No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier”

January 13th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Yesterday, the New York Times and other media outlets repeated the falsehood that I am a climate “denier”.

I usually ignore such potentially libelous statements, otherwise I’d be defending myself every week.

So, to set the record straight, here’s what I believe… I’ll let you decide whether I’m a climate “denier”.

  1. I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
  2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

As people who frequent this blog well know, I have held these views for many years. I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as “there is no greenhouse effect”, or “it’s impossible for a cold atmosphere to make the Earth’s surface even warmer”.

So, Why Is Roy Spencer Called a Climate Denier?

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a “crisis” or an “emergency”, or else you will be thrown under the bus.

They claim we must embrace expensive (and ineffective) sources of alternative energy. But, like Bjorn Lomborg (who actually believes the alarmist predictions of future warming) and many others, I believe it will be much worse for humanity if we abandon fossil fuels before alternative technologies are abundant, affordable, and practical.

Human flourishing requires access to affordable energy, which is required for almost all human activities. It is immoral to deny fossil-fueled electricity to the world’s poor, and its replacement in even the richest countries still destroys prosperity, especially for the poor.

For believing these things, I am declared evil, apparently on par with a Holocaust denier (thus the rhetoric).

Here’s some of that rhetoric from the Daily Kos yesterday, which covered the firing of White House skeptical scientists Dr. David Legates and Dr. Ryan Maue (emphasis added):

“The bundle of boring and basic denial myths compiled to appease the deadly denial of the Trump administration was published first, it appears at least, by U-Alabama Huntsville’s Dr. Roy Spencer, who contributed a chapter. His post about the flyers was then bounced around the deniersphere, where the same audiences who gobble up unhinged conspiracies about voter fraud or satan-worshipping Democrats can eagerly read the climate denial versions of those violent fantasies.”

This is apparently what happens when you take frustrated creative writers and give them jobs as journalists.

Given recent political events it appears there is now a renewed efforts to have dissenting voices silenced through “cancel culture”, removal of websites, public ridicule, censorship, etc.

Unity in our country will, apparently, be achieved, because once dissenting voices are silenced, “unity” is all that is left.


437 Responses to “No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier””

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Dr. Spencer
    The character attack “climate denier” is a badge of honor in the world of real climate science. You are attacked because you provide good temperature data, and real climate science.
    This is one of the best climate science blogs in the world.
    We can get always wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate change crisis elsewhere — that’s climate astrology.

    I thank you for the UAH satellite data from a consistent environment, where the greenhouse effect occurs. With the near global coverage, they are the only data worthy of real science.

    The surface data have too much infilling and repeated arbitrary adjustments. They are also affected by economic growth, land use changes, and repeated changes in measurement methodology.

    For example: I have yet to see a comparison of all the different ocean surface temperature measurement methodologies from the past 150 years, tested in the same location, to see how their temperature readings differ.

    It is my opinion that without UAH data, the surface temperature measurements would have already been adjusted higher to show even more global warming. I suspect the UA.H data keeps those government bureaucrats “in the ballpark”

    I have two minor problems with the “I believe” statements at the beginning of your post.

    RE:(1)
    Thanks to UAH, you should NOT use the term “I believe”. You should say you have accurate data to show mild, intermittent global warming in the troposphere since 1979 — this is much stronger than “I believe”.

    RE:(2)
    Since the future climate is unknown, you should not state a belief in continued mild global warming. Beliefs are not scientific. TCS and ECS are guesses.

    You end the paragraph with “we simply don’t know” … but those words should have STARTED the paragraph.

    We have had cooling and warming of our planet — no trend lasted forever. The ability to predict the future climate has been low — 50 years of wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis. The right answer is we don’t know the future climate. Beliefs and assumptions don’t change that fact.

  2. Nate says:

    You wear two hats. When you are doing pure science you are a Luke-warmer (or more with your latest modeling results).

    But then you are also political activist/author. With that hat on you come off as a supporter of Climate Denialism. With book titles like The Great Global Warming Blunder, that certainly doesnt sound like the middle ground.

    In your political advocacy you have expressed a belief that the risks of Climate Change are low, and require no carbon regulation. Not the middle ground.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      the “blunder” addressed the use of the temperature-cloud relationship what was used to support of claims of positive cloud feedbacks. Since that time, other papers have been published which support my claim.

      Yes, my political advocacy is partly why I’ve been thrown under the bus, which sort of makes my point: The reasons I’m called a climate denier have little to do with my views of the science.

    • Greg says:

      Nate, just curious do you have a background in some sort of climate science or some form of education to suggest you might have any right what so ever to second guess this mans view or credentials. My guess is you do not given the nature of your response. Best keep your yap shut if your not qualified to critique. Food for thought….

    • Nate says:

      My background is in physics. But I have read a lot in recent years in climate science, as well as Roy’s blog.

      All scientists have to deal with respectful criticism, and he certainly can.

      I agree with some of his posts while not with others and I tell it like I see. That is par for the course on a blog like this.

  3. I agree we don’t know what will be happening as we move forward. I think cooling but I have been wrong so far.

  4. Dr. Spencer is not a climate denier, rather he is a person who entertains all views, and always leaves the door pened that such views could be correcyt. T

  5. Dr. Spencer is not a climate denier, rather he is a person who entertains all views, and always leaves the door opened that such views could be correct. That is how I see him.

  6. Mark B says:

    I’d just point out that a post which devotes more space to political and policy rhetoric than to the details of your scientific position is probably a sub-optimal way to demonstrate scientific objectivity.

    Also, in bullet point 2, the paranthetical “it could be less than this” following the assertion that your estimate of climate sensitivity is within (the low end of) the IPCC range seems self-inconsistent.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      It would be difficult to explain why I’m falsely called a climate denier without addressing the policy and political environment we live in.

      I added “could be less than” to illustrate the scientific uncertainty. It could also be 10 deg. C of warming, but my best estimate is 1.5 to 2 C, which is within the IPCC range.

      • Svante says:

        Roy Spencer says:
        “It could also be 10 deg. C of warming”

        What is the probability distribution do you think?
        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/slide11.png

        • gbaikie says:

          Supernovas are possible. 10 km diameter comet impacting Earth is possible. And interstellar impactor could hit Earth.
          Earth could swallow it’s oceans. We could have supervolcano.

          Assuming nothing like that, If Earth has 10 deg of warming, what does it look like?
          It’s loosely possible because Earth has been 10 degree warmer than present average global temperature.
          But I don’t think it’s been that warm with present configuration of Earth, or it has not been that warm while we have been in this Ice Age.
          Anyhow, we have ocean surface which averages about 17 C and all land surface average about 10 C.
          If Earth’s ocean surface were to increase by 10 C, so had average of 27 C, I think that would close to average global temperature of 25 C.
          Or if entire ocean temperature of 3.5 C increased by 10 C, so it was about 13.5 C. Well I think the significant problem would be related thermal expansion of ocean. But that probably would not add 10 C to global temperature, but we would left the Ice Age.

          In say last 3 billion years, how warm has entire ocean ever become?
          I guess around 30 C {with large part of the ocean actually boiling}.

  7. bdgwx says:

    You advocate for nuh-uh arguments without following up with a better model that explains and predicts the climate any better than what we already have.

    And some of these nuh-uh arguments are highly questionable. For example, “The energy imbalance allegedly causing global warming is too small (0.8 Watts per sq. meter) to measure with any of our existing instrumentation”. We are literally doing it. See Cheng 2020 and Schuckmann et al 2020.

    You advocate for non-sequiturs like “The Climate Warmed and Cooled Naturally in the Past” and “Considerable evidence exists that the Medieval Warm Period (~1,000 years ago) and the Roman Warm Period (~2,000 years ago) were just as warm as it is today.” The fact that climate changes is all the more proof that given the right nudge the climate will change in the future as well. And maybe it was warmer in the past. But that in no way precludes humans from being a significant factor in the warming today.

    You don’t try to constrain possibilities. You just list a bunch of maybies and couldbies. The vibe that is given off here is that scientist not only cannot eliminate any factor, but they cannot even constrain the magnitude of its effect. For example, “Sometimes stratospheric cooling is claimed as a fingerprint, but cooling is not evidence of warming.”. You know that this specific observations significantly constrains the causes of the warming. Why not mention that and then work to find a plausible natural-only factor that fits inside that constraint and other observational constraints?

    And the general tone of your flyer would cause many lay people to take away the idea that if we don’t have perfect understanding of every element of the climate system then it is equivalent to having no understanding at all.

    And be honest. Do you really think these flyers represent the “current state-of-the-science on various topics of climate change.”?

    Don’t get me wrong here. Your pioneering work on measuring the global temperature via satellites is indispensable. That you can be commended for. And calling you a “denier” isn’t helpful. But given the above I don’t think respectful criticisms are a surprise.

    • Clint R says:

      bdgwx, your attempt to judge from a position of moral authority is ridiculously hypocritical.

      You are a troll with an agenda. You run from reality, and are anti-science. Almost everyone of your comments is laced with bias and inaccuracies. You leave messes that you avoid cleaning up, like this one:

      “Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”

      1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
      2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?

  8. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    You have become a victim of the recent US tendency to polarised two value logic.

    Nowadays people are Left or Right, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, Republican or Democrat, with us or against us.

    Mid-range positions on climate change such as consensus, sceptic and lukewarmer have lost their impact.

    The media don’t have the subtlety for fine distinctions, their positions on climate have polarised into the alarmists and the deniers.

    I’m part of the consensus, but am branded by the denizens here as an alarmist. You are a sceptic/lukewarmer, but are branded by the MSN as a denier.

    Personally I date the onset of this polarisation to midway through Obama’s first term, when the Republicans told Nancy Pelosi that there would be no more cooperation with the POTUS.

    Ten years later this is what has become of the US

    • Strictly a question for “Entropic man”:How does the theory of gravity not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

      • Entropic man says:

        Energy is conserved and entropy does not decrease, but what has this to do with pigeonholing people into simplistic categories?

    • Lee says:

      Entropic Man. I’m not a student of US politics but was under the impression that Trump made a serious error when he vowed to take down the Clintons and clear the ‘swamp’. I’d assumed that’s why he had been attacked so venomously and relentlessly over the last 4 years by the Democrats. I’m of the mind that the US political polarisation has been largely fuelled by the Dems contempt for Trump but your take on the timing is very interesting and deserves consideration. Perhaps any Republican President would have faced such a backlash if indeed, the Rep Party refused to cooperate as you say.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Politics produces a lot of differing opinions, I date the onset of polarization to the Democrat witch hunts of 1992 — which lead to one victim asking after vindication: “where do I go to get back my good name?” These witch hunts miffed Republicans and undermined the willingness of many to be cooperative. Then after the 1994 elections, the blatant declaration of Democrats that they were going to obstruct (emboldened by mainstream media’s commitment to cast Democrats in good light and Republicans in bad), the polarization was on full scale.

      (Recognition: some blame polarization on Gingrich’s tactics when he was the minority leader. Yes, disagreements are numerous.)

    • Geoff Sherrington says:

      E man,
      The politics of the USA do not greatly concern me as an Australian who does not vote there. It follows that my take on global warming science is largely apolitical.
      From the start of my interest in global warming, about 1992, these characterstcs emerged:
      1. There was cherry picking of temperature data at Uni f East Anglia where Phil Jones worked, the first I had seen in science
      2. There was misuse of tree ring data and home made statistics by Mann et Al, starting the hockey stick fiasco
      3. There was no link established for the cornerstone of global warming, being the relationship in the atmosphere between CO2 levels and air temperatures. That relationship still has not been shown to useful accuracy after decades of study. Some cornerstone!
      4. There was and still is, manipulation of many sets of near-surface temperatures under homgenization, which is now so widespread and large as to be unacceptable, no matter what your politics are.
      5. The Climategate email releases were a fundamentally important expose of dirty tricks and unacceptable science that should have led to widespread sackings for several crimes rather than official whitewashes. It was sickening reading for honest, neutral, hard scientists.
      5. There have been years of objection to valid attempts to question the popular tenents of climate change, descending into downright rudeness and uncivil conduct, with the result that accepted science is likely to be wrong science.
      6. The standard of establishment science, overalll, has been poor. Just one example of this is the paucity of scientific publications that include properly-evaluated terms for error and uncertainty, despite text book examples of the proper methods.
      7. There are many more possible criticism that neutral observers could make and have made.

      Dr Roy Spencer has not, IMO, any grounds to he criticsed.
      He might want to do a little more publicising of his error analysis, is all that comes to mind. This is dwarfed by the visible, important advances he has made to the relevant science, contributing rather more than most people who criticise his work. But who am I to judge? Geoff S

  9. David Vanegas says:

    It strikes me that when the predictions are so wrong, there’s something wrong with even the basic theory of AGW. Like you Dr. Spencer, I’m a lukewarmer. Yes we probably make a contribution to the tiny warming we’re seeing over a tiny period of time, but rational thought doesn’t count anymore.

    Climate change is a religion to the drama greens and a vehicle for politicians to distract people from issues they could actually solve.

    Out fo interest, when you say you’d expect warming to be in the 1.5 – 2.0 degree range with a doubling of total CO2.. Does that mean you think human induced warming contributes ~25% of warming?

    My science education is limited, but I take an interest because the claims of disaster are high, the costs to tackle it are staggering, and I think we’re being sold a pup. Thanks for what you do.

  10. Eben says:

    Abandon Planet , Shuttle leaves at noon

  11. Tim S says:

    Climate Change Denial has its own very lengthy Wikipedia page. I have not read the whole thing, but I find it rather alarming that such a political position is taken as fact. If there was a true consensus of settled science, then it might be okay to use that label. But the real denial is believing that highly tuned computer simulations can produce a reliable result, or that the complexities of atmospheric science are understood well enough to draw any conclusions about human activity of any kind.

  12. Ken says:

    I’m currently reading ‘Fallen Angels’ by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. The ‘psi phi’ book was published 1991. Its about glaciers advance and the takeover of government by ‘Greens’ that view any science and technology that might have stopped the cold as ‘inappropriate’. I am quite surprised at how accurately they depicted the dystopian society that results from denial of science that seems so strikingly similar to that which we are currently going through with climate alarmism and removal of rights and freedoms on the basis of a bad flu virus. Its like some people are using the book as their script to advance a rather sinister agenda.

    • barry says:

      My take on COVID is that, surprisingly, governments world wide prioritise the health of their citizens above the health of their economies.

      As well as being strong evidence that the concern is genuine (because every country in the world has some policy response regardless of the political persuasion of the ruling power, and most to the cost of their fiscal bouyancy), it has been a silver lining for me that care for the aged and vulnerable has outweighed a more ruthless pecuniary interest.

      • Clint R says:

        barry, you sure have a strange take on some things.

        There’s no proof all of the lockdowns and restrictions have made much difference. But, the excessive mandates have crippled small businesses, while strengthening large corporations. The media have the sheep so scared that they’re giving up freedoms easily. CNN was at the bottom of ratings before WHO declared the pandemic. Now CNN is soaring, and that means making millions.

        MSM, big corporations, and corrupt politicians gain, the sheep get sheared. “Never let a crisis go to waste”, as someone once said.

        • An Inquirer says:

          There is a good research paper — and unfortunately, I do not have it handy — that said the major determinants of how COVID damages a country is a function of that nation’s obesity and aging population. To further discuss the aging population issue, the better the health care, the longer people live; the longer people live, the more they acquire co-morbidity illnesses; the longer people live & the more co-morbidity issues, the higher the numbers in nursing homes; the more the co-morbidity issues and numbers in nursing homes, the more fatal COVID is in the nation. Ironically, the better the health care of a nation, the more the more damage from COVID!
          It matters little what policies that governments implemented — demographics and personal lifestyle choices swamp the outcome.

          • Clint R says:

            That makes sense.

            Obesity is a definite negative to a healthy immune system. And senior citizens often forget the importance of exercise to keeping their immune system healthy.

            A healthy immune system is many times more effective than any vaccine.

          • An Inquirer says:

            Clint R. You do have valid points in your reply; but you may be too general in your characterization of senior citizens. As a person gets older, exercise often becomes more difficult, and often it is the pain that limits exercise. We are living longer, and the longer we live, the more ailments that can affect the body and the more sources of possible pain. Osteoarthritis is an affliction the reduces the amount of exercise for many.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Inquirer,
            Study Covid in Australia, consider how accurately you generalise. Geoff S

          • barry says:

            Better yet, study COVID worldwide, account for various factors, culture, population health, policy responses, and avoid cherry-picking your samples.

          • barry says:

            Better yet, study the issue worldwide, account for various factors, culture, population health, policy responses, and avoid cherry-picking your samples.

    • Nate says:

      “denial of science”

      Pulleeez..

      • Ken says:

        “denial of science” – “denial of the data” amounts to the same thing.

        One of the quotes of note in ‘Fallen Angels’- “He said that the alleged objectivity of materialist science was an invention of heterosexual, white males, so we shouldn’t use that as a basis for judgment.”

  13. gbaikie says:

    The reality is we in an Ice Age, and apparently no knows, why we in an Ice Age.
    Or we don’t know what causes the cooling.
    Why is our ocean cold.
    Ice Age: cold oceans and ice caps.
    Check the box. We are here.

    • Rob says:

      “We” (homo sapiens … in fact all genus homo) have always existed in an ice age, so what is your point?

      • gbaikie says:

        Why did Earth million of years ago get colder, and why in last 1/2 million has it become the oldest time in the Ice Age?

        And relatively recently, why has Earth cooled for last 5000 years and why was the Little Ice Age been the coldest it’s been in thousands of years?

        • Rob says:

          All interesting questions But is there a point to the questions beyond mere curiosity?

          • Entropic man says:

            Rob

            1a) The Bering Strait closed, blocking the flow of warmer water between the Atlantic and Pacific. This allowed permanent ice cover to form at both Poles.form

            1b) Variations in the amount of isolation at 65N due to Milanovich Cycles.

            2) Earth moved off the Holocene Optimum Milankovich cycle sweet spot, with a bit of extra help from volcanic activity and the Maunder Minimuum.

            The questions were rhetorical, designed to give the impression that the scientists are ignorant and thereby cast doubt on AGW.

            Somehow, when you know the scientific reasons, the tactic loses its impact and the questioner looks silly.

          • Rob says:

            Em

            I knew why – I was hoping to get him to admit to it. Not sure I agree with your reasons though. Ice formed in Antarctica millions of years before it did in the Arctic. It is widely believed that the opening up of the gap between South America and Antarctica was one of the instigators.

          • Entropic man says:

            “I knew why I was hoping to get him to admit to it. ”

            Ireland will freeze over first.

            IIRC Antarctica froze over about 35 million years ago. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that The formation of the circumpolar current triggered it. The Bering Strait shallowed about 2 million years ago, which is when the Ice Age got under way. It seems that you need ice at both poles before the Milankovich cycles can get a grip.

          • gbaikie says:

            -“The questions were rhetorical, designed to give the impression that the scientists are ignorant and thereby cast doubt on AGW.–

            –Em

            I knew why I was hoping to get him to admit to it. Not sure I agree with your reasons though.–

            Admit the questions were rhetorical?
            They were not. And not only don’t agree his “your reasons”, they had little to do with my questions.

            Later answers:
            It is widely believed that the opening up of the gap between South America and Antarctica was one of the instigators
            and:
            I wouldnt be at all surprised that The formation of the circumpolar current triggered it.

            Those are answering it, but also other answers, but “The formation of the circumpolar current triggered it” would main part of it.
            One get into more detail of how and why the formation of the circumpolar current triggered it.

            Now might guess that massive southern current could have some effect upon falling water of north Atlantic as they are connected as part global conveyor belt. ie:
            ” The ocean conveyor gets its start in the Norwegian Sea, where warm water from the Gulf Stream heats the atmosphere in the cold northern latitudes. This loss of heat to the atmosphere makes the water cooler and denser, causing it to sink to the bottom of the ocean. As more warm water is transported north, the cooler water sinks and moves south to make room for the incoming warm water. This cold bottom water flows south of the equator all the way down to Antarctica. Eventually, the cold bottom waters returns to the surface through mixing and wind-driven upwelling, continuing the conveyor belt that encircles the globe.”

            Now, does anyone mention, when global conveyor belt, started?
            Has Earth “always” had global conveyor belt?
            Were poles always connected with a global current?

            But another correct answer, is our Earth, our world, changed. And it will change again {given enough time}. When changes in some major way, it’s possible that it could become even a colder Ice Age, or leave the Ice Age.

            In terms cooling last 5000 years, it seems the Holocene is past it’s interglacial peak.
            Now could be argued the Holocene was interrupted unlike other interglacial periods. So didn’t get as warm- and maybe it will not follow pattern of other interglacial periods.
            Maybe the interruption is related to the 1/2 million year of our Ice Age getting colder.
            But main point seems to be, we have past your peak- though always takes long time to slide into coldest parts of a Glaciation period. We not going get 1 mile ice over NYC in next 100 or even 5000 years. And our recovery from Little Ice Age, might go on for more than century.
            But main issue is what is causing the cooling, and if knew exactly would we, if we could, prevent the cooling. Or if want it even colder, amplify the cooling {somehow}.

  14. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, serious question and I’m not trying to put you on the spot. I sincerely would like an honest opinion.

    Why are there so many Deserts, dry and cold, that show no warming even though CO2 has increased from 270 to 410? Here is my favorite example, but there are many many more.

    Use the “Unadjusted” Data:
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=501943260000&dt=1&ds=5

    There are also differentials between N & S Hemi, N & S Pole, and Land and Sea.

    Lastly, 15µ won’t melt ice, in fact ice emits 10.5µ LWIR. Given the oceans are the main driver behind the atmospheric temperature, and El Ninos occasionally releases the excess energy preventing run-away warming, how does CO2 cause the warming of the oceans, and the prevention of El Ninos, which would be required for temperatures to simply keep marching higher?

    Any insight would be appreciated.

    • CO2isLife says:

      This is my point. If you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, which Deserts do, you get no warming.

      Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Antarctica Has Not Warmed in Last Seven Decades
      https://climaterealism.com/2021/01/peer-reviewed-study-confirms-antarctica-has-not-warmed-in-last-seven-decades/

      I’m sure that if someone did a study on all Deserts they would find the same. I did something similar using the “adjusted” NASA Data and you get a wave, but no uptrend in warming. They warm and cool over the last 140 years, but they don’t trend higher.

      • CO2isLife:
        The article at the link, and the study it summarizes, do not “confirm” Antarctica has not warmed in seven decades.

        The study starts with that data, and then uses two climate models to explain why CO2 would warm the Arctic, and not Antarctica.

