shock found to be completely wrong. Future generations will remember and if they are wrong it won’t be pretty for them.

      • llew Jones says:

        You give yourself away R. Brisbane. You like most warmists are incredibly deficient in your understanding of the historical so called “settled science” of GHG warming.

        You also like most of the warmist sect of climate science in my country, Australia, are first and foremost climate change activists all of whom fail to grasp the reality that as yet we humans know relatively little about how Earth’s climate system, in all its chaotic complexity works. And yet are prepared on the basis of models, that don’t produce accurate hindcast data that can be verified, forecast or should that be prophesy, global temperatures far into the future.

        From Arrhenius’s time until now the “settled science”, for any significant global warming, postulates the necessity of a net positive feedback from the relatively insignificant and diminishing effect of an increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 when considered by itself.

        Until it has been ascertained whether the overall climate feedbacks are net positive, neutral or negative those ignorant activists like yourself, whether climate scientists or lay believers, should realise that the alarmist hysteria and the solutions proposed are infinitely more destructive of economies and lives than any future AGW could be.

        Based on the present relatively insignificant global warming due to our present historic relatively high and increasing fossil fuel emissions, not only from developed countries but also from the coming industrial (coal burning) giants, China and India.

        In other words you should stop wasting your time and ours with your profound ignorance of how the Earth’s climate system works which is probably one likely cause of your naive alarmism

      • Go Whitecaps!! says:

        Ross, don’t be scared. It’s not as bad as you think. It’s never a good idea to make decisions based on your fears. Be brave. Search for the truth.

      • Phyte On says:

        We are doomed.

  31. Pitiful assessment, I thought the left could do better than this climate innuendo.

  32. Peter Yates says:

    “11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.”
    *Not a problem ….
    The oceans absorb some CO2 when temps are cooler, and out-gases some CO2 when the temps have been warmer, much like the bubbles in a fizzy drink. That process has been happening for millions of years. Marine ecosystems seem to have adapted to those conditions, unless I’m very mistaken.

  33. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Roy

    The headlines are just handwaving and doomsaying. Do they have real data and statistics to back it up? Seems like they are just blaming “climate change” for bad weather and the adverse effects of normal weather.

    “Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.”

    Maybe they can’t ski on summer but they can farm instead.

    “Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species.”

    Nothing new here, the climate has been changing since the time of dinosaurs. Not the fault of dinosaurs. Agriculture has greater impact on biodiversity. Man has converted a third of all land to agriculture. Farms are not a natural ecosystem. We favor certain plants and animals to live in agricultural land.

    “Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species.”

    This may be true if “warm water” means near boiling temperature. But the greatest coral reefs and marine biodiversity are found in tropical warm seas.

    • ren says:

      There also are developing algae, which provide much of the oxygen in the atmosphere (for example, the outlet Amazon River).

    • JohnKl says:

      Dr. Strangelove,

      You wrote:

      “Man has converted a third of all land to agriculture. Farms are not a natural ecosystem. We favor certain plants and animals to live in agricultural land.”

      True. Some claim 2/3’s of the earth’s flora to be inedible. In any case, there seems to be a consistent theme that has become somewhat of an alarmist TRADITION of blaming almost all environmental ills ( desertification, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, etc. ) on climate change aka anthropogenic global warming. This occurs despite the fact that humanity has known other causes for all these phenomenon for years. Poor land use and water policies result in desertification throughout the planet, but no it supposedly can only be the result of theoretically excessive atmospheric CO2 concentrations ( the depletion of the once semi-tropical Sea of Cortez due to U.S. consumption of Colorado river water would be a case in point ). Many of us know commercial agricultural fertilizers will cause coral bleaching when it comes into contact with coral reefs.

      I could go on but am short of time. The climate change propaganda game may well convince the ignorant, illiterate and close-minded. This seems to be a large and growing population.

      Have a great day!

