More on the Global Warming hoax

By Roy Spencer, PHD
Climatologist, Author, former NASA Scientist.

Global Warming
“Global warming� refers to the global-average temperature increase that has
been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many
politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is
responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s
government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural,
and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse
gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for
natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming
is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not
have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see
whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims
that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce
the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But
they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than
one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?� Well, the answer to
that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very
far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global
warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases
(mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the
lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without
those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar
heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and
natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is
believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008,
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45%
higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for
life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s
atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were
CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that
number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail�: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is
due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon
something called “climate sensitivity�. This is the temperature response of
the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two
kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or
in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite
high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to
0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues
to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen
claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put
too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore
are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired
power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but
it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes
like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as
they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website
currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which
I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when
they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system.
As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate
sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate
sensitivity is low.

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. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding
mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

By Roy Spencer, PHD
Climatologist, Author, former NASA Scientist.

Global Warming
“Global warming� refers to the global-average temperature increase that has
been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many
politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is
responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s
government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural,
and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse
gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for
natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming
is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not
have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see
whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims
that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce
the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But
they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than
one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?� Well, the answer to
that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very
far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global
warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases
(mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the
lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without
those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar
heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and
natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is
believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008,
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45%
higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for
life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s
atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were
CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that
number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail�: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is
due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon
something called “climate sensitivity�. This is the temperature response of
the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two
kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or
in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite
high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to
0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues
to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen
claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put
too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore
are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired
power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but
it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes
like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as
they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website
currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which
I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when
they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system.
As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate
sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate
sensitivity is low.

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. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding
mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

I'm suggesting that you need to research these folks, like Dr. Roy Spencer, which you present as the "real deal" a little deeper...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

"Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a proponent of Intelligent Design."

"His book The Great Global Warming Blunder, published as a mainstream work after Spencer took his ball and went home after all the other scientists said mean things about him, includes some truly bizarre stuff..."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet� to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate."

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

"So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-scientists

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

"Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials. That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however...."

"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

By Roy Spencer, PHD
Climatologist, Author, former NASA Scientist.

Global Warming
“Global warming� refers to the global-average temperature increase that
has
been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many
politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind
is
responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my
group’s
government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural,
and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse
gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for
natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global
warming
is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not
have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see
whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
claims
that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to
produce
the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But
they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than
one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?� Well, the answer to
that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very
far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global
warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases
(mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the
lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without
those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar
heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and
natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is
believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of
2008,
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45%
higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the
1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary
for
life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s
atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were
CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase
that
number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail�: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming
is
due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends
upon
something called “climate sensitivity�. This is the temperature response
of
the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two
kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or
in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
quite
high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F
to
0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind
continues
to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen
claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put
too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al
Gore
are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more
coal-fired
power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now,
but
it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes
like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as
they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website
currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue
which
I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted
when
they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate
system.
As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate
sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate
sensitivity is low.

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. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding
mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

I'm suggesting that you need to research these folks, like Dr. Roy Spencer,
which you present as the "real deal" a little deeper...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

"Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of
pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a
proponent of Intelligent Design."

"His book The Great Global Warming Blunder, published as a mainstream work
after Spencer took his ball and went home after all the other scientists
said mean things about him, includes some truly bizarre stuff..."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet� to show that
climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple
1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the
ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There
are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to
use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper
than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed
his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws
are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C,
which is the IPCC’s central estimate."

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

"So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform
any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in
amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific
consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-scientists

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

"Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials.
That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however..."

*** Palsing, I wouldn't expect anything less or more childish from you. If
I had a letter from God saying that Global Warming was a hoax, you, like all
demented Liberal naysayers, would find a way to refute it. So here is my
suggestion to you: save your comments and if we're still alive in 12 years,
you owe me and everyone else an apology for being a pig headed fatalist. If
we're all dead from Global Warming, then it won't really matter. But you
should vote for Beto, or AOC or any of the Lunatic Lefty doomsday mongers at
the next election. Not that they are going to win, but it should make you
feel good about yourself for following the party line.

So, you think it is perfectly reasonable to present a proven crank as evidence for science denial, while I think it is illogical. Got it. In have provided links that show how he has ignored the data in reaching his conclusions.

Give me a concise list of your denial 'facts' as to wby you think climate change is nonsense, including links to support your tenuous position, and I will give you links to refute you, including actual supporting data.