        I’m not interested in their computer games but … they are not “confirming” anything, just accepting surface temperature numbers, and playing computer games to try to explain them.

        The actual warming in Antarctica has been local, near underseas volcanoes. Overall, for Antarctica, little or no warming in seven decades. Not what is expected from greenhouse gas warming.
        Completely unlike the Arctic.

        Yet another mystery.
        Science is never settled
        Especially climate science.

        • CO2isLife says:

          I Absolutely love these conclusions. I call them the “Magic Grits” Conclusions.

          “CO2 would warm the Arctic, and not Antarctica.”

          Newsflash, the Arctic is warmed by the oceans, not CO2.

          Magic Grits:
          https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8

          • CO2isLife says:

            BTW, if you think through it, if CO2 warmed water and was able to melt ice, there would be no ice on earth, and the earth would be a rain forest. Ice exists because H20 is removed from the atmosphere, allowing it to cool below 0.00C°. H20 absorbs around 85% of the entire IR Spectrum, including those wavelengths associated with temperatures above room temperature. Redirect 9.5µ back at ice and it will melt. Redirect 15µ back and Ice and it will stay frozen.

            In Antarctica, there is no H2O but plenty of CO2. CO2 absorbs and radiates 15µ LWIR back to the surface. It doesn’t melt the ice. Mountains have ice on their peaks, but only after the H2O has precipitated out of the Atmosphere. It remains cold at altitude because CO2 doesn’t contribute much to warming.

          • CO2isLife says:

            BTW, if CO2 could cause CAGW, Water Vapor would have done it a long time ago. As temperature increases so can water vapor, there is nothing stopping an increase in temp, resulting in an increase in WV, leading to an increase in temp, leading to an increase in WV. Clearly this concept of “feedback” has some flaws, and it is least applicable to CO2.

            https://www.herramientasingenieria.com/onlinecalc/waterVapourPressure/waterVapourPressure.html

          • bdgwx says:

            There is no flaw here; only a misunderstanding of the feedback. WV cannot force or catalyze a long term change in temperature on its own. Therefore it cannot feedback on itself. It only works to amplify temperature changes that were forced or catalyzed by something else.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “WV cannot force or catalyze a long term change in temperature on its own”

            Than neither can CO2. Once again, one of these “Magic Grits” conclusions.

            Magic Grits:
            https://youtu.be/_T24lHnB7N8

          • bdgwx says:

            CO2isLife,

            I’ll remind you that H2O is a condensing gas while CO2 is a non-condensing gas.

  15. Norman says:

    Dr. Spencer

    I would not get too discouraged by the current political climate. I think Entropic man explained it very well on what is going on. An irrational polarization of all positions to divide and conquer.

    I have read you blog for quite some time and would not consider you to be a fanatic in any way. Rational and science based in the vibe I get from this blog.

  16. Bernard williams says:

    Dr. Spencer: Is there a way to get copies of the pamphlets without the white house seal. I read them quickly/briefly when they first came out. Thanks for all your work

  17. “This is apparently what happens when you take frustrated creative writers and give them jobs as journalists.”

    😀 HAHAHAHA!:D Nailed it.

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…there is no such thing as a climate denier. As a degreed meteorologist, you would never deny there is such thing as climate.

    Only a blithering idiot (like Obama, and now Biden) would use the term ‘climate denier’. Not just a blithering idiot, but a politically-correct ****ole.

    Those idiots ran out of luck with their claims of catastrophic global warming because anyone with half a brain could see the changes predicted in temperature, sea level rise, melting glaciers, etc., were nothing to write home about. So, they needed something intangible that could not be questioned, like climate change.

    As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, climates do change and they always have changed. But the idiots are not referring to normal climate change due to changes in precipitation or wind patterns, they are talking about climate change due to a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    There is not a shred of scientific proof to support that sci-fi. The experiment performed by Tyndall circa 1850 proved that CO2 can absorb IR and warm…in a metal tube. No one has ever proved the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can warm anything.

    With regard to some of us skeptics railing about there being no greenhouse effect, we are talking about the lack of science to support the notion that the trace gas can trap heat, like a real greenhouse, where the glass traps actual molecules of heat gases, or the notion that cooler GHGs in the atmosphere can transfer heat to the surface.

    We are not denying there is no mechanism in place that has caused the surface to warm to a higher temperature than the same planet without an atmosphere and/or oceans. The truth is that no one has scientifically proved how the current surface temperature reached its average 15C.

    Therefore, we skeptics are practicing science by questioning unproved science. The alarmists are practicing pseudo-science by creating theories based on unvalidated climate models wherein the theories upon which they are programmed are simply bad interpretations of Tyndall, Arrhenius, etc.

    Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius declared a definite number regarding how much 0.04% CO2 could warm the atmosphere and no one since has proved a warming factor for CO2 in the atmosphere. The models are programmed with a bs CO2 warming factor of 9% to 25% plus a positive feedback that cannot exist in the atmosphere. Take those away and the models would be predicting nothing out of normal.

    I don’t see any skeptic denying that the surface is warmer due to our atmosphere and oceans, we are simply questioning the inanity in the notion that a trace gas could possibly cause catastrophic warming and we are trying to explain it using definitions from physics and thermodynamics.

    BTW…I still disagree with you on the 2nd law. You simply cannot justify a heat transfer from cold to hot, by its own means, using a term like a positive balance of energy. There is no such thing in physics.

  19. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”But then you are also political activist/author. With that hat on you come off as a supporter of Climate Denialism. With book titles like The Great Global Warming Blunder, that certainly doesnt sound like the middle ground”.

    Roy has a Ph.D in meteorology. Why the heck would he deny there is such a phenomenon as climate? Climate is defined in one sense as an average of weather. What does that have to do with the abuse of the word climate employed in ‘climate denier’.

    Only a politically-correct idiot would use such a term.

    • barry says:

      It’s short hand for rejecting AGW, as everyone knows. Cheap shot, G.

      • Clint R says:

        So in barry’s empty head, “climate denier” is “shorthand for “rejecting AGW”?

        (See how they twist and distort reality?)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Clint…”So in barry’s empty head, “climate denier” is “shorthand for “rejecting AGW”?

          (See how they twist and distort reality?)”

          ***

          That’s what it’s all about, smoke and mirrors. We all know the underlying motive of climate alarmists is a fuzzy, feel-good tryst with Mother Nature, an old bag, who would just as soon see you dead as alive. In other, words, they are eco-weenie dreamers who hate real science and distort it for their own benefit.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        In alarmist cloud-cuckoo land, everything is really shorthand for something else, it seems.

        Cooling is short for warming, science is short for religious fervour, and scientist is short for just about anybody.

        Dont you accept that somebody with training in meteorology might know a little more about the weather than your usual group of AGW alarmists? Climate is the average of weather, you know.

        Keep on giving your shorthand lessons. Nothing wrong with humour.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Its [climate denier] short hand for rejecting AGW, as everyone knows. Cheap shot, G.”

        Why the obfuscation? Intelligent people don’t talk in riddles, why not just say ‘AGW denier’?

        You know why. It was tried and it failed. No one notices any global warming because the amount we’ve had could not be noticed in a room, if you turned the thermostat up by the same amount.

        So, the eco-weenies needed a mantra that would appeal to people, especially if, as they are doing to Roy, they made it politically-incorrect to do otherwise.

        That’s the new religion today. Make up crap about the environment and put pressure on others to conform to perverted pseudo-science created to make the religion seem authentic.

        Roy has one thing the alarmists cretins don’t, real data. As John Christy of UAH pointed out, when you take real data to alarmists they ignore it. He took real UAH data to a modeler friend and the modeler told him he did not care, and that his model was right.

        When John Christy testified at a government hearing, with Hillary Clinton in attendance, the stupid bitch insulted him and stood there glaring at him with arms folded. That’s when I got it that Democrats are terminally stupid. When Trump beat Clinton, against all odds, I laughed so hard I thought I’d burst. And, I’m not a right winger.

        The only reason they are back in power is that they found a way to stuff the ballot boxes. They were that desperate.

        • Nate says:

          Oh C’mon, if you don’t know what ‘climate denial’ means after all this time, you’re working overtime to remain ignorant.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Oh Cmon, if you dont know what climate denial means after all this time, youre working overtime to remain ignorant”.

            I refuse to accept nonsense and jargon. Explain what climate denial means in scientific terms. It’s nothing more than emotional idiocy aimed at shaming people into accepting propaganda and bs.

          • barry says:

            Only an idiot would imagine that “climate denier” is meant to mean that someone is denying that there is such a thing as climate.

            So stop with the fatuous outrage already.

  20. tonyM says:

    Name calling, censorship, threats and reprisals are the hallmarks of extreme dictatorships or extreme ideologies. The 1st amendment is jettisoned and replaced by rationalization to shore up a position. Google et al claim they are not publishers but their actions say otherwise.

    Climate “science” certainly does not adhere to the “special integrity” requirements of a scientist as espoused by Feynman. As Lindzen said, some good science was being done around 1990 which was then turned into a religion. He has called for defunding 90% of this field.

    This is being driven by Govts. It is hard to disappoint the boss paying your wages. Even better if Govts are a soft touch given the emotions, just cause and political mileage of saving the world. Schneider said some lying was acceptable. Andrew Liveris (the former President, Chairman & CEO of The Dow Chemical Company) in an address to the Oz National Press Club recounted that, when he was on a US committee issuing research grants, suggestions to the climate field to put in submissions for grants was met with a smug: ‘ why should we; we have Al Gore!’

    Govts are pressured by vested interest groups such as big banks, industries, NGOs and huge possibilities in emissions trading. The call for US$89 trillion by the World bank and US$120 trillion by the UN sure packs a lot of power and incentive. Prof Brian Cox and Sir Attenborough’s call for a measly $14 billion for them to ‘fix’ the problem seems trite; they miss the big picture!

    In Oz 2013 the incoming Liberal Govt (somewhat equivalent to Republicans in the US) promised to abolish the CO2 tax. Al Gore took Clive Palmer aside for a little fatherly chat. Palmer (a business tycoon running his own party where his few votes would likely be needed in our Senate to pass the legislation) campaigned to abolish the tax was persuaded to put a rider on his commitment – abolish the tax unless or until China moves. The $ squillions potential story that Al Gore must have spun was surely persuasive (all undisclosed; foreign influence in our Parliament). BTW when Oz had CO2 taxes 10% went to the UN; religious tithes which gives the UN a great incentive to preach the gospel of saving the world.

    So Dr Spencer you are but a small cog hence you must pay the penalty for not embracing and espousing wholeheartedly the alarmist position, for daring to hold true to your chosen field and tell it as you see it following the evidence as best you see it.

    But even at international level this holds. Oz was threatened by Pres Francois Hollande with dire consequences when he thought we would not join the Paris accord and that’s despite the heavy loss of life in helping defend a weak France in both world wars. Any connection to the CCP? The Paris accord tried to sneak in a “shall” meet the requirements (which the US could not sign) and was changed back to “should.” It was a typo, right! Yeah, sure! This fanaticism will stop at nothing even at that level.

    Trumps biggest failure is that he did not fix the propaganda machine mechanism when he had the chance. Given the US has led the way in anti trust laws it was an opportunity lost when he had both houses in Republican hands. Now we see the consequent silencing of free speech. He may have thought he was invincible with his Twitter.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tonyM…”So Dr Spencer you are but a small cog hence you must pay the penalty for not embracing and espousing wholeheartedly the alarmist position, for daring to hold true to your chosen field and tell it as you see it following the evidence as best you see it”.

      Thus far, they are only slinging mud at Roy. Other skeptics like Henk Tennekes and Pat Michaels were run out of town.

      It’s not only in climate science this fascist attitude exists. In the medical field, in HIV research, a leading researcher, Dr. Peter Duesberg, an expert in microbiology and a professor at Berkeley, had his career ruined for daring to point out that HIV cannot cause AIDS and that it is harmless. About 30 years after he claimed that, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, had claimed the same thing, that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.

      At the time Duesberg made his observations, over 90% of AIDS cases involved men. Duesberg pointed out that no known virus can single out men from women. The HIV alarmists went berserk and pressure was eventually applied to Berkley to fire Duesberg. However, he had tenure and they could not, so they demoted him to teaching lab classes.

      Duesberg is not a remote quack belly-aching over nothing. He was a leading authority on cancer and discovered the first cancer gene. He was an expert on retroviruses, like HIV. The National Academy of Science inducted him for his work making him the youngest scientist of his day ever inducted into NAS. Today, that is a moot point because climate alarmists have taken over NAS and they scraped the bottom of the barrel when they inducted Michael Mann.

      It has been obvious since the early ’80s that AIDS is a lifestyle issue as Duesberg claimed and with which Montagnier now concurs. Nothing to do with a virus. However, the myth still persists and most doctors today still claim that HIV causes AIDS. If you test positive on an HIV test, which does not test for HIV but for RNA BELIEVED to be from HIV, you are put on highly toxic antivirals for life.

      Fast forward to covid. Same old, same old. Anyone who questions the covid theory, the tests, or vaccines is fired. Happened to Dr. Andrew Kaufmann and another doctor in Texas. What have we done to science when people of integrity like Roy get called on the carpet, insulted and harassed by cretins?

      Fascism is alive and well in science.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Your mind is a cult mentality. I have already pointed out your Duesberg is actually an evil crackpot who knowingly caused the death of many people with his false and misleading ideas.

        Also the Crack-pot Andrew Kaufmann another evil person bent on killing people with false teachings.

        You always believe the demented false teachers that are NOT at all scientific. They do not care at all about science. They are interested in power! There are large numbers of gullible stupid people like you. You are not at all smart enough to understand complex science or use logical thought but these dishonest liars make you think you are intelligent with simplistic false teachings. You reject the actual valid science of highly intelligent people you can’t understand in favor of conmen that feed you ideas and make you feel superior. Like the lunatics that blindly follow Trump and are more than willing to die and kill for a cause that is all lies and falsehoods! Do you also believe the total lies of Qanon? Any “expert” that makes up lies you blindly believe without question. Then you claim textbook science is false.

    • Nate says:

      “The 1st amendment is jettisoned”

      I keep hearing this trope from people who do not understand the first amendment.

      No one is being denied the opportunity for speech.

      Twitter is not the town square. It is a private company. No one has a fundamental ‘right’ to Tweet.

      President’s have the right to go on Network TV and make a speech whenever they want. They can hold press conferences anytime they want. They release statements anytime they want.

      Roy Spencer has a right to post any articles on climate change he wants on his blog. He just cannot claim it is an official government statement, unless it actually is.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”The 1st amendment is jettisoned

        I keep hearing this trope from people who do not understand the first amendment.

        No one is being denied the opportunity for speech”.

        ****

        Of course they are being denied the opportunity for free speech. Political correctness, once known as jingoism, is a set of blind, emotionally-driven opinions enforced on people through shaming them into a herd mentality. That is the same as denying people the opportunity for free speech.

        Nonsense terms like homophobia, Islamophobia, etc., are ideas developed to shame people into accepting cultural biases against free thought. If action is aimed at harming the individual rights of homosexuals or Muslims, that is one thing. It is already covered by the law. However, even an honest discussion about such issues is often denied by means of labeling the perpetrator a homophone or an Islamophobe.

        In science, such political-correctness is plain stupid. Ostracizing a scientist based on his views or skepticism, through the use of name-calling, labeling, and ruining his/her career is nothing more than Nazism without the brutality.

        Dr. Peter Duesberg, a highly accomplished microbiologist, had his career ruined for making simply, truthful statements about the relationship between HIV and AIDS. He claimed there is none and he was proved right by the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, who now agrees with Duesberg.

        Duesberg was punished in a most egregious manner for exercising his right as a scientist within the domain of science. It’s the duty of a scientist to be skeptical and only someone of Duesberg’s insight and courage noticed the obvious about HIV. Yet even when I present the truth about this subject, I am met with ad homs and insults from people who have not the slightest idea of the related science. They behave like the rest of the politically-correct, slamming free speech which is backed by fact.

        In Roy’s case, and in the case of John Christy, neither has done anything to deserve such a reaction. They have simply reported satellite data as received from NOAA satellites. And who is slagging them? Idiots who work with unvalidated climate models or who believe nonsense from the IPCC, a biased organization run by climate modelers.

      • Nate says:

        “Political correctness, once known as jingoism, is a set of blind, emotionally-driven opinions enforced on people through shaming them into a herd mentality. That is the same as denying people the opportunity for free speech.”

        I see. People using their right of free speech to express their opinions…that is SOMEHOW suppressing other people’s right to free speech!

        Brilliant!

      • tonyM says:

        Nate:
        You say: “No one is being denied the opportunity for speech.”

        Yes there is no right to be published but only the right to express.

        But the issue with internet platforms (and servers) is two fold: they wish to hide behind the non-publisher mantle for reduced legal liability and at the same time wish to assert their right to censor, deny, suppress and arrange search material without scrutiny or penalty. Yeah have the cake and eat it too. This brings monopoly powers into play. Easy to fix: break them up under anti trust laws.

        I hope you are not endorsing ostracizing academics as has been practised or suggestions of jailing skeptics the so called climate deniers but I have yet to understand what is being denied – who just don’t go along with the narrative of Bros Grimm alarmist thermageddon or its solution. Perhaps we will see some improvement with Kamala and Ocasio.

        Are you suggesting that the cabal of scientists teaming up with DAs in the US was not an attempt to curb free speech?

        Jagadish Shukla, thinks that science is done by silencing his critics through the courts. He wrote to Obama demanding that RICO laws be used to persecute skeptics. Is there any evidence of Obama dissuading him and the cabal of 20 or so climastrophists from pressing forward.

        Even the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said her office had “discussed” similar actions and had “referred [the matter] to the FBI.”

        Oz Federal Govt was awaiting the outcome of the Peter Ridd appeal against James Cook Uni re academic freedom but recently decided to go ahead and pass legislation whereby such institutions will no longer be able to suppress or intimidate staff when expressing their academic views. Clearly we see it as a problem and we don’t even have a bill of rights; the US is certainly not immune.

        • Nate says:

          Lots of claims in there, little evidence to back them up.

          “Are you suggesting that the cabal of scientists teaming up with DAs in the US was not an attempt to curb free speech?”

          What is this?

          Peer review in science has been standard for a century or more. Not perfect system, but necessary to uphold standards of the scientific method etc.

          Not all journals have the same stingent peer review standards. Some obscure journals have published skeptic papers, ordinarily this is no big deal and would not get any attention. But when these papers are amplified in the right-wing media as PROVING climate science wrong or similar misrepresentation. This is partly a problem with media not understanding how science works. They ignore of don’t understand that one paper doesnt cancel hundreds of previous papers.
          Then naturally there will be a push-back to this from many Climate Scientists. Editors have been criticized or fired for poor standards. IMO they may have gone too far at times.

        • barry says:

          “This brings monopoly powers into play. Easy to fix: break them up under anti trust laws.”

          You mean the free market is not enough and we need government intervention?

          • tonyM says:

            Barry:
            Where do I say anything about free markets?

            Since when have free markets been allowed to operate. Monopoly powers never allow markets to be a free operation.

            The Sherman anti trust laws were enacted in the 19th century so you are a bit behinf the times.

          • barry says:

            A conservative would argue that if people don’t like a service they can go to another one, or build their own. That old self-reliance thing, and that thing about the market deciding.

            New platforms are started all the time. Your typical Republican would argue against government intervention and tell us that the market decides, not regulation.

            Times have changed, and some of the things Trumpers are calling for sound decidedly left-wing – like more government intervention to prevent monopolies, and $2000 relief cheques.

          • tonyM says:

            Barry:
            You say: Your typical Republican would argue against government intervention and tell us that the market decides, not regulation.

            How would you know what a conservative thinks on a specific issue?

            I pointed out the Sherman antitrust act was enacted in the 19th century. It was designed basically to prevent collusion and abuse of monopoly powers primarily against consumers.

            Sherman was a Republican! The President was a Republican!

            Does not seem to accord with your belief that you know what conservatives think and just let the market decide!

            Bush jnr initially wanted to let the markets prevail during the 2007 Financial Crisis but then took the advice to intervene.

            Oz conservative Govt has more than met the challenge of pumping huge unprecedented amounts of money into the Oz economy when they had their hearts set on a budget surplus in 2020. Equally Trump would be looking to do something similar after already having pumped money into the system earlier. Why is that an issue? Why do you suggest that is primarily left wing?

            I think you are confusing different economic schools of thought which guided various Govts – more or less strongly. I could go into economic arguments where it was Conservatives who had protectionism usually with large tariffs in Oz resulting in lousy management, belligerent unions and high prices. It may have suited for part of post WW2 development. Labor (equiv to US Liberals) ended up opening up the markets.

            At the end of the day Govts only last as long as people are satisfied – given that western democracies still have the right to eject/elect Govts.

          • barry says:

            I’m talking about the US. The politics in both countries are different in character and focus.

            Conservative governments have definitely spent lots of government money in the past, but that is despite of, rather than flowing from their stated objectives. There is no doubt that the Republican fiscal argument since at least Reagan is for the Federal government to spend less. “Small government,” is the catchcry.

            It is also a strong plank of the Republican party that the consumer should regulate the market. Free markets, free trade, less red tape and regulation. These are undeniably Republican values. You could argue that it is a broad party with some of its members pushing contrary agendas, but this is the general thrust of the GOP, and this has been loudly proclaimed for decades.

            One big departure from Republican values has been Trump’s protectionist ambitions. The Reagan centre sumns it up fairly well.

            https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/centers/articles/is-the-gop-still-the-party-of-free-trade/

            I personally agree with anti-trust laws and protecting the market (and journalism) from corporate monopoly. I approve of the kind of mixed economics of a regulated free market that Australia has. But in this I have a more left-wing view than the Republican party of the late 20th and early 21st century – bar Trump.

            Trump is a pastiche of political views, some right-wing, some left wing. Of the things I’ve mentioned, his views comport more with the left, especially $2000 checks, which the Dems are going to push again or something similar after inauguration, the regulation of social media platforms (it’s a first amendment issue when the gov gets involved), and trade protectionism.

          • tonyM says:

            Barry:
            While the topic may be interesting I don’t think it would be appropriate to discuss in much detail here simply out of respect for our host and US readers. I may have given the wrong impression by bringing up what Trump’s options had been. Trump had a premonition when he threatened to move from Twitter a few years back. So, he should have acted (and even looked at antitrust issues).

            I don’t disagree with the general thrust of what you are saying but broad principles of parties are not set in stone demanding that all their actions must comply. Specific promises are somewhat different. Further they need govern for the whole population.