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
      H. L. Mencken

  34. Gaylan Niblock says:

    This sure is fun! And I wonder how many of the commentators are on the dole? I think there is a pretty strong correlation between those receiving government funding and those who believe that this human induced global warming will be a catastrophe that must be dealt with by throwing huge sums of tax payer money at it.

  35. Gaylan Niblock says:

    …..and if I were you, Roy Spencer, I would watch my six o’clock. Ideas of this nature bear monitoring by the powers that be.

  36. JD King says:

    Very well said Dr. Spencer! Thanks for your work.

  37. Rich says:

    “Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.”

    Has any correlation been made to the obvious fact that the greatest number of weather stations showing increased temperatures are at airports AND (logical and) that prior to 1970 only the richest used air travel. Since 1970 the usage magnitude and industrialization of airports has increased at an exponential rate. Trains are no longer the mode of transportation, package and parcel transportation was by train. Now it is by AIR. There was no FedEx in 1970, now any airport that is big enough has many FedEx flights. Same for UPS and many other freight deliveries. All of that has GREATLY increased and GREATLY affected the TREND that you and others speak of and attribute to being man-made.

    YES the increase is man made but how much is from the impact, usage, and industrialization of airports that once were in the middle of NOWHERE and now are the middle of the majority of the cities activity – and how much is from the added CO2 which is what is getting all of the credit for this TREND. Look at O’Hara Airport 1968 and 2014. Look at ANY airport in 1970 and today. The temperature as reported on TV in my city of 500,000 (and noted as being provided from the NWS station) is always 2-3 degrees higher than the three thermometers at my house and I am only 5-6 miles away from the airport monitoring location.

  38. I’m totally surprised that no one remarks about the Sunspot Theory that is causing the ups and downs of our climate.
    My grand daughter, as a Sophomore in High School, back in 2007, did an investigation, with a friend, for a class studying Global Warming.
    They found, that during the last Century, the Temperature on Earth had nearly been following exactly the amount of Sunspots appearing on the Sun. (Where else)?
    They completed a graph showing this phenom but I cannot get it to come to this page. It did appear in my book that came out in 2008 with a section on the subject and I used her graph in the book. (Still available on Amazon and through big book store computers and through the the Publisher {Trafford Publishing}.
    God Bless and keep working!
    JCH

  39. rossbrisbane says:

    Roy your just not keeping up the science are you?

    NEW FINDINGS – Increased levels of CO2 grow crops quicker but DESTROY NUTRIENT values.

    Transcript Interview (ABC – Science Australian Broadcasting Commission NOT American ABC) on this new finding follows:

    SAMUEL MYERS: There are roughly 2 billion people around the world who suffer from these deficiencies, and ultimately zinc deficiency affects our immune functions. So, much of the burden of disease is calculated through early child mortality from infectious diseases like malaria and diarrhoea, pneumonia, measles. And for iron deficiency, we see anaemia, but we also see sharp increases in maternal mortality, loss of IQ, reduced work productivity.

    SIMON FRAZER: The study’s results are based on trials of six common crops at sites in the US, Japan and Australia.

    Glenn Fitzgerald is a co-author who runs a carbon dioxide testing program at Horsham for Victoria’s Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

    His team grew wheat and field peas in a specially adapted open field.

    GLENN FITZGERALD: Currently, future levels are around 400 points per million, and we’re elevating them to 550, which is predicted for 2050.

    So, that’s done through a series of horizontal pipes that are joined and they get raised up on posts as the crop goes so that they sit just above the top of the crop, and injects CO2. It’s all computer controlled in terms for wind speed, direction and central concentration of CO2.

    SIMON FRAZER: Dr Fitzgerald says the research builds on previous work showing higher carbon dioxide makes some plants grow more quickly.

    He says it now appears that quantity comes at the expense of quality.

