The Great Global Warming Blunder

Just based on the author's own summary, it sound like baseless speculation.
However, I would be happy to check out the book when it hits the library.

In his summary the author seems to support the idea that life on earth is 'starving' for more CO2.
That seems a difficult position to support, since life on earth is not able to absorb as much CO2 as we are pumping into the atmosphere.

 

Yea, this is the Roy Spencer who is a fairly outspoken "intelligent design" guy.


Considering the source, this is not a person whose global warming science conclusions I would consider useful. If you can't accept one of the basic tenets of science(evolution), there is little reason to accept any argument he might make thank you very much!

 

Are you going to read it?

 

Micro or Macro?

 

I suggest one read "Origins of Species" By Charles Darwin!

 

I haven't even read the entire Bible yet (OT), why should I ever read that? I read his Bio and even he knew of his own holes in the his Theory.
Sorry, getting off topic...

 

" haven't even read the entire Bible yet (OT), why should I ever read that?"

I guess that says it all.

 

Or the Intelligent Design version: Origins of the Feces.



Tom

 

^^^ wow what concise and mature responses... what am I to do? Does make you wonder about Intelligent Design doesn't it? Phfffttt.
Love you guys, praying for you.

 

Perhaps I should add, because you might learn something!

 

They are one in the same just over different timescales.

 

I hope you feel the same about Spencers works.
You might learn something.
I haven't read his books, but now I plan to .
Thanks for the link.

 

I hope you aren't lumping me into this statement. My reply was anything but mature, although it was concise.



Tom

 

Learn what exactly?

 

Sorry, I keep forgetting the tag. </sarcasm>

 

We can start with his track record.

The guy's supposed to be an expert in satellite-based temperature measurement. Google "satellite temperature" and his site will show.

He and Christy famously screwed up their basic calculations from the satellite data. Based on their screw-ups, they repeatedly claimed that they had overturned all the available data on global warming. Because their (completely incorrect) analysis of their own satellite data showed no warming.

Getting them to back down on that incorrect claim actually required having NASA's competent contractor in this area (RSS) show them where they'd made a basic algebraic error in their calculations and where they'd messed up making corrections for the timing of the satellites relative to local day and night.

So, to be clear, being dead wrong, based on simple mistakes, has not stopped Spencer in the past. Nor does he appear to be the kind of guy who'll fix his own mistakes.

Now, let's see, he's got the same answer this time (it's not manmade), but a whole different data analysis to support it.

And what's the latest theory based on? Clouds. "Naturally occurring" (aka, not explained) reduction in cloud cover is allowing more heating to occur. So it's not GHGs, it's a natural cycle in cloud cover.

Given the source, and the nature of the argument, do I really have to take this seriously?

OK, as I've said repeatedly here, you can't have twice the observed warming. So saying "cloud cover changes are causing the warming" is not sufficient.

First, you need to explain why C02 is not a greenhouse gas, and where all those scientists running those general circulation models went wrong in assuming that it was. Looking at the blurb and reviews, I sure see no evidence of that.

EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean just asserting that the models have it wrong. I can assert that (e.g.) the increase in atmospheric water vapor is the driver, and models have that wrong. I mean some actual physics-based causal model. And I mean completing the picture, e.g., showing why we get the greatest warming in the Arctic when Spencer's story is all about thinning clouds in the tropics.

Second, since we now have temperature reconstructions going back 1000 years or so, with fairly decent timescale resolution, the next thing you need to explain is why this naturally-occurring variation in cloud cover only happened once in the past 1000 years or so.

So, if you can tell me why C02 isn't a GHG and where mainstream science has gone wrong in its modeling, and give me some hint as to why this natural cloud cycle hits no more frequently than once every 1000 years or so (but when it hits, it ramps up across multiple centuries, as the current warming has -- so don't tell me this upward trend in temps is the impact of some presumed 90-year cycle -- that doesn't fit the data), then ... OK, maybe then I'll buy the book.

Until then, nah. If I can get it free I might look at it. But basically if I want to read something intelligent about clouds I'll read Lindzen. Not from some guy who crowed about overturning global warming based on his own algebra mistakes.

If you want to see a critique of what I assume is part of the underlying research, read here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Let me sum up: Here's a guy who made a major, major screwup before, and instead of looking for his own errors, he used it to preach the gospel of no warming. Then, if that analysis referenced just above is anything close to right, he's wiling to futz around with the data until he gets something that shows what he wants it to show. In neither case is that good science.

So, am I going to take his word (this time) that he's now got some incredible new analysis that overturns (again) all mainstream thinking about global warming. That (almost) nobody else has figured out?

No. Particularly not on clouds. Clouds are hard to analyze, and a lot of the empirical work in that area has turned out to be less than stellar. If the best analysts in this area have trouble dealing with clouds, then I'm sure not going to take the word of somebody with Spencer's track record for big mistakes.

So, I wouldn't bet the future on clouds. I wouldn't bet that they are going to save us from manmade global warming (the iris hypothesis) or that they are the root cause of the warming (Spencer's book).

 

Read the darn book!

In addition to perhaps learning something about the scientific method, yo might also be interested in how Charles Darwin though about God/Creation etc. which he talks about in the book. What many don't realize is that Darwin comes from a very strong Christian tradition, and his father was indeed a Methodist minister if I remember correctly. Darwin himself saw little contradiction between his theory and God.

Like I said, if people occasionally read somethings out side their experience now and again it might lead to a broadening understanding of the world, and perhaps open up ones mind other ideas.

 

Right. His was training up to be a "man of the cloth". But he lost his faith and was a very conflicted man up to the very end after that.

Anyway, I was force feed that stuff in Biology and is pretty irrelevant for the most part to me now. I have much more important reading to do. Thanks for being concerned though.

 

So it is OK for you to use sarcasm but not OK for someone else to make an actual funny comment?