            In addition the peculiar circumstances and contingencies of any time period will dictate what actions may be chosen.

            In any case if Reagan is excluded this only leaves Bush Snr and Jnr and Trump. What more is there to say? I think Trump has had greater insight into world affairs than he is given credit for which underlies many of his decisions.

            I’ll touch on two that interest me viz. China and Climate. The only thing that one needs to know about the CCP is Tienanmen square. The other is the IPCC which is set up on behalf of Govts but its goals weaken the West. The EU is asleep and thinks that ‘co-operation’ via IPCC will fix problems with China and Russia. Reminds me of Chamberlain and Hitler (EU has just finalised a mutual investment agreement with China). Maybe I’m wrong; Angela Merkel is way over my pay grade.

            I have read your reference – thanks for that.

  21. m d mill says:

    “Climate Denier” is a meaningless term coined by despicable people and used by foolish people.

    • Richard Greene says:

      “Climate denier” is a term used to ridicule people with different beliefs, and make them “unworthy” of debate. The people using the term are not foolish — they know propaganda works. And they certainly never want to debate the coming
      Ridicule is a Saul Alinsky tactic.

      “Despicable”, I will agree with. Donald Trump’s greatest accomplishment was spurring leftists into revealing their true, horrible characters — their lust for unprecedented political power (unprecedented in the US). Their old “act” of being nice people, concerned about helping people with low incomes, disappeared when Trump arrived.

      • Nate says:

        “Ridicule is a Saul Alinsky tactic.”

        Good Richard. Now you can stop constantly ridiculing people here who disagree with your views.

        • Richard Greene says:

          Like you just did, nasty Nate?

          Ridiculing climate scientists as “climate deniers”.

          Falsely claiming Trump colluded with Russians, with no evidence, after four investigations, one led by Democrats for 22 months.

          Covering up Hunter Biden’s laptop computer with strong evidence of influence peddling, with payoffs to Joe Biden.

          Censoring people who want to talk about election fraud.

          Character attacking everyone who voted for Donald Trump — all 74 million.

          Character attacking approximately 200,000 people who attended a Trump rally on January 6, 2021, ignoring the fact that at least 95% of them never walked the two miles to the Capital building. While it can be assumed that many of the few hundred people who entered the Capitol building were Republicans, 200,000 did not enter, and some were Democrats.

          Based on the false description by leftists, describing the Antifa / BLM riots last summer as “peaceful protests”, the January 6 riot at the Capitol building was a “very peaceful protest”.

          Leftists completely ignore the fact that many demonstrations at the Capitol building were already in progress before Trump started speaking. Including leftist demonstrations. And bombs were found during the Trump speech, obviously planned in advance. But never mind the facts.

          Democrats are horrible people simply because truth is not a leftist value. They demonstrate that fact again and again.

          Telling the truth about what Democrats say and do is not ridicule, or a character attacl

        • Nate says:

          “Like you just did, nasty Nate?”

          Thanks for making my point!

          • Richard Greene says:

            Nasty Nate, do you care to refute anything I have written about Democrats, or just make short, meaningless general comments? When one speaks the truth about Democrats, they think they have been insulted!

            Democrats seem have no self-awareness of the hatred they spew towards our current president, while praising leftists riots last summer that destroyed property and killed over two dozen people, as “peaceful protests”.

            Riots in cities were falsely blamed on the police, and Democrats demanded no punishment for lawbreakers. Riots were never even mentioned at the Democrat National Convention in 2020 … but now a far less damaging riot at the Capitol building is called an “insurrection” and police are the heroes? If you Democrats didn’t have double standards, you’d have no standards at all!

            Such an easy target.

            Come on, nasty Nate, think of a brilliant response to the truth about you leftists.

            It is outrageous for you leftists to call a real scientist like Dr. Spencer a “climate denier”. I’m confident he has forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know.

        • Nate says:

          What the ‘Leftist’ Wall Street Journal says:

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-capitol-riot-11610387004?page=1

          “This equivalence play, or ‘whataboutism,’ can, if were not careful, neuter all efforts to hold our leaders actions to some objective standard. It inflicts on all judgments the terminal paralysis of moral relativism. As with the widespread undermining of objective factual truth in recent years, so the erosion of the idea of objective moral truth steadily weakens the foundations of political and civil community and softens us up for a final descent into the invented truths of totalitarianism.

          In the wake of last weeks violent incursion at the U.S. Capitol, President Trumps supporters have been working overtime on the moral-equivalence shift.”

          • Richard Greene says:

            There were many protesters at the Capitol BEFORE Trump began speaking. Pipe bomb were found when he was speaking. Some people in his audience left before he mentioned a peaceful protest at the Capitol. And some people walked the two miles in 4o degree F. weather to the capitol after the speech.

            There were roughly 2000,000 people at the Trump rally.

            There were roughly 10,000 people at the Capitol doing a legal protest.
            About 200 to 300 people entered the Capitol building and a small minority of them did minor damage.

            One of the people encouraging violent entrance to the Capitol building was Antifa / BLM activist John Sullivan, a Democrat, whose arrest warrant can be seen here:
            https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-impeached-for-riot-instigated.html

            So out of about 200,000 people attending a Trump rally, it appears that at least 98 to 99 percent of them committed no crimes, and never entered the Capitol building … but you smarmy Democrats do not care about the truth — all people who voted for Trump are evil, you bellow, because Trump encouraged a peaceful protest? And never mind the Democrats who have already been arrested for being inside the Capitol building.

            .

          • Nate says:

            “About 200 to 300 people entered the Capitol building and a small minority of them did minor damage.”

            OMG. Just stop with the BS attempts at minimization of this unprecedented event.

            Everyone has seen the violence in the videos, and cops getting the crap beaten out of them in pitched battles with the people who, we are now learning, were intent on harming congressmen and the VP.

            And no one is saying that ALL of the protesters were participants. Stupid strawman.

          • Nate says:

            Read about “whataboutism,” in WSJ above. And then you can stop doing it.

          • Nate says:

            The main point is this. In US history we have had thousands of protests, and hundreds of them had some violence.

            But our seat of democracy, the Capital, was stormed only twice, once by a foreign adversary.

            And this instance the goal was to stop Congress and VP from certifying an election, to stop the peaceful transfer of power. This was an insurrection plain and simple.

          • Richard Greene says:

            Nasty Nate
            The White House was stormed in a riot last summer.
            60 secret service agents were injured.
            When they lost control of the crowd, they sent the president and his family to the safe room, I assume in the basement, designed for safety in nuclear attacks.

            Your later post about only two attacks on the Capitol building completely ignores last summer’s leftist attack on the White House. The usual selective leftist memory. I guess the White House doesn’t count because it is a different government building?

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            ‘The White House was stormed in a riot last summer.’

            WTF are you talking about?

            The peaceful protest in a park that was assaulted by riot police and cleared for Trumps photo op?

            Do you seriously want to claim any equivalence??

            Youre afflicted by an extreme form of whataboutism.

        • Nate says:

          “Based on the false description by leftists, describing the Antifa / BLM riots last summer as ‘peaceful protests'”

          Fact check

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/

          • Richard Greene says:

            “Fact Check” is what leftists do when they don’t like the truth. They claim to do a “fact check”, and then print their revisionist history.

            This is what Trump actually said, and that is NOT inciting a riot:
            “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.

            Last year you smarmy Democrats repeatedly encouraged protests and violence. I repeatedly watched people on CNN talk about “peaceful protests” that were not even close to being peaceful, one time with huge fires burning behind the CNN reporter (picture included in second link)!

            I have some of the quotes of Democrats inciting violence in 2020 at the links below:

            https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2021/01/are-these-quotes-impeachable-offenses.html

            https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2021/01/coverage-of-2021-republican-riot-versus.html

          • Nate says:

            Fact checks never work for zealots..

            “And everyone beware, because theyre [violent protests] not gonna stop.Theyre not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not.”
            — Incoming Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris on Stephen Colbert show, August 28, 2020.’

            What rot!

            She did not say “violent protests” some idiot stuck that into her quote.

            She was saying protests should continue until reforms happen. Nothing wrong with that. Just as the 1960s Civil Rights marches happened until the Civil Rights Bills were passed.

            There are extreme people in both parties.

            The difference is that right now, in the R party the extremists are the center of gravity, and led by Trump.

          • Richard Greene says:

            nasty Nate:
            Concerning Kamala Harris’s quote that you mentioned:

            ALL the riots last summer included some violence.

            There were no 100 percent peaceful protests.

            Some “protests” were extremely violent.
            Some were mainly riots, not protests

            Ms. Harris, when encouraging protests, and knowing all had violence, was encouraging violence.

            You can’t tap dance away from what she encouraged,

          • Richard Greene says:

            nasty Nate
            Your claim about Kamala Harris in a comment below is revisionist history.

            All the protests last summer included violence, and some were just riots, not protests at all. By encouraging protests, Kamala Harris was encouraging more violence.

            The 2020 protests had nothing to do with the 1960s civil rights movement.

            They were based on the false claim that policemen arbitrarily shoot / kill unarmed black men for no reason.

            In fact, police rarely kill anyone resisting arrest. And when they do kill someone resisting arrest, as a percentage of all suspects resisting arrest, the suspects most likely to die are white, non-Hispanic suspects resisting arrest.

            Yes, the truth is that police resist shooting black suspects who resist arrest, probably fearing they may lose their jobs for “discrimination”, even if the shooting was justified in self defense.

            Those statistics are from the ultra-liberal Washington Post. Please note that “unarmed” includes suspects who grab at the policeman’s gun and suspects who have a pistol next to them in a car, but do not grab it and aim it at a police officer. Don’t let any facts get in the way of your leftist beliefs!

          • Nate says:

            “By encouraging protests, Kamala Harris was encouraging more violence.”

            You’re being ridiculous. Just stop.

            “They were based on the false claim that policemen arbitrarily shoot / kill unarmed black men for no reason.”

            Obviously you’ve never been pulled over for not signaling a lane change, ie driving while black.

            So therefore the problem does not exist.

          • Nate says:

            I’ll let the black Republican senator, Tim Scott, explain it to you.

            https://news.yahoo.com/sen-tim-scott-george-floyd-222120203.html

            “The question is, if you take a look at the situation in the New York City part where the affluent white woman simply says, I’m going to call the police and say that an African-American male is threatening my life, what does that say of an equivalent value between the two lives in the eyes of authority? And that’s really important. It’s not in the eyes of God. I think in eyes of God we all have equal intrinsic value.

            The question is, if you have a system that leads to an unjust outcome and that system is a system of authority, that means you’re breaking the back and breaking the spirit of millions of people in your country who see that unjust system and says it will rain down upon me guilty or not guilty. That does not lead to a society of order. It leads towards a society of chaos. So the burden we should feel, should be on all of our shoulders to have the most just society that we could have, and if we do not have that, then we should ask ourselves, what part are we playing to make it unjust, and what part are we playing to make it more just?”

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”My take on COVID is that, surprisingly, governments world wide prioritise the health of their citizens above the health of their economies.

    As well as being strong evidence that the concern is genuine …. it has been a silver lining for me that care for the aged and vulnerable has outweighed a more ruthless pecuniary interest”.

    ***

    That would be nice indeed, if the deaths attributed to covid were not mostly less than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s right, even in the worst case scenarios world-wide, the number of deaths attributed to covid are 0.06% of any population or less.

    Where I live in Vancouver, Canada, the provincial death rate, now at 1000 people, has been 82% seniors in rest homes. The Minister in charge was grilled on that recently by the press as to why seniors continue to die at an alarming rate even though very strict orders regarding social distancing, wearing masks, and restricted gatherings have been in effect.

    The Minister could only avoid the question so long and finally admitted he did not know. Ta da!!! Someone has finally admitted he has no idea what is going on.

    Even though that 82% figure, as dismal as it is, seems drastic, it only accounts for about 0.04% of our population. As much as I care for seniors and their well-beiing that is simply not a justification for shutting down the Province while putting people out of work and businesses out of business.

    • barry says:

      You are ok with sacrificing some of the elderly for the good of the economy.

      And, of course, sacrificing that smaller proportion of younger people who are immuno-compromised.

      Yeah, I still think I am more heartened by the response of governments around the world than your take.

  23. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Roy is not a “Climate Denier”.

    He respects facts and evidence as everyone did before Postmodern Science” reared its ugly head.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      cam…”He respects facts and evidence as everyone did before Postmodern Science” reared its ugly head”.

      I fully agree that Roy is a good scientist. I refuse to call what the alarmists do ‘science’, it’s a perversion of science.

      • bill hunter says:

        Fact is there is science and then there is political science.

        Throughout recorded history good science has always existed but good science has a trajectory into the unknown where it morphs into political science with extremely blurry boundaries.

        The key words in Dr. Roy’s post in statement #2 that gets him labeled as a denier by the political science establishment are ”but we simply don’t know”.

        Not knowing isn’t an acceptable answer to the ignorant sycophants of political science.

        We have a lot of those types in here who believe what they read without critical thought of where the holes are in the theory. A theory with holes doesn’t mean its not a good suspicion but it isn’t science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bill…”Not knowing isnt an acceptable answer to the ignorant sycophants of political science”.

          That’s because ‘knowing’ is not important to them, it’s ‘the cause’, as the clown prince of climate alarm, Micheal Mann, called it. Their cause is a religious-like belief that they need to same the planet, from who knows what.

          Here in Canada a greenie politician admitted that. She declared, ‘the science doesn’t matter’, suggestion, as Mann claimed, it’s ‘the cause’.

          That’s what Roy is dealing with, idiots using pseudo-science to prove a point that does not exist, but which they need to exist to scare people onside.

  24. Entropic man says:

    I feel a certain sympathy for Dr Spencer’s position.

    Last month he was a respected professional scientist noted for developing a satellite temperature dataset.

    Now history will record him as the climate change denier who wrote propaganda flyers for Donald Trump.

    • Clint R says:

      “Now history will record him as the climate change denier who wrote propaganda flyers for Donald Trump.”

      Only if that “history’ is written by cultish zealots or anonymous trolls, bent on perverting reality.

    • tonyM says:

      Entropic

      You need stop taking those entropy tablets. They leave your little grey cells even more scrambled.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”I feel a certain sympathy for Dr Spencers position”.

      No you don’t, you’re a typical alarmist troll who has taken advantage of Roy’s blog to spread your alarmist propaganda.

      Roy is still a respected professional scientist by anyone who understand the meaning of science, which alarmists obviously do not.

  25. Mark Wapples says:

    I worry for America as the polarity of views of a few people has led to honest men in the middle of political and religous arguments who question either sides arguments are demonised.

    Honest discussion and debate is no longer allowed.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mark…”Honest discussion and debate is no longer allowed”.

      It’s called political correctness, a form of intellectual bullying that has seriously hurt some scientists for no reason whatsoever.

    • barry says:

      Gordon, you are demonstrating what he is talking about.

      I agree with you, Mark.

  26. ren says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer is the most honest climate scientist. Because his arguments align with the satelitarian data, he is attacked by people who create ideas, not scientific theories.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”he is attacked by people who create ideas, not scientific theories”.

      The create bad ideas that border on the ridiculous.

    • Tim S says:

      It is noteworthy that NASA seems to largely ignore the satellite data. They must be aware of it. What is the problem?

      • Richard Greene says:

        NASA can “adjust” and infill surface numbers, whenever they want to. They can claim to know temperatures in 11880 with very few weather stations in operation.

        Government bureaucrats can claim 1750 had a ‘perfect’ climate with almost no real time measurements of the temperature, and no real time measurements of the CO2, for 1750. Just very rough estimates from climate proxies. So they don’t know the climate in 1750, yet claim it was ‘perfect’.

        And they don’t know the climate in 1880, except in the Us and Europe, but that year the starting point for their numbers?
        With a claimed margin of error of +/- 0.1 degrees C. ??

        But never mind the lack of measurements — the climate in 1750 was ‘perfect’, because they sat so, and any change from then is an existential climate crisis.

        If not for UAH numbers “keeping NASA (close to) honest since 1979”, I’d expect the surface temperature numbers today would be showing even more global warming.

        Because of such poor global coverage before 1979, and so much infilling, and adjusting, surface numbers are not accurate enough for real science. The UAH numbers have the potential for accuracy needed for real science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          richard…”Government bureaucrats can claim 1750 had a perfect climate with almost no real time measurements of the temperature…”

          The year 1750 occurred during the Little Ice Age. By 1790, people in the Scottish Highlands were starving due to the cold weather stopping the growing seasons.

          Some perfect climate!

      • barry says:

        “It is noteworthy that NASA seems to largely ignore the satellite data.”

        Do they?

        “They must be aware of it. What is the problem?”

        Well if they largely ignore it that means they don’t totally ignore it. So your remarks are a little self-contradictory here.

        https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/49/which-measurement-is-more-accurate-taking-earths-surface-temperature-from-the-ground-or-from-space/

        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2378/study-climate-change-rapidly-warming-worlds-lakes/

        NASA has their own, land-based global temp record, and they compare their work with other land-based temp records.

        NOAA tend to publish more on the satellite record, including handy applets.

        https://tinyurl.com/hem7u5o

        UAH partner with NOAA on data:

        https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo

        You’ll see in the URL (once opened) the acronym for National Climatic Data Center, a subsidiary of NOAA.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Youll see in the URL (once opened) the acronym for National Climatic Data Center, a subsidiary of NOAA”.

          All I see is nsstc, the National Space Science and Technology Center, at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, aka UAH. Roy worked at NASA for a time, maybe he is still affiliated. Nothing to do with NOAA that I can see.

        • barry says:

          N.C.D.C is at the end of the URL.

          Proof positive you don’t look past the headlines?

  27. ren says:

    As La Nina may be protracted, another break in the rise in tropospheric temperature can be expected. Therefore, attacks from people who confuse CO2 gas with air pollution are to be expected.

  28. ren says:

    As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/14/a-new-pause/

    • Entropic man says:

      Counting from 1880, the average interval between one global warming record and the next is twelve years.The last record was four years ago in 2016.

      Isn’t it a bit early to hint that global warming has stopped?

    • Mark B says:

      An alternate spin would be that TLT has been above the long term trend for over 5 years . . .

        • bdgwx says:

          It looks like the 3rd order fit shows acceleration. Hausfather and Hansen both mentioned that the warming may now be accelerating today.

          • Mark B says:

            The 3rd order fit shows acceleration, but I don’t think that’s a robust argument that warming is accelerating.

            The curve fit is pretty sensitive to what happens at the endpoints and the temperature anomaly has been above the linear trend for most of the last 5 years with back to back el ninos. Saying warming is accelerating on that basis is just as silly claiming a pause in warming for 5 years.

          • bdgwx says:

            I can’t disagree with that. At least not until we see what happens with the next couple of years anyway.

  29. Bjrn Carnstam says:

    Hi,

    In my mind you are a brave and honest person who dares to stand up for what you believe in.

    Thank you from Sweden

    Bjorn C

  30. Entropic man says:

    Sorry, Salvatore.

    The GISTEMP 2020 global annual average has tied with 2016 for warmest year on record at anomaly 1.02C.

    No cooling trend yet.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/#

  31. Adelaida says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    Thank you very much for your very important work and for your courage!!!
    And of course Thank you very much also for the brochures!!!

    My best wishes to you and all your loved ones!!!

  32. Here is what is going to determine future climate and it is NOT CO2.

    SOLAR/GEO MAGNETIC FIELDS (the strengths)

    SEA SURFACE OCEANIC TEMPERATURES

    MAJOR VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY

    AO/NAO/AAO PHASES

    PDO/AMO PHASE
    ENSO PHASE

    These will impact CLOUD COVERAGE/SNOW COVERAGE HENCE ALBEDO

    which will impact the climate.

  33. Bindidon says:

    Salvatore

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png

    The data . Case closed. ”

    You show Tropical Tidbits data, i.e. originating from CDAS (NOAA reanalysis).

    *
    1. I thought you trust only in satellite data ?!

    2. Why do you all the time look at little periods? You’ll soon get disappointed again, as always.

    Look here at a comparison of
    – HadSST3 Globe sea surfaces
    – UAH 6.0 LT Globe above sea surfaces

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r14i_8iAkalgxLzIoUDYRq4vHOESUkaA/view

    Do you see the terrible drop in the blue plot?

    It is exactly the same as what your Tidbits shows.

    Now look back on the blue plot; how many similar drops do you see?

    *
    3. Look how similar HadSST3 and UAH are during the sat era!

    HadSST3: 0.14 C / decade
    UAH Oceans: 0.12 C / decade

    The dumb trash specialist will soon come around and write I show you faked graphs out of fudged data, but that won’t help you…

    It is as it is.

    Case closed?

    J.-P. D.

  34. Bindidon I was aware of that it confirms my whole point. No significant sea surface oceanic warming. That is the point.

    • Entropic man says:

      Salvatore del Prete

      “Only +.3c above earlier 1971-2000 period of time.”

      I think we use the word significant in different ways.

      95% confidence limits for modern ocean temperature averages are about +/- 0.05C.

      A statistically significant trend would show a difference between start and finish of 4standard deviations or 0.1C.

      Your quoted 0.3C difference is statistically significant warming.

  35. John Parsons says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I have been following your work for nearly twenty years. Anyone doing so would certainly know the overall thrust of your political work. It couldn’t be more obvious. And no attempts and clever word-smithing is going to change it.

    I’m afraid you’ve made your bed Dr. Spencer…..now you’re going to have to lie in it.

    JP

    • Clint R says:

      Al Gore, I almost didn’t recognize you with the fake name.

      Welcome!

    • Tim S says:

      What bed has he made? Do you have any criticism of the science he has presented here? I have never detected anything beyond a desire to educate the public with honest and competent work. Do you even understand the science, or are you blinded by your political beliefs?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      john parsons…”I have been following your work for nearly twenty years. Anyone doing so would certainly know the overall thrust of your political work”.

      Roy has been among the most objective of scientists. He comes after people like me and a few others based on our anti-GHG theories and our support of the 2nd law. I can live with that because Roy is a tolerant man and allows us freedom to express such views. On top of that, he and John Christy are men of integrity, unlike the charlatans you likely support.

      If you want to see politics in action, go to realcimate, run by uber-alarmist Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS and wannabee Nobel Laureate Michael Mann, the clown prince of climate science. See how long you last if you step out of line and offer an original thought on science.

      Or go read at the IPCC, a totally political organization that perverts science through pretending to review peer-reviewed science then using the opinion of 50 politically-appointed lead authors who have the power to overturn the views of the 2500 reviewers they appoint.