    GLENN FITZGERALD: It does depend on environment, rainfall, temperature et cetera. But here at Horsham, we’re seeing, on average, an increase of about 20-25 per cent increase in yield, but you also get then this 5-10 per cent decrease in protein and zinc and iron concentrations.

    SIMON FRAZER: Those in the developing world are more susceptible to falling nutrition levels in staple plants because they’re less likely to have regular access to other foods to fill the gap.

    Dr Fitzgerald says they’re now looking at potential solutions, including breeding new varieties.

    GLENN FITZGERALD: Then perhaps we can counteract some of these negative impacts that are occurring due to CO2.

    _____

    Now Roy if the above findings are true then over half your arguments under this thread get a big fail. I just saw you big wall collapse!

    • ren says:

      Harvest depend primarily on the temperature. If the temperature is falling over large areas, as now in Canada a problem arises. CO2 is a completely natural component of the atmosphere, and the sun is the source of energy.

    • Mike Maguire says:

      rossbrisbane,

      Another hand waving, clearly biased interpretation to reveal a big………..nothing.

      Spend a few minutes here to read some rational and science based comments that explain why:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/07/claim-as-co2-levels-rise-some-crop-nutrients-will-fall/#more-108771

      “Then perhaps we can counteract some of these negative impacts that are occurring due to CO2”

      Response to CO2’s negative impacts
      1. Farmers running out of storage space to for their record large crops. Solution: build bigger bins
      2. Price of food crops going down as supply goes up. Solution(for farmers): sell more and be grateful that CO2 fertilization is contributing to your success at harvest time
      3. Logistics of transporting increased food supply to people that are starving. Solution: stop wasting billions of dollars on stupid studies vilifying a beneficial gas and spend it on this.
      4. Scientists and governments/politicians on the CO2 gravy train that feeds off of tax payer dollars. Solution: vote their fraudulent ars’s out and stop funding biased research based on junk science intended to provide support for a political agenda.
      5. 1 study that finds some micro nutrients in bin busting crops is lower in some cases vs some studies that suggest otherwise. Solution: Do more studies> If it is significant, continue to develop advanced hybrids to adapt, as has always been the case. Continue to amend the soil to offset for higher yielding crops needing additional nutrients.

    • GTguy says:

      Ross,

      It scares me that there are people in the world like you. This study is nothing but Green propaganda trying to deflect attention from the fact that CO2 fertilization of crops will result in a 30% to 40% increase in crop yields and nutrient levels. The very small reductions in a few nutrients is greatly overshadowed by the very large increases in yields. That you or anyone(especially the authors) can interpret the findings as one that increased levels of CO2 will DESTROY nutrient levels in food crops, is absolutely mind boggling. . It actually increases many of the nutrients in addition to the large yield increase. The most that any essential nutrients in any of the crops studied has a lower nutrient value is 2% to 3%. Probably in the noise of measurement. It would more accurate to say there is little or no change whatsoever in nutrient value.

      A very brilliant lady from Perth, Joanne Nova, has an article exposing this nonsense for what it is. Have a read.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/increasing-co2-threatens-human-nutrition-from-the-annuls-of-hype/

      Ciao

  40. Jeff says:

    I was recently in Williams, AZ on April 27th during a freaky spring snow and was talking with the owner of the B&B about the snow. He told me about 40% of his customers came from overseas and they all had tales of weather extremes and perceived climate change in their countries. I’m not qualified to prove or disprove climate change, global warming or whatever but I read lots of climate change web sites and happen to believe most of the world’s climate is changing rapidly due to man’s influence. I still prefer to believe the roughly 97% of climate scientists who think we have and are radically changing our climate.

  41. ren says:

    Look for cycles 17,18 and 19, and on 21, 22 and 23 Do you really you do not see why there has been a warming? You can also see weaker cycle 20 and 24 Was not cool?
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

  42. Johng161 says:

    Its actually a nice and helpful piece of information. Im glad that you shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing. eabedckeedba