I don't think you will do it... we'll see...

"palsing" wrote in message
...

So, you think it is perfectly reasonable to present a proven crank as
evidence for science denial, while I think it is illogical. Got it. In have
provided links that show how he has ignored the data in reaching his
conclusions.

Give me a concise list of your denial 'facts' as to wby you think climate
change is nonsense, including links to support your tenuous position, and I
will give you links to refute you, including actual supporting data.

I don't think you will do it... we'll see...


*** As I said, most of the negative or anti Roy Spencer garbage is cranked
out by the same losers who have the Arctic ice cap disappearing, the Polar
Bears starving to death and the desertification of the tropics, despite
reports to the contrary. You are all loons and nobody is really taking you
seriously when you start whining. But in true Liberal fashion, you love to
drag the people who disagree with you through the muck and mire of you
unabated hatred towards those to dare to have opposing opinions from you and
your brainwashed state of mind.
Grow up ...

Le 16/03/2019 Ã* 16:33, palsing a écritÂ*:
So, you think it is perfectly reasonable to present a proven crank as evidence for science denial, while I think it is illogical. Got it. In have provided links that show how he has ignored the data in reaching his conclusions.

Give me a concise list of your denial 'facts' as to wby you think climate change is nonsense, including links to support your tenuous position, and I will give you links to refute you, including actual supporting data.

I don't think you will do it... we'll see...


If the governments would have not lied, lied and lied, always misled the
peoples

Today there would be fewer climate skeptics

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...

So, you think it is perfectly reasonable to present a proven crank as
evidence for science denial, while I think it is illogical. Got it. In have
provided links that show how he has ignored the data in reaching his
conclusions.

Give me a concise list of your denial 'facts' as to wby you think climate
change is nonsense, including links to support your tenuous position, and I
will give you links to refute you, including actual supporting data.

I don't think you will do it... we'll see...


*** As I said, most of the negative or anti Roy Spencer garbage is cranked
out by the same losers who have the Arctic ice cap disappearing, the Polar
Bears starving to death and the desertification of the tropics, despite
reports to the contrary. You are all loons and nobody is really taking you
seriously when you start whining. But in true Liberal fashion, you love to
drag the people who disagree with you through the muck and mire of you
unabated hatred towards those to dare to have opposing opinions from you and
your brainwashed state of mind.
Grow up ...

So, you are afraid to take my challenge, as predicted. Why am I not surprised?

Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

... You are all loons and nobody is really taking you
seriously when you start whining...

I'm not whining, I'm just providing evidence that your guy is ignoring evidence to reach his conclusions (which he has admitted when presented with the data) and this has happened to him over and over again.


But in true Liberal fashion, you love to
drag the people who disagree with you through the muck and mire of you
unabated hatred towards those to dare to have opposing opinions from you and
your brainwashed state of mind.

Well, that's absurd. Unabated hatred? Muck and mire? Being a bit dramatic, aren't you? Besides, opinions have no place in this discussion, only experiments and observations that result in data. "Brainwashing" is the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means, and would, in my 'opinion', mostly apply to science deniers, on whom good logic is wasted.



Grow up ...

"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

... You are all loons and nobody is really taking you
seriously when you start whining...

I'm not whining, I'm just providing evidence that your guy is ignoring
evidence to reach his conclusions (which he has admitted when presented with
the data) and this has happened to him over and over again.


But in true Liberal fashion, you love to
drag the people who disagree with you through the muck and mire of you
unabated hatred towards those to dare to have opposing opinions from you
and
your brainwashed state of mind.

Well, that's absurd. Unabated hatred? Muck and mire? Being a bit dramatic,
aren't you? Besides, opinions have no place in this discussion, only
experiments and observations that result in data. "Brainwashing" is the
process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by
using systematic and often forcible means, and would, in my 'opinion',
mostly apply to science deniers, on whom good logic is wasted.


***It's the playbook of the Liberal Lunatics, in their quest for domination.
If you can't beat them, smear their names and repeat it often enough and
people like YOU will begin to accept as the truth. I do feel sorry for you
when, in 12 years or so. the latest date of our abrupt demise, as predicted
by that utter Loser and gesticulator Beto O'Rourke, is NOT going to happen.
You'll be flat-ass broke and they'll be living large on the funds they
confiscated from you. I will not say anything derogatory about your
stupidity, but I will definitely think out loud to myself: I told you so ...
you didn't listen, you putz.