      • coturnix says:

        >> our support of the 2nd law

        .., or more precisely, you gross misunderstanding o the Second Law, either due to inability or unwilligness to educate yourself. I agree, it is not an elementary topic, but understading it doesn’t require university degree.

    • Nate says:

      ” I have never detected anything beyond a desire to educate the public with honest and competent work. ”

      Many of us have detected it. He is a political activist, not just a scientist, and those two activities don’t always align.

      A scientist should not cherry pick data to make a political point.

      These brochures are a good example. They were misrepresented as the ‘state of the science’. Roy knew full well they were not peer reviewed, and did not represent the full range of views in the field. They were propaganda. But he participated anyway.

      • bdgwx says:

        And there are really stupid mistakes in them that would have been easily caught in peer review had they just followed the process.

        For example…

        The Sun Climate Connection – We now know that the occurrence of sunspots is quasi-periodic (or quasi-cyclical) with periods of about 11 years between the maximum and minimum number of sunspots on the surface

        I doubt the authors actually believe this statement so in that regard it is likely trivial. But it’s just dumb. Everybody knows the timing between a peak and a trough is 5.5 years. It is the period from peak-to-peak or trough-to-trough that is 11 years.

        The Sun Climate Connection – Yet, the global temperature was roughly the same in 1990 as it was in 1938

        Seriously? That’s not even remotely correct. The 5yr centered mean according to BEST in 1938 was -0.02 and in 1990 was 0.28. That is a difference of +0.30C. That is 28% of the warming from 1880 to 2018.

        Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Warming – Sometimes stratospheric cooling is claimed as a fingerprint, but cooling is not evidence of warming.”

        In the context in which this statement is presented it is misleading at best. This widely accepted observations (which UAH plainly shows) absolutely constrains the causes of the warming.

        Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Warming – The energy imbalance allegedly causing global warming is too small (0.8 Watts per sq. meter) to measure with any of our existing instrumentation

        First…it’s not alledged. It is THE cause. Not even vocal skeptics like Lindzen and Curry seriously challenge this. Second…we are literally measuring it. See Cheng et al. 2021 and Schuckmann et al. 2020.

        The brochures are full of misdirection and misleading information. And there are several examples, like the above, where they contain misinformation.

        I will say that at least they are not explicitly rejecting the GHE or the underlying physics that explains it.

        A lot of these oversights would have almost certainly been caught had even the most rudimentary peer review taken place.

  36. ren says:

    The global sea surface temperature anomaly stabilizes at 0.1C.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
    Siberian air reaches Scandinavia and will flood Europe. The winter will be very long.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…” I have already pointed out your Duesberg is actually an evil crackpot who knowingly caused the death of many people with his false and misleading ideas”.

    ***

    And I have pointed out to you several times that the scientist who won a Nobel for, and is credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, now agrees with Duesberg. So, who’s the crackpot?

    Montagnier now claims that AIDS is NOT caused by HIV, that HIV can infect a person only after AIDS is present. That’s what Duesberg claimed some 30 years before Montagnier worked it out for himself.

    You are the crackpot, Norman, and every other person who refuses to accept the HIV/AIDS theory is wrong. The data supports both Duesberg and Montagnier, as it supports Spencer and Christy of UAH regarding catastrophic global warming.

    The scary part is that covid theory comes directly from HIV theory. The test for covid, the RNA-PCR test, was developed for HIV. AND why??? Because they could not find HIV!!! Montagnier admitted that.

    I had to go back to 2005 to get some honesty from the CD.C on AIDS deaths. They have been obfuscating the deaths for at least 20 years.

    See link below.

    In 2005, 37,164 people died of aids. Of those, 18,296 were male homosexuals. There were a further 1324 homosexual deaths related to drug abuse, IV injection. The total is 19620 deaths.

    That’s 52.3% of all AIDS deaths in 2005 caused by homosexual activity. It’s actually closer to 60% because the CD.C introduced HAART antivirals circa 1995 and the drugs caused AIDS like symptoms, called IRC, that often lead to death. The CD.C removed those drug-induced deaths from the total count of AIDS deaths thus lowering the total reported..

    In 2005, it is reported that 5,292 IV drug users died of AIDS, about 14%. So, between AIDS deaths of male homosexuals and IV drug users, the percentage of all 2005 AIDS deaths rises to about 64% who were male homosexuals or those heterosexuals involved with them.

    It is reported that 11,989 high risk heterosexuals died of AIDS, which is an obfuscation. There is an asterisk to explain this category as ‘Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection”. Since we have already established that 53%+ of those dying of AIDS were male homosexuals it means the heterosexuals were bisexual males. In fact, the CD.C used to report this category as bisexual males.

    Adding those 4,255 males to the 18,296 homosexuals and the 1324 homosexuals who were IV drug users, we have a total of 23,875 AIDS victims who were either homosexuals males or heterosexuals who were bisexual and had sex with homosexual males.

    Note the number of women claimed to have died of AIDS. The total in 2005 was 9709. That is about 26%. If you total the male column, the percent of male AIDS deaths was about 74%. As Duesberg claimed, no known virus can single out men from women.

    This is proof positive, Norman, added to what Duesberg and Montagnier have claimed, that despite what alarmists claim, including the CD.C, AIDS is a lifestyle issue and has nothing to do with a virus. The AIDS victims practiced high risk behavior and/or used IV drug injections. Of course, the idiots concluded it must be the needles rather than the drugs being injected.

    ****Note***unfortunately you have to remove the asterisk in cd*c in the URL and paste it in your browser.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20071031114940/http://www.cd*c.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      When you make declarations you need to support them!

      Do you want to go down and an idiot like ClintR that makes many claims but supports none of them. That is what idiots do, not scientists. Scientists support the claims they make. We are not all Trumpers on the Blog that believe any lie someone wants to claim, we want evidence.

      YOU: “Montagnier now claims that AIDS is NOT caused by HIV, that HIV can infect a person only after AIDS is present.”

      Where does this come from? Without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe your claim. I did some research and cam find no such claim.

      In your research did you also find that people (even in high risk groups) that did not have HIV present (by test) did NOT develop AIDS?

      HIV is a blood borne pathogen not a air borne one so you easily have different infection rates between men and woman. Duesberg is quite the idiot when he makes a claim about “As Duesberg claimed, no known virus can single out men from women.” Lifestyle and sexual patterns can easily make one group more likely to get infected. A really stupid point by demented crackpot.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, where did I make a claim that I can’t support?

        You need to support your claim.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          I have already gone through this with you. I am not going to scour past blog posts to show it to you as that has no meaning to you.

          You make declarations such as the energy of a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. This is false and wrong and you provide zero support for it.

          You falsely claim the Moon does not rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth. You have zero support for it. You make claims and declarations and offer zero supporting evidence for any of it.

          There are more. These should be enough for now.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Norman. I provided plenty of support, numerous times.

            So when I provide support, if you can’t understand it or don’t want to change your beliefs, then you just claim I didn’t provide support.

            Very convenient, if you like being a cult idiot.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Plenty of support for the moon not rotating on its own axis here, Norman:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comments

            Just search through ftop_t’s comments. You’ll get there.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            NO you have not provided any supporting evidence of your false misleading assertion that energy from a colder object cannot be absorbed by a hotter object or that a colder atmosphere with GHG present will not be able to increase the temperature of the heated surface.

            You just make declarations. You never support them. If you think stating your deluded opinion is supporting evidence well that would make you an idiot.

          • Norman says:

            DREMT

            I do consider you much smarter than ClintR so I will ask you to try the Quarter challenge.

            Have on Quarter, face up, in the Center (represents Earth).

            The second Quarter, also face up, you will move in a circle around the Earth Quarter (it represents the Moon). Have this Quarter with the head facing up.

            As you move the Moon Quarter around the Earth center one, make sure as you move it in the circle you also make sure the same side of this quarter faces the Earth one.

            When you have moved the Moon Quarter half way around it “orbital” circle you will notice the Head of the Quarter is now up-side-down. The top of Washington’s head is facing down. How is that possible without rotating the Quarter? Try it before you answer please.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Norman, just read ftop_t’s comments.

            I don’t need to do your challenge to understand the point you’re making. Yes, you would need to rotate the quarter. No, that does not prove the moon is rotating on its own axis. You can just go back to the example of a ball on a string to counter it. The ball swings around the center of revolution in one smooth movement. The ball rotates (orbits) about that external axis, it does not rotate on its own center of mass. And I’m even aware that you agree with that, from previous discussions.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, I provided an easy-to-understand discussion of temperature for people unfamiliar with physics, like you. And, of course, you could not understand it.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2020-0-27-deg-c/#comment-587351

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you still don’t understand orbital motion. In pure orbital motion, one side always faces the main body. Gravity is like the string on a ball. It keeps the same side facing the center.

            If the ball is also rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around the ball.

            The concept is extremely easy to understand. You have to be a cult idiot to deny the reality.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Again you are wrong. Gravity is NOT like a ball on a string at all. Gravity does not hold an object in place like that. Again no support for you declarations. You just make them.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Your temperature analysis demonstrates your stupid thought process. You make the same stupid errors over and over and are not intelligent enough to correct them.

            You make the statements that adding energy does not have to increase temperature. Then in your example you are not just adding energy you are also adding more mass. Examples you always do to prove how really unthinking you are.

            You have also done this same dumb point with water. You have two gallons of water at 40 F. When you add them together you increase the energy but the temperature stays the same. Yes ClintR, you are not impressing anyone with your brilliance. You are adding energy but also adding mass. Just like your stupid molecule example. You add energy but you also are adding mass.

            If you do not add extra mass but just energy, the temperature will rise except for transition states like from ice to water, or water to steam. You can add energy to ice and the temperture will not rise until the ice melts, the excess energy is using in breaking the bonding. Under any other points like liquid water, if you add energy without adding mass YOU will increase the temperature. Not sure you can understand any of this. You are not very smart.

          • Norman says:

            DREMT

            Your example is to try and separate the ball from the string system. The ball/string does rotate around a common center. The ball is not a separate object so its rotation (as a separate object, which it is not) is apparent rotation. It appears to rotate as long as it is part of the rotating ball/string system.

            With the Moon it is a separate system like the Quarter. Gravity does not hold on to the Moon like a string does. The Moon can rotate at any speed, the gravity will not latch on to it and prevent its motion…a much closer reality of the Moon in orbit is the Quarter moving around the other Quarter, free to rotate as it will.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the moon is free to rotate (potentially, if something was to cause it to rotate) on its own axis. But, orbital motion is more like the movement of a ball on a string than it is movement like the Hubble Telescope, where the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star whilst it moves.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Norman. A ball on a string is a suitable model for orbital motion. Of course an orbiting body can also be rotating about its axis, as Earth does. But Moon is only orbiting. It is NOT rotating about its axis.

            And, my examples of adding energy do not increase the temperature. It is easily possible to add energy to a system without encroaching system temperature. It is even possible to add energy to a system and LOWER the system temperature, as adding an ice cube to a cup of coffee.

          • Clint R says:

            “encroaching”???

            That was supposed to be “increasing”!

            How did spell check get so confused?

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Again, for you benefit, when you add more than one item it alters the concept involved. When people say “add energy” to something they indicate, by properties of language, that is all that is being added. Your system of language is prone to several errors of interpretation. If one wants to add more items then it would be beneficial to state that in the word use, such as “if you add energy and mass”

            In your case of adding energy from ice to hot coffee, it is confusing language because you are actually reducing the amount of energy per mass. The mass of the coffee and ice are more.

            If you clean up your use of words it would be easier to follow the points you are trying to make.

            In the case of adding energy and mass you can have all the possibilities with temperature. The temperature can go down, up or stay the same. If you add just energy with no added mass then the energy will always raise the temperature except at transition zones, but even at those points the added energy does cause an effect such aa melting ice.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Norman, that’s what I said. You can add energy and the temperature goes down.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Still not good language. You are adding energy and mass. When you say add energy without other factors why would anyone assume you are then adding or subtracting mass as well. Science is about precision
            and it would help if you use more precise language to make points. If you don’t, then any point is possible and it makes any specific point pointless.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Norman, that’s what I said. You can add energy and the temperature goes down.

            I keep the simple examples simple so idiots cannot pervert them.

            It works, huh?

  38. Aden says:

    If its warmed, then the oceans will have warmed, and sea levels will have risen.

    If sea levels have risen then the moment of inertia of the earth will have increased.

    That increase will result in the rate of rotation of the earth going down

    The evidence from the last month is that the rate of rotation has increased.

    So follow the chain back to see which effect of “GW” has not happened.

  39. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png

    Only .115c above 1981-2010 average. Just about zero warming the last few decades.

    • Entropic man says:

      Salvatore

      That is four months data in the run up to a La Nina. Of course you see a cooling trend.

      I realise that you are strongly attached to the opinion that we are about to enter a long term cooling trend, but this is not the evidence you’re looking for.

  40. What will be said when the surface oceanic temperature fall below the 1981-2010 mean. I can’t wait to hear the explanations.

  41. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r14i_8iAkalgxLzIoUDYRq4vHOESUkaA/view

    Here is a good reference. Let’s see how the drop off will stack up against previous ones in the last 30 years.

  42. Mike Gilding says:

    Dr Spencer,

    I also suffer from being a Climate Change Denier and of course I don’t deny that the climate changes at all. I usually respond by referring to occasions when I believe the climate has changed and quote or refer to peer-reviewed papers that diverge from the IPCC position. This approach gives me some transient satisfaction but rarely changes strong beliefs supported only by appeals to authority.

    While I am here so to speak, can I ask if you have any views on the Happer, Van Wijngaarden (2020) pre-print on Saturation? It seems to me that if that is confirmed it will do a great deal more to Save the Planet, but from a different disaster, than anything the alarmists can achieve.

  43. Entropic man says:

    “Happer, Van Wijngaarden (2020) pre-print on Saturation? ”

    Interesting paper, though the torrent of mathematics makes it almost unreadable.

    Several problems.

    1) The paper concludes that climate sensitivity is 2.2K. That would delay bursting through the Paris Agreement 2C limit by a decade or so, but not stop the warming.

    2) 2.2K is too low to match observations. At that climate sensitivity the current CO2 concentration would be expected to produce 5.35ln(411/280)2.2/3.7 = 1.22C warming in 2045 after the usual 25 year lag. In reality we are already at 1.2C.

    3) The authors invoke a phenomenon they call wing suppression, which supposedly narrows the *bs*rbt**n band either side of a GHG spot frequency and cancels out the effect of increased concentration.
    I suspect this is imaginary, since the usual effect of increased concentration is band spreading, which widens the *bs*rbt**n band and increases the GHE.

    • bdgwx says:

      I see the 2.2C figure as well. I wonder why Happer didn’t mention the 2.2C sensitivity in his flyer?

    • Clint R says:

      Ent and bdgwx, you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the physics involved. All you demonstrate here, is your faith in the nonsense. You are very devoted to a false religion.

      Neither of you understand “energy balance”. You’re clueless. You swallow the nonsense from the “energy budget” cartoons. In those cartoons, they subtract energy out from energy in, resulting in varying figures, let’s say 0.8 W/m^2. In your empty heads, that means Earth is taking in more energy than it is releasing. That’s what you believe.

      But, “W/m^2” is “flux”. It is not energy. Specifically, it is a photon flux.

      In your empty heads, if 9 photons are leaving a surface, but 10 photons are arriving the surface, you believe the surface is warming. But, photons tell you nothing about energy flow, or the ability of the energy to raise temperatures.

      You idiots are lost in your nonsense, and can’t learn.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” But, ‘W/m^2’ is ‘flux’. It is not energy. ”

        Exactly the same trash was posted here all the time by Physics hypergenius JD*Huffman.

        The unit W/m^2 denotes irradiance or radiant flux: it denotes power per unit of area.

        Power is energy per unit of time.

        That’s all.

        You throw sand in the eyes of readers. When will this trash stop?

        J.-P. D.

        • Clint R says:

          Bindidon, if 9 photons leave a surface and 10 arrive, does the surface temperature increase?

          Answer the question, unless you’re just here to troll.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Answer the question, unless you’re just here to troll. ”

            Why should I answer a question making no sense?

            It is the same kind of question as

            ” When a ball on a string cannot rotate about its axis [AND IT DEFINITELY CANNOT, OF COURSE]: how can the Moon rotate about its axis? ”

            YOU are the troll here.

            YOU throw sand in the eyes of readers. When will this trash stop?

            J.-P. D.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            ”When a ball on a string cannot rotate about its axis [AND IT DEFINITELY CANNOT, OF COURSE]”

            Thanks, Bindidon. Now try telling that to MikeR, Ball4, SkepticGoneWild, and Tyson McGuffin, who have all spent hundreds of comments claiming that not only does a ball on a string rotate on its own axis, but that they have proven that it does, mathematically!

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, you can run but you can’t hide.

            As you evaded the photon example, we can use a flux example. Not a problem.

            A blackbody object is floating in space. It absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun, and the average surface emission is 180 W/m^2.

            Is the object…

            a) Increasing in temperature,
            b) Decreasing in temperature,
            c) or at equilibrium?

          • Bindidon says:

            I remember you friend JD*Huffman always answering, when somebody asked him for something, the same convenient stuff, which helped him to avoid giving the wrong answer:

            ” XXX, why shall I answer? Can’t you find the answer yourself? ”

            Today, I reply with the same stuff to you: please manage to answer your question using your own, magnificent knowledge!

            J.-P. D.

          • Clint R says:

            JD, you’re all huff n puff n bluff. You have nothing. Every time I throw some science at you, you fold and bolt for the exit.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

            (Don’t feel too bad. None of the other idiots could answer the question either.)

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            The blackbody object is increasing in temperature. It is gaining more energy than it is emitting. It will continue to warm until it emits the same amount of energy it absorbs. You have no other stipulations in your statement.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again, Norman.

            The object is in equilibrium. It is gaining the same energy as it is emitting.

            Like the other idiots, you are confusing flux with energy.

            Thanks for being a good example of an idiot, as always.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            I don’t think that is possible. Since is is one object and a blackbody, it absorbs all the energy that reaches its surface and it will emit at a rate based on its temperature.

            If The object is one square meter surface area it is receiving 900 joules of energy a second and it is losing 180 joules per second. I do not see how 900 and 180 are equal.

            If the object is 10 square meters it would receive 9000 joules of energy a second and lose 1800 joules from emission.

            If it is smaller that does not help either. If it is 1/10 of a square meter the object will absorb 90 joules a second and every second lose 18 joules.

            I do not think your are using logic with this one. Watts are joules/second. Energy is joules. If you have the same surface area the object will absorb more energy than it emits.

            I see a failure in your logic or in your ability to use language, maybe you have another element you don’t state but we have to assume is present. In this case I do not see a missing element that will change the fact that such an object will warm until it loses the same amount of energy it absorbs.

            In your case it has to lose 900 joules a second for every square meter of surface.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            I think you give another example of your inability to use language to properly convey ideas.

            I can see where you were going but the problem is vague so it can be any of the answers. So your answer is NOT the only possible of the many ways you can set it up.

            If you have a five sided object with only one meter exposed the the Sun then you if the one side received 900 joules/second the other sides could lose at an average rate of 180 each and that would equal a total of 900.

            Like wise it could be a flat plate with an very good insulated back. Not it has to increase in temperature since it only has one side that absorbs and emits.

            If you had a long tube behind the absorbing surface (all made of very highly conductive material so the energy transfers to all parts quickly) the 900 W/m^2 and the average of 180 per each surface m^2 could be a cooling situation.

            I fail to see how poorly worded problems have any bearing on any discussion on this blog. Kind of stupid in my opinion, and pointless.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you “don’t think that is possible” because you don’t understand physics. You only have a “wikipedia” based knowledge. But since you know how to abuse a keyboard, you believe you’re a “scientist”.

            The reality is, you’re an idiot.

            You’ll never admit you’re wrong, so you can’t learn.

            Just keep abusing that keyboard — great entertainment.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            It is funny you call me an idiot but your posts are basically stupid as any answer is possible, whichever one you want they all work.

            I do get my physics from textbooks. You should try it some time. I do not know where you get your fantasy physics from. You NEVER support any of your claims to links that might support your illogical ideas. I do support all my ideas with multiple links to multiple sources.

            I really do not think you know what science is at all. It is an evidence based philosophy on learning what is true.

            You seem to think that making up stuff and pretending to be smart on blogs makes you a valid scientist, it does not. You need to support your ideas with evidence, you don’t. It seems you never will.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you are an idiot because you attempt to pervert reality. Just above, you said you “don’t think that is possible”. Then, you must have figured out it was possible. But, did you admit that you had been wrong, and that I was right? No, you continued to pervert reality by claiming that it is me that gets physics wrong. Yet, you can’t provide even one example where I I have been wrong in my physics.

            All you have are your erroneous opinions, personal insults, and false accusations.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            You problem is just stupid. You are neither Right or Wrong since any of the choices can be Right or Wrong. You don’t provide enough limiting factors to eliminate any of the answers. This alone makes you and idiot.

            The other thing that makes you not just an idiot but a dense person as well is the fact that I have pointed out your errors in physics many many times and then you state it has not been done.

            Again, you claim radiant energy from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. This is false! You claim the Earth surface cannot absorb downwelling IR from the atmosphere, this is false. So there you go. You make up false physics and it is pointed out to you but you keep promoting it.

            Also you have zero supporting evidence for any of your many claims. You just say things.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong again Norman.

            I haven’t claimed any of that. You’re just making it up.

            But, I know not to get in typing contests with idiots. So unless you can behave like a responsible adult, I won’t be responding.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Yes you have made such claims many times. If I have time maybe I will scourge past threads to get you quotes. If you want to deny your own ideas that is up to you.

          • Clint R says:

            I won’t hold my breath….

            But I agree, you do “scourge” this blog.

  44. Nate says:

    “The White House was stormed in a riot last summer.”

    WTF are you talking about?

    The peaceful protest in a park that was assaulted by riot police and cleared for Trump’s photo op?

    Do you seriously want to claim any equivalence??

    If so, you’re afflicted by an extreme form of whataboutism.

    • Richard Greene says:

      Some photos and descriptions of the riots at the White House and nearby last summer are at the link below. This is from the BBC, certainly pro-left wing biased.

      There was no “peaceful protest” after dark — a riot was photographed and documented by journalists.

      Much worse than the Capitol building riot. Not even close.

      Only a fool could look at the photographs I’ve provided and claim this was a “peaceful protest”.

      If the summer “protests” near the White House were peaceful protests (they were not), then the Capitol building protest on January 6, 2021 was a peaceful protest too (it was not).

      You smarmy leftists describe the very common leftist riots as “protests”, and the very rare right wing riots as “insurrections”. Double standard nasty Nate!

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52874652

    • barry says:

      Are the people pointing to other riots doing so in order to argue that the storming of the Capitol is therefore ok?

      • Richard Greene says:

        We point to leftist riots in 2020 because of how often they were described as “peaceful protests” by the media (they were not peaceful) and how often they were justified asnprotests against institutional racism, which does not exist in this nation, except in the imaginations of people who hate this country.

        Republicans and Trump supporters did not instigate the 2020 riots in many US cities.

        But there were some Democrats and Antifa activists instigating the predominantly Trump supporter crowd to enter the Capitol building. Some of those leftists have already been arrested.

        At least 98% of the huge crowd listening to Trump speak two miles from the Capitol building NEVER went to the capitol building. Of those who did walk there, only a very small percentage entered the building. Hopefully all of them will be prosecuted. This 2021 riot was not an “insurrection” any more than the urban riots in 2020 were “peaceful protests”.

        Trump called for a peaceful protest in his speech, but January 6, 2021 was too late for any protest. The election had been settled on December 16, 2020. There was no reason for a January 6, 2021 rally, and all the pressure put on Mike Pence, who did what he was supposed to do in the Senate.

        For different reasons than Democrats would state, I believe Donald Trump was the worst president since Eisenhower. Obama held the record before Trump, and G.W. Bush before Obama. I expect Biden to be worse than Trump. My priorities are a smaller government and more personal freedom — we got the opposite in 2020 (and for the past 60 years).
        https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2021/01/does-trump-continue-pattern-of.html

      • barry says:

        Well I’m not very much clearer on why you are talking about other violent protests, but at least it’s clear you agree the storming of the Capitol was a crime.

        I also think Trump is a RINO. Always did.

        We disagree on Trump inspiring the storming of the Capitol (cashing in on decade of bitter political divisiveness and enabling these extremists over the last 4 years), but we’ve both said our piece on that. I hope he gets tried for his part in it.

    • Nate says:

      The rioting after dark were not at the White House. Certainly not ‘storming the White House’ as you claimed.

      The protest in the park in front of the White House was peaceful, and everyone sensible agreed that the force applied on them to clear them for Trumps photo-op was unjustified.

      Try to get your facts straight before posting a False Equivalence to use as a justification for the insurrection at the Capital.

      • Richard Greene says:

        The usual nasty Nate revisionist history.

        60 secret service agents were injured.
        President and family sent to a “safe room”

        Just a peaceful protest?

        You must be kidding.

      • Nate says:

        Here’s the part of your quote I took issue with.

        “Nasty Nate
        The White House was stormed in a riot last summer…”

        The White House was not STORMED.

        • Richard Greene says:

          60 secret service agents were injured trying to keep violent protestors away from the White House. Fortunately, they succeeded.

          There was a riot outside of the White House that was out of control for a while. With all those injuries, and the President sent to a safe room, because the secret service feared they could not protect the White House, it cam not be called a peaceful protest. More revisionist history, nasty Nate?

        • Nate says:

          “Fortunately, they succeeded.”

          Yes there was no storming of the building or even the fences.

          If anyone had breached the White House itself, they would have been immediately shot by secret service (as has happened before).

          For Stephen: No one would call that murder.

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Roy knew full well they [the papers] were not peer reviewed, and did not represent the full range of views in the field”.

    Since when did peer review become a requirement of the scientific method? Especially peer review by a load of alarmist wankers who have taken over peer review in climate science.

  46. tonyM says:

    Nate:
    You say: Lots of claims in there, little evidence to back them up.

    I gave you enough detail for your wisdom to use Google to satisfy yourself. I am not here to be your lackey or dissuade you from your religion.

    You say: Peer review in science has been standard for a century or more. Not perfect system, but necessary to uphold standards of the scientific method etc.

    Where do you get that idea? Peer review has never been a part of the Scientific Method. To try and hide behind this cloak shows little inclination to search for truth. Perhaps you should dismiss Einstein or Crick and Watson for their DNA discoveries. They published without peer review. Although nice in principle, peer review has never been tested.

    Perhaps you can explain to Bayer why they find less than 20% of the best research prospects they could find was ever able to be replicated. By replicate I don’t mean follow crap methodology to repeat the same mistakes of Mann’s Hockey stick nonsense. You seem to think that validates his work. McIntyre already predicted that Mann’s methodology would mostly result in the same outcome somewhat irrespective of the data. The gatekeeper mentality exposed in Climategate also speaks to this peer review issue. Lewandowsky used his research student for peer review. One researcher was dishonestly signing off on his own work and the list goes on even with computer generated gibberish passing peer review.

    The only standard – the gold standard – of the Scientific Method is the testing of hypotheses by controlled experimental or experiential empirical evidence.

    Your hero Mann says that proofs are for spirits and geometry; if you feel right about a proposition that is the way to go. Yeah right! We know Science does not “prove” but it certainly does not substitute personal whim which transports us back to pre Galileo (even there they were more advanced than Mann with models that worked).

    The issue in the Peter Ridd case was that he blew the whistle on the lack of quality assurance (re GBReef).

    Contrary to your belief it only needs one failure to falsify the whole of an hypothesis (sometimes some redemption is possible). But you can’t even state a clear falsifiable hypothesis in this field.

    But, please, continue to believe what you will. Meanwhile an apt article (referred by David Wojick in Dr Spencer’s next article):

    My explanation of the circular reasoning in some detail:
    https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/

    • Nate says:

      NATURE Description of the DNA discovery papers peer review:

      “All three papers appeared with no peer review unthinkable now. The head of the Kings College biophysics unit, John Randall, belonged to the same London gentlemans club the Athenaeum as Lionel (Jack) Brimble, co-editor of Nature. Randall convinced Brimble to publish Wilkins paper alongside Watson and Cricks; Franklins paper was added only after she petitioned for its inclusion.”

      Sound like a scientific process to you?

      ‘No peer review’ is unthinkable now for good reasons, among them is the fact that excellent work comes from people who are not members of the right ‘gentlemen’s club’.

      Another is that many many more papers are published and submitted now. Busy scientists don’t have time to read and sift thru lots of useless crap.

      • Nate says:

        In my field physics, the main Journal was Physical Review.

        A form of peer review was started in 1913, then todays form of peer review became standard by 1930s.

        “Other papers were reviewed by the editors, eventually with assistance from an Editorial Board that was in place by 1913, when APS assumed responsibility for the Physical Review. As was common practice at scientific journals around the turn of the last century, most papers were published or rejected without extensive review. Decisions about what to publish and what not to publish were to a large extent made solely by the editors.

        We know that by the 1930s, peer review at the journal was more established.”

        Of course it was realized that the editor was not expert in every field, and so they hired an Editorial Board of reviewers. Then it was realized that this was not sufficient expertise. So papers began to be sent out to outside experts. That is how its done ever since.

    • Nate says:

      And a final point. No one is saying peer review guarantees a paper is correct.

      Papers have been published finding cold fusion, faster-than light travel, etc, which turned out to be wrong.

      That truth is only determined after many competing groups have published papers, errors are found, and a finding is replicated, as the Hockey Stick has been.

      • Richard Greene says:

        Peer review only pressures authors to accept majority opinions.

        In the history of science, majority opinions (aka consensus) has been found to be wrong most of the time.

        Sometimes slightly wrong.

        Sometimes completely wrong.

        The biggest advances in science were by one scientist, or a small team, usually with a minority view outside of the consensus.

        That’s why peer review does not mean very much. Except for pressure to conform with majority opinions if you want to be published.n

        Truth can take many generations to be discovered, rarely by a consensus of opinions.

        When it comes to the usual wild guesses of the future climate — almost always claimed to be bad news — peer review means nothing. Wild guesses of the future climate are not real science — they are climate astrology. Climate astrology doesn’t need peer reviews.

        Your comments could use some peer reviews, nasty Nate.

      • Nate says:

        Science has not found a good alternative to peer review.

        Lets hear your alternative. Which do you prefer?

        1. Prominent journals should publish all papers recieved? Readers get to sift thru the ensuing thousands of garbage papers?

        2. A single editor, who cannot be an expert at everything decides.

      • bdgwx says:

        Richard,

        Peer review is not meant to adjudicate right or wrong. It is only meant to keep spam out of the system. Sometimes it even fails at that like is the case with Soon (one of the flyer authors) and one the papers he published [https://tinyurl.com/o3dytb8]. Once a paper is published it then goes through the ultimate peer review in which the entire world is given the opportunity to critique the work. It’s not perfect, but its the best we have. And like Nate I’d like to give you the opportunity to recommend a better alternative.

        • Clint R says:

          You could start cleaning up the system bdgwx, by cleaning up your messes here.

          “Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”

          1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
          2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?

        • Since a huge percentage of scientific studies can not be replicated, and many have to be retracted, it’s not obvious what peer review has accomplished. Many of the studies that can’t be replicated concern the social sciences, but there are plenty about hard sciences too. I actually read a blog about retracted studies: https://retractionwatch.com/

          I believe the best “peer review” would be publishing a draft study online, inviting scientific comments, and PUBLISHING those comments as an appendix WITH the final study.

          Of course those comments would have to be moderated, to eliminate politics, character attacks, and other off topic side issues.

          The opportunity for many people to comment would give all people interested in the subject a chance to add their two cents. Maybe just to ask a few logical questions.

          The extra bandwidth for the comments would be cheap. I would not mind anonymous comments, but those with real names would be preferred, and placed at the beginning of the list. People who read the final study would have a choice about whether or not to read the attached comments.

          • bdgwx says:

            That seems pretty reasonable. I do like the idea of having high quality relevant comments attached to the publication in some way. Some journals actually do this already…sort of anyway.

          • Nate says:

            Interesting. But the system needs to transfer new science information efficiently to people who can make the most of it and advance it further, while avoiding sending those people a lot of useless crap, thus it needs to filter the information efficiently for relevance and quality. Scientists will need to pay someone to do this filtering. Those are like editors. Their filtered work are in like journals. The editors will need experts in various fields to help them.

            So in the end we will be back to a peer review journal system. The system has evolved to what it is for good reasons.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Go over to EdBerry.com and review debate his new preprint. He’d be happy to answer any challenges you have, Mr. Physics.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            If you have the guts.

          • Norman says:

            Stephen Paul Anderson

            I went to the Ed Berry web page. He does seem like he has intelligence but he lost me with his blind support of Trump and compared them to Washington and Lincoln!

            He believes the lies spread by right wing media, just made up claims.

            When Trump called Pence a traitor for following the Constitutional Authority given to the VP and his loyal follower wanted to hang this fine person (A devote Christian man)… Twitter had over 14,000 hang Pence posts…I was convinced Trump is a very bad person and terrible President!

            So if Ed Berry is prone to accepting the lies he is fed by false news, I am not certain he has credibility in other areas.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, with your history of being wrong so much, insulting others, and falsely accusing others, you have no credibility.

          • Nate says:

            Yes Stephen as I said peer review helps to filter out “a lot of useless crap” which is what Ed Berry produces.

            His papers misrepresent or completely ignore the previous findings in this field , and that would not pass peer review.

            Readers of his papers will conclude that only his ‘simple model’ is physics based, while the main IPCC model is not. Of course this is False.

            Readers of his papers will conclude that his simple model satisfactorally models the available data, when in reality it does not.

            Readers of his papers will not be informed that his simple model was tested and rejected 60 y ago as inadequate. And that much more sophisticated models, which were informed by data, like the IPCC model, are required.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Norman,
            You betray yourself. You just couldn’t get past his blind support of Trump and get to his paper. Weak-minded fool.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            You’re the one who claims to be a physicist. Go there and prove him wrong. There’s nothing wrong with his physics, and although it doesn’t pass the peer review of climatologists, it does pass muster with physics. Salby and Harde agree. Those guys are physicists. But, if you are so sure his logic and physics aren’t sound, I’m sure you can show him how.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            He falsified IPCC’s theory. They violated the Equivalence Principle by claiming natural and human CO2 are treated differently by nature. He also showed using their own data that all the rise in CO2 above 280 ppm could not have been due to human CO2.

          • bdgwx says:

            It still appears that Berry does not even understand the definition of adjustment time.

          • Nate says:

            I have read and discussed Berry ad nauseum on this blog with Chic Bowdrie. Go find it. His simple single reservoir model is not wrong mathematically, it is just inapplicable to the real Earth. It misrepresents or ignores extensive findings on the carbon cycle discovered in the last 60 years.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            BGDWX,
            The go point it out to him. I’ll bet you a hundred dollars he does. If you have the guts.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            The answer to that question is whether you seek truth or continue to propagandize.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Berry is a rare individual. He is a truthseeker no matter where it leads.

          • bdgwx says:

            Gavin Cawley already pointed out how Berry’s conflation of residence time and adjustment time are in error. He also pointed out how Berry misrepresented Cawley’s publication which Berry ignored. See the comment dated Dec. 22, 2018. If an bona-fide exert cannot get through to Berry then who am I to think I can do any better.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            No, Berry didn’t ignore him. He showed him which of his equations are wrong. Berry doesn’t conflate adjustment time and residence time. He uses the term e time. He knows you can define an adjustment time or residence time any way you want. “e” time is defined by the continuity equation. It is mathematically determined and nonarbitrary. That is how a real physicist thinks.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            I don’t blame you for being scared. Berry is a mountain of an intellect. It is difficult to argue with his math, as it was for Cawley.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Einstein said with his Equivalence Principle that gravitational and inertial forces couldn’t be differentiated. Therefore they are the same. Berry says this same principle applies to carbon dioxide. Human and nonhuman CO2 cannot be differentiated. Therefore they are the same.

          • Nate says:

            OK Stephen, we get it. He is a real man. Only HE truly understands this stuff. He sticks it to IPCC.

            You LOVE Berry.

            Just as with Trump, any facts and logic that say otherwise will be ignored.

            It is impossible to debate with someone who thinks this way.

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA,

            I’ve posted these definitions numerous times on this forum. I’ll do so again.

            Residence Time – The average amount of time a particular molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before it is removed. A molecule that gets exchanged 1-for-1 with another molecule without any change in the total mass is still counted as being removed. The total mass of carbon in the atmosphere need not change at all for the RT to be meaningful.

            Adjustment Time – The amount of time it takes for an increase in total mass to relax back to the pre-increase level. The total mass of carbon in the atmosphere must change for the AT to be meaningful. This concept is only applicable to the total mass of carbon. It is not defined for the mass of specific isotopes of carbons.

            Berry’s e-time value is not a measurement of either of these concepts really. Though, it is most closely related to residence time.

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA,

            Let me see if I can provide an analogy that everyone can understand. This example is intentionally left simple so that essential concepts can be relayed. We do not want to make it any more complex until the concepts are understood. Yes, the carbon cycle is vastly more complicated.

            You have in your possession 300 $1 dollar bills. Everyday you take 100 of those bills to pay for your normal expenses. Likewise everyday you receive 100 new bills as normal income. Your balance remains at $300. The RTe of the individual bills in your possession is 3 days.

            Then on your birthday your parents give you 100 $1 bills. Your balance is now $400 and the RTe has changed to 4 days. Because of your higher balance you decide that you can spend $2 extra each day until you get back $300. In this trivial case the AT has linear decay so it does not make sense to use e-time to measure it. Instead, we can say AT(0.20) = 10 days, AT(0.40) = 20 days, AT(0.60) = 30 days, AT(0.80) = 40 days, AT(1.00) = 50 days.

            And here are some interesting questions that can be asked and answered at the moment your balance is $400.

            1. What is the average amount of time a specific $1 bill will remain in your possession? Answer = 4 days.

            2. What is the cause of the $100 increase from #300 to $400? Answer = Your Parents

            3. What percent of the total balance is from your parents? Answer = 25%

            4. After one e-fold at 4 days how many of those $1 bills with your parents fingerprints are still in your possession? Answer = 37

            5. After one e-fold at 4 days how much of the value that your parents contributed is still in your possession? Answer = $92

            Pay particular attention to questions 4 and 5. If you don’t understand why the answer to 4 is 37 and the answer to 5 is $92 then ask questions. If you understand why 4 and 5 are they way they are then we can start linking this to the real world.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            BGDWX,
            We’ve been through your silly little faux-reality before. You aren’t describing anything that has to do with Earth. Maybe that’s what happens on Alderon? But if you’re so confident of your carbon model, then why don’t you go debate Berry? I’m sure you can set him straight.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Is this what you want to be known for? BGDWX tombstone: Propagandist

            Really?

            Or do you want to discuss why your model is BS and Berry’s is based in physics? Will you do your disappearing act again?

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Suppose you have a tank of water holding 400,000 gallons. You are filling the tank at a rate of 100,000 gallons per year. There is a drain with a valve on the bottom, and the valve is open. The tank level is holding steady at 400,000 gallons. What is e time? What is Level? What is balance level? What is adjustment time? What is residence time?

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA said: What is e time?

            The amount of time it takes to complete one e-fold of a quantity.

            SPA said: What is Level?

            400,000.

            SPA said: What is balance level?

            400,000

            SPA said: What is adjustment time?

            ATe = NaN or undefined

            The adjustment time is undefined in this case because the level is not changing.

            SPA said: What is residence time?

            RTe = 400,000 / 100,000 = 4 years

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA said: You arent describing anything that has to do with Earth.

            That’s right. My example is simple. Far simpler than Earth’s carbon cycle and much easier to intuitively think about. It is a great starting point for understanding the concepts of residence time and adjustment without getting bogged down with unnecessary details. I actually choose $1 bills because they have serial numbers which plays a crucial element in uniquely identifying a specific unit of the whole. But I like your tank with water too. I can work with that.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            What is the definition of “residence time?”

          • bdgwx says:

            Residence time is the average amount of time it takes a specific molecules of H2O to get removed from the tank. When expressed in terms of e-time it is the average amount of time it takes it takes for 63% of a pre-selected set of molecules to be removed.

            Adjustment time is the amount of time it takes for the volume (in units of gallons) to move from a perturbation level (say 500,000) back down to the pre-perturbation level (in this case 400,000). If the volume of the tank is not change (like is the current case) then the adjustment time cannot be computed. It requires there to be a release of new volume and a relaxation of that value back toward the pre-release level.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Okay, suppose the rate added to the tank changes from 100,000 gallons per year to 105,000 gallons per year. What is e time? What is residence time? What is adjustment time? What is the level at t=0? What is the balance level at t=0? What is the level at t=4? What is the balance level at t=4?

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m assuming IN changes to 105,000 and OUT remains the same at 100,000 now.

            What is e time?

            I need to know what I’m computing the e-time for first. 🙂

            What is residence time?

            The new RTe is 400000 / 105000 = 3.8 years.

            What is adjustment time?

            AT is still uncomputable and undefined here. Remember…AT requires there to be a depletion of the level (in gallons) after an increase in the level has occurred. Since the level is increasing (and not decreasing as the definition requires) then there is no adjustment time yet.

            What is the level at t=0?

            400,000 because no time has elapsed yet. At t=1 it is 405,000 and t=2 is 410,000 and so on.

            What is the balance level at t=0?

            Technically there is no balance level anymore because IN does not match OUT anymore.

            What is the level at t=4?

            420,000

            This is computed as 4 * (105000 – 100000).

            What is the balance level at t=4?

            Technically there is still no balance level. However, if IN changed from 105,000 back down to 100,000 then the new balance level will be 420,000 at t=4.

          • bdgwx says:

            If I may make a suggestion…

            Declare the balance level of the tank as 400,000. The valve will modulate its flow such that more comes out if the level is higher than 400,000.

            Then dump 100,000 gallons into the tank from an alternate source either all at once or over a period of time. It doesn’t matter.

            Now the level of the tank will gradually decline back to 400,000 and then we can start computing adjustment times. We need a rule that dictates how the outflow is being modulated.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            I probably confused you. When I said what the level is at t=4, I meant four years.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            The drain isn’t modulated. It will only be modulated if there are more absorbers. The outflow will start increasing because the level of the water in the tank is increasing. The outflow is proportional to the height.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            So, what is the level at time t=4 years?

          • bdgwx says:

            I knew t=4 was 4 years. With IN = 105,000 and OUT = 100,000 then the level of tank increases by 20,000 gallons after 4 years assuming there are no other changes to the inflow and outflow during that time.

            When I use the word “modulate” I just mean that the tank outflow valve is either or opening or closing based on some parameter of the system. If you are saying that the outflow increases as the level increases then the outflow is definitely being modulated by the level.

            I don’t have enough information to calculate the level at t=4 yet because I don’t know how the outflow is being modulated. Is the outflow always 1/4 * LEVEL or is there a different rule you want to consider? Be very specific here because it is crucial in how we calculate the level at various times. And remember…if you want me to calculate a meaningful adjustment time then you must construct an example where the level starts high and is DECREASING back down to the original balance level of 400,000.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            BGDWX,
            You just defined “residence time,” which Dr. Berry more correctly calls e time as the time it takes for 63% of the molecules to be removed, and you said it was four years. Then I asked you what the level will be in four years, and you said 420,000 gallons. And, you said there is no way to calculate adjustment time. I don’t think it is Dr. Berry who doesn’t understand adjustment time. I think it is you. Nor do you understand e time nor the continuity equation. Maybe you should actually study Berry’s papers and Salby’s book? When the rate changed to 105,000, the new balance level became 420,000. Residence time or e time doesn’t change. So in four years, it will move 63% of the distance between 400 and 420,000, or 412,600. You could calculate an “adjustment time” for this example. Berry says the adjustment time (which is arbitrary) is 5 e times or 20 years. So in 20 years, the tank level will be close to 420,000, assuming the rate stays at 105.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Also, as the level starts moving toward the new balance level, outflow increases, at four years, the level is at approximately 412,600, and in four more years, it will move 63% of the distance between 412.6 and 420. e time doesn’t change. The level will never reach 420. So you can arbitrarily define adjustment time as infinity if you want, which is what IPCC does. Berry says this is ridiculous. This is Berry’s, Salby’s, et al. model of CO2. Your “pulse” model is a red herring and isn’t seen in nature, and is not an accurate descriptor of Earth, maybe Alderon?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            If the five extra gallons of water are “human” CO2, then human CO2 can never be more than about 5% in the atmosphere. Berry says it could be as high as about 35 ppm of the total. As the emission rate increases, outflow increases, the planet greens, so human CO2 doesn’t build up in the atmosphere. It is absorbed just like natural CO2, the Equivalence Principle.

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA,

            So far the only thing you’ve provided is this…

            – The tank starts at 400,000 gallons.
            – The inflow increased from 100,000 gal/yr to 105,000 gal/yr
            – The outflow is still just 100,000 gal/yr constant.

            Under those conditions the level will be 420,000 at t=4. RTe = 420000/100000 = 4.2 years. And AT is still uncomputable or undefined.

            If you want outflow to be something other than 100,000 gal/yr you need to define how you want it to behave. I don’t care how it behaves. You can make it dependent upon level. That’s fine. Just tell me what it is because I cannot read your mind.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            BGDWX,
            No, you have a conceptual error. “e” time is a constant. “e” time is what it takes for the level to move 1-1/e distance to the balance level. e time is 4 years. You determined that correctly in the beginning at a steady state. It doesn’t change. When the rate increased, the “e” time doesn’t change, the balance level changes. As you define, the adjustment time is the time it takes to reach the new balance level. It isn’t 4 years. You and not Berry do not understand “adjustment time.”

          • bdgwx says:

            NO. That is absolutely not correct. Not only is e-time not constant but it is NOT even a measurement on its own. It is a tool you use to make a measurement. It is a calculation based on the behavior and current state of the system you are analyzing.

            e-time can be used to measure RT or AT. half-life can also be used to measure RT or AT. You use e-folds or half-lifes for behavior that has exponential decay. But if the system does not exhibit exponential decay you would use a different formulation.

            For example…if the current level of the tank is 420,000 gal, the inflow is 100,000 gal/yr, and the outflow on your tank behaves like OUT = 0.25 * LEVEL then at t=0 the RTe = 4.2 years and ATe = 4 years.

            But if the outflow behaves like OUT = (0.25 * LEVEL) – (0.1 * LEVEL * ln(LEVEL/400000)) then the ATe = 6.7 years.

            Or if the outflow behaves like OUT = (0.25 * LEVEL) – (0.2 * LEVEL * ln(LEVEL/400000)) then ATe = 21 years.

            Do you understand that RT and AT both depend on what the outflow actually is and how it behaves in relationship to the level?

            We can’t even begin to talk about the real carbon cycle or Berry’s work until you at least understand the definitions of RT and AT and how they can be measured with e-folds or half-lifes (if they exhibit exponential decays).

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            You really need to read Berry’s paper. This has nothing to do with half-lives or exponential decay. You are using an incorrect construct. The one hypothesis in Berry’s model is that outflow is proportional to the level. So outflow = L/Te. e times are inherent to the atom. Carbon 12 will have an e time. C 13 will have a different e time and so on. But, e time does not change, at least for the current state of our planet. Your outflow equation is not a solution to dL/dT = inflow – outflow. You are introducing a process that does not describe our planet. You are not solving the continuity equation. Read “Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry” by Daniel J. Jacob. He comes to the same mathematical conclusions as Berry.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Read Salby’s “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” The math is there also. Nowhere does your math exist. It is made-up math.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            What if dL/dT=0. Your solutions make no sense. You are taking log decay and applying it as a solution to the continuity equation for CO2.

          • bdgwx says:

            SPA,

            How can we talk about the real carbon cycle or Berry’s model if we can’t even agree on what the definitions of residence time and adjustment are?

            My math is not made up. It is literally how e-folds and half-lifes are calculated for other things like medication decay in your body or radioactive decay of elements. Remember…there is no magic value for e-folds and half-lifes. Not all medications or bodies behave the same. Not all elements decay the same. They all have different e-times or half-lifes that are dependent on the specific parameters of the system.

            Stay focused on your simple example. Do not complicate it unnecessarily. Tell me how that outflow valve behaves and I’ll calculate the adjustment time. Just remember…the adjustment time is only defined when the level of the tank is decreasing back toward the balance level.

          • bdgwx says:

            What if dL/dT=0

            Then the adjustment time is uncomputable or infinite. Remember…the adjustment time is the amount of time it takes for the level to decay back towards the balance level. If the level is not changing then it will never decay back toward the balance level.

            And note that in the case of dL/dt=0 there is still a valid residence time. RTe = level/outflow. But if inflow=outflow then the level does not change and the AT is uncomputable.

            Now if the balance level is 400,000 and the current level is 500,000 and it takes 1,000 years for the level to drop to 437,000 then the ATe = 1,000 years even though the RTe will be on the order of only a few years.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            What if, what if, what if? Geez, man. You’re in la-la land. You don’t even understand the significance of dL/dT=0. That’s how you solve for the balance level. That is a strong confirmation that Berry’s hypothesis is correct. That’s how we know your expression for outflow and AT is bogus. It isn’t about agreeing on RT and AT or any T. You do not understand the physics.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Also, Berry talks about the real carbon cycle in preprints 2 and 3. It will help if you read them. They blow IPCC out of the water and falsifies their hypotheses. I doubt we ever see anything from IPCC again. How could they do that knowing that Berry’s papers are out there? Only a fool would continue with the sham.

          • bdgwx says:

            There is no complicated physics going on with your tank of water. In fact, we don’t need to have any knowledge of physics at all.

            If inflow = 105,000 gal/yr and outflow = 100,000 gal/yr then the level will increase by 5,000 gal/yr. At t=0 the level will be 400,000 and RTe = 400000/100000 = 4 years. At t=4 the level will be 420,000 and RTe will change to 4.2 years. That is not debatable and no understanding of physics whatsoever is required.

            Likewise, if the balance level is 400,000 and the current level is 500,000 gal, inflow = 100,000 gal/yr, and say outflow = (0.25 * LEVEL) – (0.1 * LEVEL * ln(LEVEL/400000)) then ATe = 6.7 years. Again, this has nothing to do with physics. It is purely mathematical.

            And there literally exists a concept that individual H2O molecules will have average lifetime in the tank. Scientists all agreed to call that residence time.

            And there literally exists a concept that the amount of something can decay from perturbation back down to a pre-perturbation level over a give period time. Scientists all agreed to call that adjustment time.

            This is not debatable. It is what it is.

            What is debatable is how the outflow in your trivial tank example is linked to the level. But we can’t begin discussing it until you understand what RT and AT are supposed to be measuring.

            And they’re just definitions. It is no different than us assigning the word “distance” to describe the concept of A – B where A and B are coordinates or “power” to describe the concept of energy per unit time. So I don’t really see what the big deal is here.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Shut up.

          • Nate says:

            “Berry talks about the real carbon cycle in preprints 2 and 3.”

            He talks about it. But then ignores it and tries to return to the simple one reservoir model, which fails to work.

            “They blow IPCC out of the water and falsifies their hypotheses.”

            Not at all. He misrepresents them. When your work is not peer reviewed you can distort all you want!

          • Nate says:

            One example where Berry is totally wrong. His model gives an e-time of ~ 4 y. He claims the Bomb C14 curve supports his model. But the Bomb curve has an e-time of ~ 17 y or more.

            4 and 17 are not close. And he cannot explain the difference!

          • bdgwx says:

            Berry also says this…

            In summary, IPCC uses two different time constants where it should use only e-time:

            – When the level is far from its balance level (which can be zero), IPCC thinks e-time is an adjustment time because the level is moving rapidly toward its balance level.

            – When the level is close to its balance level, IPCC thinks e-time is a residence time because molecules are flowing in and out with little change in level.

            That’s just plain wrong. The IPCC clearly and succinctly define RT and AT as two completely different concepts. Berry even puts the IPCC definitions in his preprint #1 and then summarily misrepresents and conflates them. Just look at figure 11.

            He also does not understand that the Bern model is NOT designed to explain or prediction the 14C bomb spike decay.

            Furthermore, the 14C bomb spike decay is DIFFERENT than the decay time for of the mass of a pre-selected set of CO2 molecules.

            Still yet…he does not understand that the D14C ratio can change even when the mass of 14C is holding steady.

            And finally…not only his e-time of ~17 4x longer than the RT, but it severely underestimates the AT as well. For example, the release of CO2 during the previous interglacial took well over 10,000 years to deplete by 50%.

            The mistakes in his “prepints” are so elementary they almost defy credulity.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Nate,
            Why do you continue to post moronic crap? Why don’t you actually read his paper, and he explains why 14C e time is different than 12C e time? Maybe you like being labeled a moron?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Which preprint? There are three preprints. Which page? Which lines?

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Yeah, look at Figure 11; he’s not conflating anything. He shows that his model fits the 14C data (lower C14 balance level) better than the IPCC model. Their Bern model is stovepipes and isn’t a solution to the continuity equation. You don’t know anything about the release of CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago. You’re speculating. The “e” time is for today (within the last ten thousand years or so). Not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. You are throwing out red herring after red herring, obfuscating and speculating. Let’s throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. You aren’t engaging in science but misinformation. Let’s stick with what we actually do know.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            You keep bringing up this hypothesized scenario that CO2 was pulsed into the atmosphere and took tens of thousands of years to “decay” back to normal levels. If that occurred, it has nothing to do with today, what we’re talking about, the Physics model, or anything. It is just a red herring when you run out of your immediate talking points. It makes you seem like an idiot. You can’t help it, though; propagandists have only so much factual material.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            We have Dr. William Happer stating that Berry “does not make mathematical mistakes,” and we have “BGDWX” and “Nate,” saying Berry conflates. Who do we believe?

          • bdgwx says:

            He shows that his model fits the 14C data (lower C14 balance level) better than the IPCC model.

            Yes. His model fits the 14C bomb spike decay quite well. Congratulations are in order for rediscovering something people who do radiocarbon dating discovered decades ago.

            No. The IPCC does not have a model for the 14C bomb spike decay. The Bern model and other carbon cycle models like it are NOT designed to explain or predict the 14C bomb spike curve.

            You don’t know anything about the release of CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago.

            I know that it takes about tens of thousands of years for the CO2 concentration to relax 50% off of the interglacial level down to the glacial level. Those cycles are well known

            The “e” time is for today (within the last ten thousand years or so). Not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. You are throwing out red herring after red herring, obfuscating and speculating.

            So every other time in Earth’s history a release of CO2 took thousands and even tens of thousdands of years for the mass to deplete, but today is different because?

            You keep bringing up this hypothesized scenario that CO2 was pulsed into the atmosphere and took tens of thousands of years to “decay” back to normal levels.

            It’s not a hypothetical. It occurred many times in Earth’s history.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Yes. His model fits the 14C bomb spike decay quite well. Congratulations are for rediscovering something people who do radiocarbon dating discovered decades ago.

            It isn’t radioactive decay. It is curve fitting outflow, which is: outflow = L/Te.

            No. The IPCC does not have a model for the 14C bomb spike decay. The Bern model and other carbon cycle models like it are NOT designed to explain or predict the 14C bomb spike curve.

            He uses IPCC’s Te and level data; their solution isn’t a solution to the continuity equation, like in Daniel’s book.

            I know that it takes about tens of thousands of years for the CO2 concentration to relax 50% off of the interglacial level down to the glacial level. Those cycles are well known

            L/Te would also govern that outflow, but we don’t know what Te was then. And, we don’t know if that ice core data is even representative. It is all speculative and hypothetical.

            So every other time in Earth’s history, a release of CO2 took thousands and even tens of thousands of years for the mass to deplete, but today is different because?

            Again, you don’t understand the physics. What determines e time? It is the absorbers and the molecule in question. Absorbers like vegetation, soils, ice, water, etc. The conditions are different.

            It’s not hypothetical. It occurred many times in Earth’s history.

            It did? So you’re millions of years old, and you saw it?

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            You are such an unscientific leftist propagandist who tries to pose as someone who understands math and science. Why even mention radioactive decay? C14 half-life is 5700 years. It has nothing to do with the C14 bomb curve. It had a minuscule effect on what was being studied.

          • bdgwx says:

            It isn’t radioactive decay. It is curve fitting outflow

            Duh. And I never said that curve was the radioactive decay. What I said is that scientists who do radiocarbon dating are well aware of that curve and have had it modeled for decades. More on that further down…

            He uses IPCC’s Te and level data; their solution isn’t a solution to the continuity equation,

            First…the IPCC has no definition for Te. They have definitions for Ta and Tr though and they use time based e-folds as the dimension for the measurements.

            Second…of course it isn’t a solution to 14C bomb spike decay curve. The IPCC doesn’t even attempt to explain it. And why would they? It has little application to climate science because it doesn’t matter what the 14C ratio is since all carbon isotopes behave pretty much the same in regards to their radiative properties and their interaction with the carbon cycle (caveats noted).

            L/Te would also govern that outflow, but we don’t know what Te was then.

            You do realize that Berry’s e-time is measuring the e-folding time of 14C decay after nuclear bombing testing and nothing more right? In other words, it has no applicability in the distant past because no one had ever repeated the nuclear bombing regiment exactly or had even done any bombing testing at all in the distant past.

            What determines e time?

            The e-time of what?

            This is like asking what is the half-life? The half-life of what? You have to actually specific what it is your measuring. And like half-lifes e-time apply to all kinds of systems.

            If you’re referring to the thing that Berry is estimating it is the 14C bomb spike decay. The things that effect it are the production rate in the upper atmosphere, the residence time of all carbon based molecules (CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc.), and the 14C emission rate by humans.

            BTW…I want you to think about this. Berry’s 14C bomb spike e-fold estimation is not natural because of human 14C emissions that make the tail of the curve extend out longer than it would otherwise. This is actually a significant reason why Berry’s e-time estimate is ~17 years as opposed to the RTe of ~4 years.

            It did? So you’re millions of years old, and you saw it?

            So now the bar for evidence is that you have to personally witness something for it to have happened?

            Why even mention radioactive decay?

            I never mentioned radioactive decay. What I mentioned was radiocarbon dating. Yes, you have to have knowledge of radioactive decay but that is unimportant to the context of the discussion we are having.

            The point I was making is that an understanding of the bomb spike decay is crucial for radiocarbon dating because people born after nuclear bomb testing have significantly more 14C in their bodies compared to people born before the testing. Scientists who do radiocarbon dating have to have the bomb spike decay curve modeled exactly so that their radiocarbon dates are more accurate. That bomb spike decay curve was figured out decades ago. Berry is decades late to the party.

          • Nate says:

            “he explains why 14C e time is different than 12C e time? ”

            No he doesnt.

            How does he ‘explain’ it?

          • Nate says:

            ” Berry is a mountain of an intellect.”

            Stephen are you bowing to his authority, while not understanding his arguments, because he is a real mountain man?

            What is his argument about why 17 and 4 are compatible?

    • tonyM says:

      Nate:
      Thanks for all that information but where do you show that peer review is a necessary part of the Scientific Method which is what I addressed where you said “…necessary to uphold standards of the scientific method ?”

      You make a case for efficiency of a process, collaboration and the like but nowhere can you show it is a necessary part of the scientific method. The history of establishments approving and publishing goes back much further even to the 17th century. But again nowhere is it a necessary part of the Scientific Method and for good reason as I tried to indicate with some of the debacles I described.

      Even your comment re “gentleman’s club” can translate into modern version of gatekeeper tendency as was vividly highlighted by one of the Climategate participants when he said “excuse me while I puke” at Mann’s implied gatekeeper suggestion or Jones’ statement that he would ensure publication restrictions.

      You say:
      That truth is only determined after many competing groups have published papers, errors are found, and a finding is replicated, as the Hockey Stick has been.

      Firstly the Hockey Stick methodology is a dud and will always be a dud. Wegman report and testimony go into this in detail. Snippets include:

      I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway.
      Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

      A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.

      That is a no brainer and in the report recommends involving professional Statisticians. Separately one of Karl’s paper’s had a 90% significance level even though the wishy washy sciences use at least 95% which is already a low hurdle to begin with. What is the chance that Karl decided this AFTER seeing the data? For me, I am certain!

      On your “competing groups” you live in a different world to the one I observe if you believe funds are available to researchers wanting to question this field. Ask Dr Spencer, Dr Curry and so on. Go look at the IPCC charter.

      When DA’s and climatologists collude to find ways to prosecute “deniers” I am surely surprised at how you can hold onto this ideal belief.

      • Nate says:

        “Firstly the Hockey Stick methodology is a dud ”

        The Mann paper was the first of its kind, the pioneering effort. Rarely is the first paper the end of the story. Naturally methods have improved since, both by his group, and his competitors. Yes he had scientific critics and competitors and that helped move the science toward a more complete, hopefully accurate, picture of past temperature record.

        Normal science in action, and with peer review an essential part. Now we have ~ a dozen such reconstructions, and the Mann result is largely intact.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0

        What you read on skeptic blogs does not have to meet the standards of science. No one is preventing them from misrepresenting or cherry picking data to fit their narrative. No one is insuring that their data or analysis isnt fake or poorly done.

        Whereas one cannot present fake data, or cherry pick or misrepresent other work and expect that to sail thru peer review at a mainstream science journal. Peer review discourages cheating. If one gets caught doing scientific misconduct in a publication, your career in science is over.

        • Nate says:

          Nate:

          “Apart from not addressing Wegmans critique”

          This was an unprecedented political hit job on a science paper. Rarely has a science paper ignited such politicization.

          “Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a ‘misguided and illegitimate investigation’ into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and wrote ‘My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review.'”

          “Barton’s committee spokesman sent a sarcastic response to this and to Democrat Henry A. Waxman’s letter asking Barton to withdraw the letters and saying he had ‘failed to hold a single hearing on the subject of global warming’ during eleven years as chairman, and had ‘vociferously opposed all legislative efforts in the Committee to address global warming. These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.’ The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Ralph J. Cicerone wrote to Barton that ‘A congressional investigation, based on the authority of the House Commerce Committee, is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating’, and proposed that the NAS should appoint an independent panel to investigate. Barton dismissed this offer.”

          I can’t agree more! Let science do science, and politicians make policy.

          ” by not recognizing the absurdity of your ‘competing groups’ shows you do indeed live in a different world!”

          “Mann the pioneer!???” “”You say: A dishonest treatment of statistics and you describe it as pioneering.”

          Yes, I understand the world of science, and you obviously do not.

          There is no question that the Mann paper was the first of its kind, was highly influential, was thus a ‘pioneering paper’.

          There is simply no question that there were eventually a number of competing hockey sticks done by independent groups.

          What ‘absurdity’ are you talking about?

          “A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data.

          Refusal to disclose his methodology to cover up his crap is now called pioneering!!”

          His ‘dishonesty’ is declared by agenda driven political opponents of climate science.

          Statistical criticisms of his work by McKitrick and McIntyre have been thoroughly debunked.

          Mann was investigated several times by independent bodies, and they did not find him guilty of scientific misconduct.

      • tonyM says:

        Nate:

        Apart from not addressing Wegman’s critique by not recognizing the absurdity of your “competing groups” shows you do indeed live in a different world!

        You say: Mann the pioneer!??? A dishonest treatment of statistics and you describe it as pioneering. Extreme euphemism in its most bizarre form. No scientist worth his salt needs to be told what Wegman states:

        A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data.

        Refusal to disclose his methodology to cover up his crap is now called pioneering!! LOL.

        Run Nate, run; vespers calls you. You can keep singing from your song sheet of pal review. The Wegman report is not skeptical blog!

        It does not even need Sagan’s balony detection kit to expose you.

        • Nate says:

          Response above.

          And Rep. led Science Committee commisioned an NRC report, which mostly disagrees with Wegman.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report

          “At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or ‘anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure’. Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been ‘quite reasonable’ in a ‘first of its kind study’. He said ‘I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I’d been involved in it’. In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and ‘while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.’

        • bdgwx says:

          tonyM,

          Furthermore…there have been many tree-ring temperature reconstructions that have corroborated the MBH98/99 publications. And there have been other multi-proxy (see Kaufmann 2020 https://tinyurl.com/y55u7zon) works that corroborate the tree-ring proxies. It is a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now. In fact, there are so many hockey sticks now that most of us cannot even enumerate them anymore.

        • tonyM says:

          Nate
          Re North from NAS you did mean to segue into his unequivocal statement at the official House Committee hearings but you just did not get around to it did you not?:

          CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?

          DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

          DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]:Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

          WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: the two reports [Wegman’s and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

        • tonyM says:

          ctd..
          You still don’t get it! Your whole rebuttal rests on this being a hit job. You live in a world of delusions that can’t comprehend statistical inference requirements:

          A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.

          I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
          Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

          You will continue to hide behind your pal review and believe it is necessary for the scientific method as well as believing that duplicity and obfuscation are quite ok because it is somehow pioneering work.

          • tonyM says:

            ctd…
            When you don’t like the message you denigrate the messenger. So North, Bloomberg and Wallace were part of this affair after all ?

          • tonyM says:

            ctd…
            Not to mention McIntyre and MkItrick. They were all in on this ? Dr Curry too no doubt!?

        • Nate says:

          Naturally you focus your attention on the Barton Committee and cherry pick at will, rather than look at reports from several neutral investigations

          The Barton Committee was strongly criticized above even by Republicans. Barton took it as his mission, assigned by the political opponents of climate science, to do an unprecedented hit on an influential climate scientist.

          This is what would happen to Darwin if he published his work today.

          This statement, from his fellow Republican is damning “My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review.”

          Science must be decided by science without political interference.

        • tonyM says:

          ctd…
          I do make the point that no one disputes that the world has had a T increase certainly from the depths of the LIA but that is NOT the issue never was!

          https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/

          you don’t like does not like dirty linen being aired. A neat summary of MBH issues:
          https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf

          Dr Curry posts : “There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his articleUnderstanding the Climategate Inquiries

          https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/

          ” But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies. ”

          There is plenty more but I guess it is not music to your religious ears and it must be time for your vespers.

          And am sick of finding the words this site rejects…!

          • Nate says:

            OK, so lots of non-peer-reviewed, political-agenda-driven blog science there. No point in quoting it.

        • Nate says:

          “Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been ‘quite reasonable’ in a ‘first of its kind study’. He said ‘I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if Id been involved in it’.

          What did I say from the very start of this discussion?

          “That truth is only determined after many competing groups have published papers, errors are found, and a finding is replicated, as the Hockey Stick has been.”

          and

          “The Mann paper was the first of its kind, the pioneering effort. Rarely is the first paper the end of the story. Naturally methods have improved since, both by his group, and his competitors. Yes he had scientific critics and competitors and that helped move the science toward a more complete, hopefully accurate, picture of past temperature record.”

          My point still stands: science is good at finding the truth and is self correcting. Peer review should not be discarded.

          The attempt by opponents of Climate Science to SMEAR Michael Mann, serve the purposes of right-wing politics to denigrate Climate Science.

        • Nate says:

          You can download NAS report for free.

          From the Intro

          “Science is a process of exploration of ideashypotheses are proposed and research is
          conducted to investigate. Other scientists work on the issue, producing supporting or negating evidence, and each hypothesis either survives for another round, evolves into other ideas,
          or is proven false and rejected. In the case of the hockey stick, the scientific process has
          proceeded for the last few years with many researchers testing and debating the results.
          Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods were flawed, that the
          choice of data was biased, and that the data and procedures used were not shared so others
          could verify the work. This report is an opportunity to examine the strengths and limitations
          of surface temperature reconstructions and the role that they play in improving our understanding of climate. The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just
          one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching
          argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of
          research on global climate change.”

          I can’t agree more. You?

        • Nate says:

          “A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.

          If you actually read the report, and the chapter on statistics, you will see that the statistical issues are not only very complex, but also debatable even among statistical experts.

          They cannot be boiled down to your simple statement above, that imply ineptitude and nefarious intent.

          Rather, AGAIN, this is simply ordinary science in action. A pioneering paper comes out. Tries do something very DIFFICULT, reconstruct historical temperature from tree rings etc. Others find problems, take issue. Try to do it better. More data comes out. More reconstructions come out. Picture clears up.

          “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway.
          Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”

          A better way of putting it:

          Method partly wrong + Gets improved + Correct answers found = Ordinary science in action.

          Happens ALL THE TIME in science.

        • tonyM says:

          I have quoted verbatim from testimony; the North, Bloomberg and Wallace reply to a direct question about the Wegman relevant conclusions. Nowhere do they retract those clear statements. They concur with Wegman. QED!

          But you the high priest talk about various reports – whitewash reports on Climategate and some sanitised comment to ease the pain for poor, dear suffering Mann which is where you get the “pioneering” dysfunction of his efforts. Naive of you to think professionals would say it otherwise!

          I don’t buy the “pioneering” because from McIntyre:
          The 2006 NAS panel stated that stripbark chronologies (i.e. the Graybill bristlecone chronologies) should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions. Although Mann et al 2008 stated that it was compliant with NAS recommendations, Mann flouted this most essential recommendation by including all 20 stripbark series isolated from the CENSORED analysis.

          He lied (or kept lying). Oooh we can’t say such thing because it is not in the pal reviewed lit.

          In any case your whole thrust is one of denial; hard to beat that denial given its religious provenance. You keep trying to assert and hide behind pal review claiming it necessary “to uphold standards of the scientific method.” This is simply nonsense;
          it is too open to bias and corruption especially in this field!

          Where it runs properly it can be very helpful but it is NOT an essential part of the Scientific Method.

          Feynman wrote elegantly about the ‘need for a special kind of integrity of a scientist!’ It is sorely missing here. Hence the apropos statement by Lindzen to defund 90% of this field and start again; it has become a religion.

          You ask re NAS motherhood statements: I cant agree more. You?

          The ideals espoused in the NAS piece are great in theory but the practice in this field falls far short.
          Ask the professionals in this field like Spencer, Curry, McItrick and others who don’t toe the party line. Just look up at the title of this very article; Dr Spencer has had to justify that he is not a “denier.” Incredible!

          For as long as I have visited this site he has always accepted the radiation principles cause warming. He may have questioned the orthodoxy of H2O feedback given the large uncertainty about clouds. Seems he is not allowed to question; quite contrary to your assertion of a pristine scientific progression.

          You assert a better way of putting it is:
          “Method partly wrong + Gets improved + Correct answers found = Ordinary science in action.”

          No! Mann’s method was TOTALLY wrong not half pregnant. He is either totally incompetent or dishonest or both. It would likely never have been discovered if not for the supreme efforts of McIntyre and McItrick and certainly never revealed given the expected solidarity and penalties for going against the mob. It destroyed McItrick’s career. So much for your pal review that you so promote.

          This sort of chicanery still rolls on into the Pages 2K. No one can know where truth lies with ex post selection of proxies and selective treatment. What a bias. What a shamble. Self correction is honoured by its absence.

          Surdo fabulam narras – go tell your story to a deaf man. You are a waste of my time.

          As an aspiring high priest or perhaps bishop by now it is time for you to go to vespers. It is the same song sheet.

          • Nate says:

            “No! Mann’s method was TOTALLY wrong not half pregnant. He is either totally incompetent or dishonest or both.”

            I see that you refuse to look at, or quote from the actual NAS report, and instead prefer to swallow whole the propaganda from right-wing politically-motivated sources.

            An unprecedented abuse of Congressional power to do a political hit job an individual climate scientist, in hopes of tarnishing and intimidating the whole field. Aint gonna work.

            In any case, I just don’t see the point of personal attacks on scientists.

            It is an attempt at a distraction from the facts on climate, that are not going your way.

          • Nate says:

            ” It destroyed McItricks career.”

            How so?

            It seems HE decided to focus on political activism against climate science/policy before the Hockey stick controversy.

          • tonyM says:

            You waste my time. Obfuscation and conflation are your hallmark.

            Wegman report has no comment about personal integrity; they are mine as a logical construct of the findings. I then went further to include Mann’s subsequent recidivism and lying about it – in effect doubling down on the ‘free pass’ he had been given by Bloomfield.

            It would not matter if the devil himself had been in charge of the enquiry as North, Bloomfield and Wallace replied to a direct question about the Wegman conclusions. They all concurred. Did each have a gun to his head? Geesh!

            Nowhere is any of that retracted. Sanitizing comments about pioneers simply reinforces the original reply; there is no retraction!! If Bloomfield wanted to change that testimony he would have said outright that he did not agree with the Wegman conclusion. Instead he chose to ameliorate the position for poor Mann in effect saying ‘ if I was dumb and going into new work that I consider pioneering I may have done the same thing. Easy enough mistake to make!’

            Except when you do it again it is no longer a mistake but deliberate. It was always deliberate as the HS could not emerge without the “mistake” and Mann would not disclose the methodology. He knew!

            I have already talked about the fiasco of other HS that are a consequence of ex post selection. Equally useless. What is it that you don’t grasp?

            Your vespers call.

          • Nate says:

            “they are mine as a logical construct of the findings.”

            Thanks for admitting that.

            The tendency from you guys is to try to ‘find’ evil intent on the part of individual Climate Scientists.

            But who the hell cares? It doesnt prove any larger point about the original topic, the usefulness of peer review, or the ability of science to correct errors.

            The main point is the facts discovered about the Earth still stand, and science still does a good job of finding the truth.

            Newton was apparently a jerk, and didnt give credit to others. He got some facts wrong.

            No matter. His work was pioneering. His physics stands on its own.

            Same goes for James Watson, of Watson and Crick. Their DNA discovery still stands on its own.

          • tonyM says:

            Nate:
            You say:
            “Thanks for admitting that.”

            No need! Where have I suggested otherwise?

            As usual you try to conflate and obfuscate. Historical science figures that you mention did not bias their studies. Mann betrays any semblance of scientific integrity by his actions. Trying to suggest he is in anyway a pioneer in science and mentioning Newton et al in the same breath is bizarre travesty. You mean cheating as in flagrant introduction of bias is fine!!? His actions reflect the antithesis of science which makes him not fit to kiss the path where Newton walked. I am talking real science not about character nor pseudo science. You are not and betrays your high priest status.

            Ironically, and you can’t grasp it, is that even if one were to endorse a hockey stick using ex post proxies as a hypothesis for T it is self falsified by someone else choosing ex post the proxies that were not used to test or a remix. Read this McIntyre (re 2117 vs 2113 Pages 2K):

            Of the 641 records that together comprise the previously published PAGES2k datasets, 177 are now excluded, of which 124 are tree-ring-width series that are inversely related to temperature.

            A violin with infinite tunes; it’s called simply cherry picking.

            When challenged to show results without either stripbark bristlecones or upside-down mud , Mann (and Gavin Schmidt) stuck their fingers in their ears, with the larger climate community obtusely refusing to understand a criticism that was obvious to any analyst not subservient to the cause.
            (NB: this relates to Mann et al 2008; the upside-down mud had been contaminated)

            No amount of hiding behind cliches meant for orthodox science following the scientific method will work in this wishy washy field.

            Lindzen is right! Defund 90% and start again; it has become a religion.

            Go to your vespers.

  47. Entropic man says:

    Richard

    You may have heard of the green ink brigade. Most publicly visible scientists receive a slush pile of letters describing how the writer has completely reformed relativity or shown that leprechauns control the weather.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Green_ink

    Peer review is the shield which keeps such slush out of the journals. It is hard enough to keep up with the flow of genuine papers in a field, without having to filter out a lot of substandard rubbish as well.

    • Entropic man says:

      There is already a preprint archive where papers can appear ahead of formal publication, sometimes for discussion and sometimes as a way of establishing priority.

      https://beta.arxiv.org

      These are not peer reviewed, though the grossly inappropriate are moderated. Many of them to no further. Those with obvious errors or problems are weeded out and others fail to meet the quality control standards of the journals.

    • coturnix says:

      >>Peer review is the shield which keeps such slush out of the journals.

      I would have thought that the (board of) editor(s) are supposed to be such a shield. peer review however is a tool of guild-politics.

  48. rtremblay says:

    i think R. Spencer is a denier because he is associated with “friends of science”. This group is not a science friends. More CO2 and other GES is not good fore climate variability.

    Atmosphere is not same thing than greenhouse (where plant grow). burning fossil fuel are always with other gas than CO2 , not good for human health. Don’t forget this

    why do you not publish result of global temperature for 2020 ?? probably because you know the result : new record !

    I remember the year when temperature record was lower than year before. you are fast to publish results (before end of year (30 december)) But year indicate record you are slow to publish !!

    • Bindidon says:

      rtremblay

      Mais calmons-nous, voyons!

      *
      Here are the yearly averages for the monthly anomalies from 2011:

      2011 0.02
      2012 0.05
      2013 0.14
      2014 0.18
      2015 0.27
      2016 0.53
      2017 0.40
      2018 0.23
      2019 0.44
      2020 0.50

      When a year gets over 2016, I’m sure Roy Spencer will inform us about that. From that info we don’t seem to be so far away.

      Let us await the end of 2021, and we will see the effect of the current, weak La Nina on UAH’s temperatures. There is always a lag of 4-5 months between ENSO and the lower troposphere.

      J.-P. D.

    • Bindidon says:

      Do you have any idea of how long it took to get nuclear plants working, and how much it has cost (no: not the industry, nor the consumers, but the taxpayers everywhere in the world) ??

      Sie schauen wohl selten länger als Ihre eigene Nase ist, Eben!

      J.-P. D.

      • Eben says:

        Pay no attention to the brainwashed fritz Bendydong , he does not question authority,
        He does however leave a piss-mark in every thread

  49. Norman says:

    ClintR

    I can start with this denial from you.

    • Clint R says:

      ???

      Just more incompetence from Norman.

      • Norman says:

        ClintR

        If you had a brain that could think you might have been able to figure out what happened. I submitted a comment before is was completed. Happens sometimes. Not really incompetent that you can’t figure it out demonstrates you lack of thinking ability and problem solving skills.

        I think you might be a Trump supporter. Believe many lies peddled by this terrible lying President, and not able to think. Seems to fit what you post. No thought and lots of false misleading information. Again, like a Trump supporter, you do not offer evidence for your false beliefs, I guess we are just supposed to trust whatever you claim because you said so.

        • Clint R says:

          This is a perfect example of how Norman perverts reality.

          He wasn’t incompetent, he just “submitted a comment before is [sic] was completed”!

          He denies reality. He won’t admit he’s wrong. And, he can’t learn.

          That’s why he’s an idiot.

  50. Norman says:

    ClintR

    I can start with this denial from you.

    In a post above you say:

    “You could start cleaning up the system bdgwx, by cleaning up your messes here.

    Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.

    1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
    2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earths temperature?”

    Right here you make such a claim:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544829

    You claim the extension of Stefan-Boltzmann Law to deal with surroundings is bogus and not valid. Wrong. If you actually had real physics and opened a textbook you would see this equation is used with nearly all radiant heat transfer problems. Most objects do not exist isolated so the equation is used in real world problems.

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks for linking to my comment:

      “It [S/B Law] is one of the most solid laws of physics.”

      “The bogus equation, Q(dot) = σA(Th^4 – Tc^4), is a perversion of the Stefan/Boltzmann Law, and has NO validity, anywhere.

      It’s not my problem if you can’t understand my statements.

    • Nate says:

      “has NO validity, anywhere.”

      Clint’s Fizuks has no validity anywhere is how to properly interpret this.

      Of course if he can find a source that agrees…

    • Norman says:

      Nate

      You are spot on. ClintR does not understand physics at all. I generally ignore his stupid comments but he is unable to leave it at that. I comment to someone else and the first responder is our resident blog idiot. He says nothing value but he feels he must post.

      Since he is unable to ignore me, I respond that he does not understand physics at all. He lacks logical thought process by proposing problems where and solution is possible. Just basically a stupid troll like the others like him (if he is not them in disguise). He feeds off getting a reaction by insulting people. You know he is an idiot troll when he attacks highly knowledgeable people like Tim Folkerts. You can see by his posts he is to stupid to understand the intelligent posts from Tim but is does not stop him from his ignorant displays.

      I really have no interest in him or his comments. I always hopes he slithers away to bother some other bloggers but he does not. His stupidity is intense and he must display it for everyone to see. He is a proud idiot.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman claims he has “no interest” in my comments, yet he types out another example revealing his uneducated opinions.

        He doesn’t like me because I represent reality. And, he hates reality.

      • Nate says:

        Clint tells people they need to clean up some sort of imagined mess.

        But he leaves a trail of messes that stink to high heaven.

        This is another one. He DECLARES that the rad heat transfer equation above has ‘no validity anywhere’.

        But no evidence, no textbook reference, is provided, ever, over and over.

        Its just stinky BS, which he will never clean up!

  51. Norman says:

    ClintR

    Here is one of your false claims. You make it so often it was not hard to find.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543633

    You state in this thread that the cold atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface. It can and it does in relation to a surface with no atmosphere.

    With atmosphere Earth’s average temperature is much warmer than it would be without such an atmosphere. Logic is that the atmosphere is raising the temperature of the Earth’s HEATED surface.

    • Norman says:

      ClintR

      As I have correctly stated about you, you don’t know real physics and you are not a smart person.

      You make false claims all the time and when called out on them you divert to stupid childish insult posts. You insult, I insult you back, you get offended because I tell the truth about you. You are not logical, scientific, or smart. Worse is you like to lie. I have called you out on that one as well.

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks for quoting me correctly: “Cold” can not raise the temperature of “hot”.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2020-0-27-deg-c/#comment-587351

      It’s not my problem if you can’t understand my statements.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”You state in this thread that the cold atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface. It can and it does in relation to a surface with no atmosphere”.

      Not so, the atmosphere is simply affecting the rate of heat dissipation at the surface, just as insulated walls slow heat dissipation from a home. It’s important to understand that it’s the entire atmosphere acting as an insulator, not trace gases.

      That pretty well demonstrates the ineffectiveness of surface radiation as a means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. The atmosphere serves as an insulator to conduction, since gases don’t conduct heat well. In the same way, home insulators are worried about heat loss via conduction through the walls and ceiling and not so much about radiation loss. R-type insulation works only against heat loss through conduction.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Your claims just are not true, though you make them often.

        Radiation is a significant energy transfer mechanism at terrestrial temperatures. The surface radiates, on average, 398 W/m*2. If not for the radiant energy from the atmosphere it would be the single biggest energy loss from the surface. Because of GHE the radiant energy loss only amounts to around 58 W/m^2. The bulk of the atmosphere (non GHG like O2 and N2) does not stop the surface radiant energy from moving to space, only the GHG do this. You are obsessed beyond reason with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You don’t consider the videos of a small amount of ink in water that can make it totally opaque. There is enough GHG in the atmosphere present that only 40 W/m^2 go through to space, the GHG present absorb all the rest to the 398 W/m^2 emitted by the surface.

        With GHG present evaporation is the largest cooling mechanism of the surface, 2nd is radiative loss followed by convection. Heat transfer by conduction is so small it is not considered significant in cooling the surface.

        • Clint R says:

          Norman, there are quite a few errors there. You have taken those figures from the bogus “Energy Budget”.

          * The surface does NOT only lose 58 W/m^2.
          * Your misnamed “GHG” do NOT stop energy from moving to space. CO2 absorbs AND emits.
          * Ink reflects visible. That’s why you see it.
          * The atmosphere does NOT emit more energy to the surface than the surface radiates to the atmosphere. Your world is upside down.

        • Norman & Lori Grinvalds says:

          ClintR

          I do think you might be correct that I am an idiot. Not for reasons you claim. Just that I try to reason with you. You are not rational. You make up things that were never said and you state them as if they were.

          All your statements are irrational about my comment.

          YOU:
          “* The surface does NOT only lose 58 W/m^2.”
          ME: Never said that, reread what I said before making a stupid point please.

          YOU:
          * Your misnamed “GHG” do NOT stop energy from moving to space. CO2 absorbs AND emits.”
          ME: Never said it did. The atmosphere absorbs all but 40 Watts of surface emission. I never said it does not emit ever. Not sure why you make such a dumb claim.

          YOU:
          “* Ink reflects visible. That’s why you see it.”
          ME: Not if it is black ink which I think they use in the video.

          YOU:
          “* The atmosphere does NOT emit more energy to the surface than the surface radiates to the atmosphere. Your world is upside down.”
          ME: Never said it did.

          You whine that I insult you. Well quit being such a stupid poster!! If you make such idiotic claims you deserver to be called an idiot. It fits. Not sure why you are so stupid but you certainly seem to be.

          I don’t know if you even possess reading ability. You see things in words that are not stated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”* Your misnamed “GHG” do NOT stop energy from moving to space. CO2 absorbs AND emits”.

            All 4/100ths of 1% of it. CO2 radiates about as much EM as an ant’s bum.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman and Lori, if you’re backing away from your words, more power to you.

            Keep moving toward reality, you’ve got a long way to go.

  52. John Boland says:

    Hang in there Dr. Spencer

  53. CO2isLife says:

    The Stratosphere Has Warmed Profoundly This Month. What are the Implications?

    Earlier this month, stratospheric temperatures warmed by roughly 100F over a period of a few days, in what is known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). Should you be concerned? The stratosphere, by the way, is the layer of the atmosphere from roughly 10 to 50 km above sea level.

    Here is the question: CO2 can’t cause the above change in temperature. CO2 was 410 ppm a month ago and 410 ppm today, yet temperatures changed by 100F over that time period. In other words, unexplained natural phenomenon can change temperatures by 100F in a very short period of time. How can anyone believe that 1 or 2 W/M^2 added to the system that is that volitile can actually cause any measurable of a change. Remember, much of the Climate is due to accumulated energy. It builds energy and then releases it, just like El Nino and ocean temperatures. Energy flows in and flows out. That flow is a rate. 1 or 1 W/M^2 is a trickle, whereas the Sun and Clouds are fire hoses. 100 years of additional CO2 can’t change the atmospherica temperature by 100F, whereas some other natural force can, and does so easily.

    • bdgwx says:

      There is no reason for concern. SSWs occur all of the time. They will continue to occur regardless of the what the CO2 concentration is. Remember…CO2 and the planetary scale energy imbalance it creates does not prevent weather from happening.

      • CO2isLife says:

        bdgwx, you dodged the question. That is a huge variation. If some unknown factor can change that kind of variability, what makes you think that you can’t have natural variability in the Troposphere? Can’t warming the Stratosphere by 100F not warm the Troposphere? Haven’t the alarmists been claiming that a warming Stratosphere slows the cooling of the Troposphere? Wouldn’t a 100F increase in temperatures direct a whole lot of LWIR towards the earth?

        • bdgwx says:

          what makes you think that you cant have natural variability in the Troposphere?

          None of us think that. The troposphere is subject to a huge amount of natural variation. In fact, this is the precise point we’ve trying to get across to you.

          Cant warming the Stratosphere by 100F not warm the Troposphere?

          I don’t know exactly how much the stratosphere warmed during this event, but keep in mind that it is isolated an transient. It’s not like the entire global stratosphere warmed by that amount. Furthermore, even on a hemispherical basis SSW events are typically dipolar where the warm zone is offset by a cool zone. You can see this quite clearly on today’s 12Z GFS analysis of 10 mb heights in the northern hemisphere. https://tinyurl.com/y4dkchdl

          Havent the alarmists been claiming that a warming Stratosphere slows the cooling of the Troposphere?

          First…I’m not sure who the “alarmists” are that you are referring to. I’m not even sure what your definition of “alarmist” even is.

          Second…I’ve not heard that hypothesis before. In fact, it seems opposite of what scientists believe. For example, when a volcano lofts aerosols into the stratosphere the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. So it would be more correct to say that a warming stratosphere is correlated with a cooling troposphere.

          Third…perhaps you are referring to the observation that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming? That observation constrains the causes of the warming. Is this something you’d like to discuss further?

          Wouldnt a 100F increase in temperatures direct a whole lot of LWIR towards the earth?

          Yes. But remember that SSW events are not global phenomenon and like I said above are typically dipolar. I will say there is actually an interesting line of discussion related to the net effect of LWIR at the surface on short spatial and temporal timescales as it relates to the atmospheric lapse rate that is worth discussing further if you’d like to do so.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      After careful analysis I have concluded that CO2ISLife is correct and BDGWX to be wrong…as usual.

  54. James says:

    Roy,

    Your dataset shows a strong relationship with: 1. The gradual, but massive, reduction in SO2 emissions relative to North America and Europe since the late 1970s. and 2. And even faster reduction in the last decade relative to China’s reductions. Perhaps the biggest obstacle you have going against the dataset is your satellite data begins just when SO2 reductions also begin. While you can’t do anything about this reality, the fact is we can look at the aerosols uncertainty in models with a level of hope that once SO2 baselines, globally, your dataset will do the same. That is the answer. It is where the debate will end. The jump in your data in the last 5 years is so obviously connected to SO2 reductions, yes, we can have hope. The relationship is not apparent with CO2.
    And as for CO2, can we please get back on track with relative significance to the force of the sun and water vapor dynamic that is really driving the greenhouse effect. Let’s stop riding the fence on this matter because any weakness gets us into societal measures that are deeply concerning for our children (i.e. choices by them to become mothers and fathers and relative to the dogma). CO2 is not going to decrease. Yet it is also NOT a pollutant. SO2, most certainly, is. Let’s keep focused. Thank You for your work

  55. Eben says:

    Monday climate shystering update

    https://youtu.be/3bogvh1bwqA

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Normal science in action, and with peer review an essential part. Now we have ~ a dozen such reconstructions, and the Mann result is largely intact”.

    Not so…IPCC dropped it like a hot potato. NAS criticized it to the point it was worthless. They told Mann et al they could not use pine bristlecone for the 20th century, the only proxy data they had for that century, which comdemned the study to futility. They also limited the range to 1600 onward and the IPCC limited it to 1850 onward. The IPCC also added so many error bars to the hockey stick it became known as the spaghetti graph.

    Statistics expert, Wegmann, called by the US government to investigate along with NAS, declared the statistical analysis a disaster, as McIntyre and McKitrick had claimed. He also pointed out that Mann had a nepotic relationship with Chapter 9 of the IPCC reviews and they refused to condemn him.

    The only rebuttal from Mann et al to Wegmann was that he had plagiarized some work from Bradley of MBB. Excuse me, the guy is investigating them and a quote from their work is not plagiarism in an investigation. That’s how dumb MBB is.

    • Nate says:

      “declared the statistical analysis a disaster, as McIntyre and McKitrick had claimed. ”

      The key word here is “claimed”

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/no-roy-spencer-is-not-a-climate-denier/#comment-594856

      Plagiarism is ok when done by your Team? Ha!

      They had to pull their paper submitted for publication.

    • bdgwx says:

      GR,

      The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary of the Wegman Report for those interested. All references are documented and linked at the end of the article for you to review.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report

      BTW…when are McIntyre and McKitrick going to be investigated? And given what Wegman was doing (and not doing) as part of the investigation I think he needed to be investigated as well.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, you sure want to investigate people that aren’t in your cult, but you don’t want to be investigated.

        Why did you put out crap like this? “Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”

        1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
        2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary of the Wegman Report ”

        Anyone who understands science would never use Wikipedia as a source. Their editors have proved in the past to be uber-alarmists, like William Connolley, a resident at realclimate, the mother of all alarmist sites. Furthermore, Connolley is a computer programmer.

        Why should McIntrye and McKitrick be investigated?

        Here is a better link:

        https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

        The actual Wegmann report…

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

        quote:

        “Findings

        “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling”.

        “Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis”.

        “However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology”.

        “We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians”

        “In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus independent studies may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface”.

        “This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community”.

        “Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent”.

        “Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Manns
        assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

        • bdgwx says:

          GR said: Why should McIntrye and McKitrick be investigated?

          I’m glad you asked. You see the core of McIntrye and McKitrick’s criticism of the MBH98/99 work is their claim a hockey stick shape would always occur as a part of PCA. This was their “red noise” argument. Except…as it turns out the M&M code had a significant error in their noise model. In fact, their whole methodology was inappropriate. And the since the Wegman report put all of their eggs in M&M model Wegman replicated nearly perfectly the same mistakes M&M made.

          Even more disturbingly Wegman was made aware of this fatal flaw in the M&M and by extension the Wegman analysis and he ignored it. See Dr. Ritson’s letter and emails here (https://tinyurl.com/y6rmvlwp) and here (https://tinyurl.com/y5cbt8x3). And thus the double-standard. Wegman wants everyone else to make their materials available except when those materials are related to his investigation. So you tell me…does this justify an investigation in your opinion?

          Of course, it’s all moot now. MBH98/99 has been corroborated multiple times over. And there are other multi-proxy reconstructions that have nothing to do with tree rings that also show the hockey stick shape. It is a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now. There are so many hockey sticks now that has mere mortals can no longer enumerate them all.

        • bdgwx says:

          Oh and BTW…don’t think the irony of you lecturing me on the use of Wikipedia while you take full liberty to do so yourself is lost on me.

  57. Bindidon says:

    I get a big laugh when I look at all these ‘specialists’ writing their denial trash on this blog, but who on the other hand testify unisono hand on heart that Roy Spencer isn’t a climate denier!

    He is even convinced of the climate role of the so-called ‘green house’ gases, aka H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O etc etc, which is denied by all these ignorant boasters.

    No: Roy Spencer indeed isn’t a climate denier.

    But his blog unluckily hosts quite a lot of such people.

    J.-P. D.

    • Thank God us climate deniers who are correct can post on his site. This warming episode is no different then any past episodes and will end in a crash.

      • studentb says:

        The “correct” and “Salvatore” should never appear in proximity since he has the unenviable record for providing the worst predictions ever provided on this site.

    • Clint R says:

      JD, Norman likes to attack people because he doesn’t understand the science.

      Is that also your rationale?

      • Bindidon says:

        A person like you – ignoring, attacking, sometimes even insulting – ALL historical and contemporary scientists who have demonstrated the existence of the lunar spin by using a combination of observation and a mix of trigonometry and algebra, doesn’t understand the science.

        Even if the document

        https://tinyurl.com/y22enjxs

        was written in your native tongue, you wouldn’t want to go into it until you understand Tobias Mayer’s wonderful work.

        For ideological reasons, and… also because you love discrediting, denigrating and distorting all what you can’t understand.

        I wanted to understand these 130 pages, and I did.

        J.-P. D.

        • Clint R says:

          That’s what I suspected. You don’t understand the science, so you just lash out.

          Just like Norman.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”you wouldnt want to go into it until you understand Tobias Mayers wonderful work”.

          ****

          You don’t understand the work of Meyer yourself. You are a Meyer groupie, someone smitten by the man yet failing to understand a word of what he wrote.

          I translated enough of his work to understand what he was getting at and he was wrong. In his kinematic description of the Moon in its orbit he included a centrifugal force that does not exist. Furthermore, he analyzed the Moon as an aggregation of particles which he analyzed in a purely theoretical manner, much the same way as Maxwell and Boltzmann analyzed gases using a purely theoretical, statistical analysis.

          Meyer was wrong to do that because the Moon is a rigid body and the kinematics of individual particles does not apply. It has only two kinematic parameters: the acceleration toward the Earth of the Moon by gravitational force and the Moon’s linear velocity in a straight line due to its momentum. It’s orbit is a resultant path of those two parameters.

          Note that there is nothing specified for an angular velocity about its axis.

          Meyer added a third parameter, a centrifugal force acting away from the Earth which does not exist. In other words, he failed to understand the problem. He was obviously trying to explain an angular momentum about the Moon’s axis that does not exist.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson the cheating SOB

            Here again, you prove your absolute ignorance, and you unability even to translate anything correctly.

            You did not understand ANYTHING of what Tobias Mayer wrote. The best example is:

            ” In his kinematic description of the Moon in its orbit he included a centrifugal force that does not exist. ”

            What Tobias Mayer wrote, dumbie Robertson, was 100 % Newton.

            He used Newton’s gravity theory in order to ensure that Moon’s spheroid is sufficiently spheric to allow the use of spheric trigonometry in his computations without producing biases.

            You never and never have seen even one of Newton’s equations of motion, let alone would you be able to use Newton’s work like did Mayer.

            All you are able to do is to endlessly discredit, denigrate, distort, and… lie.

            You are the worst of all people posting trash on this blog.

            J.-P. D.

          • Clint R says:

            JD-P, maybe the problem isn’t with Mayer. Maybe the problem is with your “interpretation” of his work.

            There is NO trigonometry that proves Moon is rotating about its axis, because we know its NOT rotating about its axis. Mayer recorded years and years of Moon observations. And, his work was very accurate for that era. But, he NEVER proved Moon was rotating about its axis. That’s just your erroneous interpretation.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” But, he NEVER proved Moon was rotating about its axis. That’s just your erroneous interpretation. ”

            You are a coward, ClintR.

            Because you would NEVER go deep enough into Mayer’s work, as you then would have to accept that he VERY WELL proved it is rotating about its axis.

            He did not only record observations from 1748 till 1749, visible in section 7.

            See sections 8,9,10,11,12,13,14 for the processing of these observations (a processing you would btw never be able to reproduce).

            For some strange ideological reasons, you prefer to stay in denial.

            Why don’t you read the 130 pages? I mean TO READ, of course, and not simply to pick up five or six lines out of it, as did the genius, and draw stoopid conclusions.

            Be courageous!

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry JD-P, but Mayer didn’t “prove” something that doesn’t happen. To even try, he would have had to be insane, like you.

            All of the historical evidence indicates Mayer was quite sane.

  58. Eben says:

    The upcoming LaNina will erase the ElNino spike and the pause of
    98-2015 will resume , this time 25 years long.
    In about 3-4 years.
    You will only wish then you were the one who predicted it.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh! We are slowly but surely becoming careful with our forecasts …

      Shouldn’t La Nina be coming in 3-4 months recently? Now it’s ‘about 3-4 years’ at once!

      Please wake me up when this curve goes full below zero:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210116//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png

      J.-P. D.

    • Eben says:

      For the really stupid on this board , the double ElNino lasted for four years , even if the temperature drops to the zero line it will have to stay there for years for the average to return to the level of 98-2015 pause, only a debil like BendyDong thinks somebody will claim it will happen in 3-4 month.

      • Bindidon says:

        Eben

        Feel free to call me ‘stupid’ !

        I know all too well who it’s coming from: someone ignorant enough to believe the nonsense garbage from Gosselin’s TricksZone and similar Pseudoskeptic stuff.

        *
        ” … only a debil like BendyDong thinks somebody will claim it will happen in 3-4 month. ”

        Typical for people like you: lying polemic. I never wrote that.
        Learn to read comments, Eben.

        J.-P. D.

  59. Bindidon says:

    It’s so wonderful to read things like

    “Anyone who understands science would never use Wikipedia as a source.”

    The author of this thoroughly stupid sentence has forgotten how often he refers to Wikipedia himself!

    But … for pseudoskeptics there is the BIG RULE, the ‘First Commandment’:

    Sources are good if they fit our narrative; otherwise they are bad.

    J.-P. D.

    • Clint R says:

      The “P” stands for “Pseudoskeptic”. But in English, it should be “JD-Pseudoskeptic”, or “Pseudoskeptic-JD”, not with “P” in the middle.

      Glad to help, P-JD.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny….”The author of this thoroughly stupid sentence has forgotten how often he refers to Wikipedia himself!”

      Yes, I have done that. However, I never use Wiki or any other source as an absolute source of truth. There are good articles on Wiki and just as many seriously bad ones. That’s why I claim it is not reliable.

      I have also pointed out many times that anyone can submit an article to Wiki, even you. If anyone enters an article supporting AGW, the wiki editors will slobber and help it get printed. If the article opposes AGW theory in any way, the editors get involved and edit the piece to their liking because they are all flaming alarmists.

      The article to which I referred, that drew your ire, was telling outright lies about the Wegmann report that slew the hockey stick. In the article, they quoted two researchers, both students of Mann, who they claimed proved Mann et al to be correct. They butt-kissed Mann, they did not prove him right. By supporting them, the Wiki writer butt-kissed Mann even more, a disgusting thought.

  60. Strop says:

    In his Global Warming 101 article Roy states:

    “It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.”

    In this post stating he’s not a denier Roy says:

    “I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).”

    In his Global Warming explainer article Roy says:

    “The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are.”

    and

    “Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”

    Maybe I’m oversimplifying the statements but it does seem the most recent statement “I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C” is a change.

    • Bindidon says:

      Strop

      It seems to me you are right, these words sound like a late, silent consent.

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      I think the 1st statement is the no-feedback sensitivity and the 2nd statement is the fast-feedback sensitivity.

      The fast-feedbacks obviously include water vapor and anything else that equilibrates within a couple of decades or so.

      FWIW…the slow-feedback sensitivity is rarely reported or analyzed. These feedbacks include ice-sheet melting and anything else that takes longer than a few decades. It can take thousands of years before the full suite of feedbacks play out.

      Anyway…in this context I don’t think Dr. Spencer has changed his estimate. He’s just reporting the no-feedback vs. fast-feedback figures.

      • Eben says:

        He just wants to keep his job

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”The fast-feedbacks obviously include water vapor and anything else that equilibrates within a couple of decades or so”.

        The problem is that the feedbacks are being regarded as positive feedbacks that can amplify warming. Sheer nonsense. Positive feedback that requires gain needs an amplifier but climate modelers are under the mistaken impression that feedback itself is an amplifier. Wrong.

        There is nothing in the atmosphere that can amplify heat. The only heat sources we have are solar energy and thermal energy generated internally by the Earth’s core. There is no other source of heat, despite the claims of climate alarmists, that pervert science

  61. Very few climate scientist have the guts to call an end to the global warming trend and they will not until after if happens never before it happens.

  62. Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

    What if dL/dT=0. Your solutions make no sense. You are taking log decay and applying it as a solution to the continuity equation for CO2.

  63. Eben says:

    Warning – big coolin ahead –
    The latest forecast model runs (in blue) are all nosediving now, this would mean LaNina condition prevailing for the whole year.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

  64. Bindidon says:

    It’s amazing to look at comments written by people who usually discredit, denigrate and distort NOAA as heavy as they can, but have no problem in showing us NOAA’s data as soon as the data matches their ‘big cooling ahead’ agenda.

    Anyway, we all here have no real knowledge about observations.

    On one of us knows who is right with her/his forecasts:

    1. NOAA

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

    2. Japan’s Met Agency

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2

    3. Australia’s BoM

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs&region=NINO34

    In the sum, I ask: what is the relevance of a La Nina episode for e.g. Germany, in comparison with the harsh winters this country experienced in 1941, 1956, 1963, 1979, 1986?

    Nothing.

    Recently, Coolista ren promised us in Europe the ‘winter of the century’.

    Simply laughable.

    We will see this winter’s data for Europe by mid march, and compare it with the past.

    Personally, I’m happy with how the weather develops since years! A few cm of snow, no ice, not one night with less than -5 C: beautiful!

    Sorry for all the children missing the snow…

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Its amazing to look at comments written by people who usually discredit, denigrate and distort NOAA as heavy as they can…”

      We give a good reason for discrediting NOAA, they have fudged the surface temperature record badly, so badly that it has become useless. GISS takes the NOAA data and fudges it even more.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson the cheating SOB

        All you are able to do is to discredit, denigrate, distort, lie about things you know nothing about – like viruses, relativity, lunar spin etc etc.

        You are unable to process data, let alone to correctly read Newton’s or Mayer’s original documents.

        Among all person posting trash on this blog, you are the worst, most ignorant one.

        Everybody knows that here, Robertson. Especially those few who {seem to} support your uneducated views – because you seem useful to them.

        J.-P. D.

  65. Henry Pool says:

    IN RESPONSE TO ROY SPENCER: no, I am not a climate denier:

    Yes, I am a climate denier (?)

    Hi Roy,

    I checked the theory of man made warming due to increasing gh gasses. I am sorry to say that I could not find any empirical evidence for it.
    I first looked at the data of 10 weather stations in my immediate vicinity. Here is my report on that:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/tps2cd4kuds8o6g/SUBMISSION%20by%20Henry%20Pool.docx?dl=0
    Note that I find no (unnatural) climate change in South Africa.

    I subsequently looked randomly at 27 stations on the SH and 27 stations on the NH. To summarize: I find that (on the ground) the stations with daily data going back 40 years, there was warming of 0.002K/annum on average on the SH compared to 0.023K/annum on average on the NH. The global result of 0.012K/annum is in fact very much the same as your own result in 2015, when I did this investigation.(I can show you my results)

    It seems fairly obvious to me that the earth is warming, but the theory of more CO2 causing it, made no sense to me. As a chemist I know that CO2 diffuses equally into all areas of the atmosphere. Therefore, if the warming of earth were caused by more CO2, the rate of warming should be more or less the same wherever I measure (on the ground).

    I am sure you might be interested in looking at this graph:

    https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/to:2021/trend

    If we compare the difference of the warming of the oceans in the SH with that of the NH, (in the above graph) I get ca. 0.01K/annum for the SH and ca. 0.02K/annum for the NH (over the past 40 years). Again, we see that this result flies in the face of the theory of warming caused by CO2 as the increase in CO2 is evenly spread above all the oceans.

    In addition to this, we find that the arctic ocean is warming at a rate that is even more than the average of the NH oceans….yet it appears that in Antarctica, there is no warming. I can therefore also not agree to the theory of ‘polar’ amplification.

    Inter alia, I think that the decrease in the areas in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sinc:
    2H2O + CO2 + cold => ?
    2) soot on ice caused by shipping causes melting of ice – I should especially mention the ships used to transport wood chips as they probably use the cheapest fuel they can get…
    3) increased vegetation on land e.g. see Christie et al
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/4/jcli3627.1.xml
    My own results found at certain places confirm the results of Christie et al.
    4) the waste of 7 billon people and even more animals and many factories is mostly acidic. This causes the reverse of the reaction (1), causing more CO2 in the atmosphere. But clearly, as argued before, it is probably not the increase CO2 causing the warming. But it could be that the increase in salinity due to all our waste going into the oceans is trapping more heat. We also know that organic contamination accumulating on top of the water traps heat.

    Blessings
    Henry

  66. Henry Pool says:

    Sorry, something went wrong with the transfer of text. The end of my comment should read like this

    Inter alia, I think that the decrease in the areas in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sinc:
    2H2O + CO2 + cold => ?
    2) soot on ice caused by shipping causes melting of ice – I should especially mention the ships used to transport wood chips as they probably use the cheapest fuel they can get…
    3) increased vegetation on land e.g. see Christie et al
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/4/jcli3627.1.xml
    My own results found at certain places confirm the results of Christie et al.
    4) the waste of 7 billon people and even more animals and many factories is mostly acidic. This causes the reverse of the reaction (1), causing more CO2 in the atmosphere. But clearly, as argued before, it is probably not the increase CO2 causing the warming. But it could be that the increase in salinity due to all our waste going into the oceans is trapping more heat. We also know that organic contamination accumulating on top of the water traps heat.

    Blessings
    Henry

  67. Henry Pool says:

    Sorry, it might be that the error is due to a sign that the site will not accept. Let me try again (just reposting the last portion):

    Inter alia, I think that the decrease in the areas in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sinc:
    2H2O + CO2 + cold in equilibrium with HCO3- + H3O+ (1)
    is becoming smaller. That explains the zig zag measured in Hawaii and also the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly.

    I could not find any warming caused by more CO2. The theory is not supported by simple observations. It is clear the extra warming of earth is coming from the north and spreading slowly to the south.

    IMHO, some of the reasons for the warming of earth could be
    1) natural i.e. Eddy cycle, every 1000-1100, possibly due to re-alignment of the earth inner core with that of the sun (magnetic stirrer effect) or more volcanism.
    Why would one of my country men, Willem Barents, risk his live and that of his cru, 500 years ago, unless he was sure that the passage to the east via the north existed>?
    2) soot on ice caused by shipping causes melting of ice – I should especially mention the ships used to transport wood chips as they probably use the cheapest fuel they can get…
    3) increased vegetation on land e.g. see Christie et al
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/4/jcli3627.1.xml
    My own results found at certain places confirm the results of Christie et al.
    4) the waste of 7 billon people and even more animals and many factories is mostly acidic. This causes the reverse of the reaction (1), causing more CO2 in the atmosphere. But clearly, as argued before, it is probably not the increase CO2 causing the warming. But it could be that the increase in salinity due to all our waste going into the oceans is trapping more heat. We also know that organic contamination accumulating on top of the water traps heat.

    Blessings
    Henry

  68. Henry Pool says:

    Inter alia, I think that the decrease in the areas in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sinc:
    2H2O + CO2 + cold in equilibrium with HCO3- + H3O+ (1)
    is becoming smaller. That explains the zig zag measured in Hawaii and also the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly.

    should read

    Inter alia, I think that the areas in the arctic oceans where the CO2 should sinc:
    2H2O + CO2 + cold in equilibrium with HCO3- + H3O+ (1)
    is becoming smaller. That explains the zig zag measured in Hawaii and also the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      henry…”It seems fairly obvious to me that the earth is warming, but the theory of more CO2 causing it, made no sense to me”.

      Made no sense to R. W. Wood in 1909 but no one wants to listen to real scientists. The alarmist scientists are charlatans who are in it for the money (funding) or for a specific cause based on eco-alarm.

      The basis of the greenhouse theory, whence it got that name, is that short wave solar energy penetrates glass in a greenhouse and warms the interior. So far so good. The theory continues that the heated interior now emits infrared energy at a much longer wavelength. It is claimed that the longer wave IR cannot penetrate the glass therefore it gets trapped.

      This is where the theory turns to sci-fi. It is claimed the trapped IR warms the air inside the greenhouse. However, 99% of that air is nitrogen and oxygen which does not absorb IR at that temperature. Therefore it was presumed that trace gases like CO2 absorbed the IR and warmed the rest of the air.

      Circa 1909, R. W. Wood noted the sci-fi. He was an expert on gases like CO2 and he claimed CO2 in air could not cause the degree of warming required for greenhouse warming. He postulated that the warming was due to a lack of convective current which would move the heated air molecules out of the GH. Because the air molecules, whose kinetic energy is heat, could not escape, the greenhouse interior warmed.

      He claimed the air heated in the greenhouse due to conduction from the solar heated interior and he proved it using a very simple experiment. Then he explained the real greenhouse effect. Solar energy heats the Earth’s surface and transfers part of that heat to air molecules by direct conduction. That heated air rises but due to the inability of gases to radiate away that heat, the atmosphere retains the heat, hence the rise in temperature known as the greenhouse effect.

      With regard to the Earth warming, it is still re-warming from the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850.

  69. Henry Pool says:

    I was still hoping for a reply from Roy on my response,
    here
    https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/01/26/am-i-a-climate-denier-denialist/

    Looking at it from all corners of world, on latitude, I find that the warming is coming from the north and spreading to the south.

  70. Gordon Robertson says:

    henry…”I was still hoping for a reply from Roy on my response, here”

    In my experience, Roy has never responded to any posts this far into the thread. He usually responds only during the first few days after posting a topic. I’m sure he is not ignoring you, he likely does not have the time to monitor the blog so closely.

  71. It’s really a great and useful piece of info. I’m happy that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.

  72. Clay says:

    Analogizing the warming effect of CO2 to a greenhouse, or a blanket, has been a pretty effective communication strategy in trying to persuade the non-scientist laymen to accept the forecasted “risks” of CO2 induced global warming.

    Here’s an analogy you won’t see them use:

    https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/status/1183669096837238785

  73. Ian Read says:

    I am not a scientist. I am 80 yrs old and live in NZ. I have travelled the world. NZ is a longitudinal climate mish mash influenced by oceans seas and winds from season to season. I do not accept the narrative as put to us especially by the green left – because I see climate as a variable that in our part of the world is hard to finitely predict. We have floods wild storms and drought areas from year to year. Nothing has changed in my lifetime and I don’t see it changing any time soon. Our trees and grasslands are flourishing in my eyes thanks to CO2. I accept that the climate changes – no argument – so what’s the big deal? Of course scientists like to explore reasons and consequences but the question that must always be asked is – is it proven? On global warming I think not if all the above blogs are anything to go by.

Leave a Reply