Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to '2014 warmest year ever' nonsense

[jc456]

you don't get to tell me...answer my question.. when you haven't answered the original question. So complete the answer or get jack from me, kapeesh!!! We'll all know you have no idea what evolution is about.

When you explain what the origin of the universe has to do with the biological theory of evolution, we can begin our discussion. I insist that it start here because you apparently believe there is a link. So I want to read what you believe is this apparent link. If you don't believe there is a link, why did you bring it up?

do you know that there was an origin of the universe?

It had to start somewhere, so I suspect it started at the beginning.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?

right, do you know if God created the universe or is there evidence that it was evolution? See, until you can answer that question, making fun of those who believe in God is stupid.

As for thermodynamics, yeah i've read up on it. do I know how to do the math? no. Never said I did. I'm not a phycist or a scientist, but I am an engineer. It doesn't mean I don't know how to ask questions to ensure them that talk into science actually know it. Do you support scientific methodology?

This is what I wanted. Dude, the theory of biological evolution is about the origin of species. It says NOTHING about the origin of the friggin universe. Geez.

As for the origin of the universe itself, if you know anything about the laws of thermodynamics, then you know that the laws of thermodynamics predict the big bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) confirms it. Moreover, if you are an engineer and don't understand the math behind thermodynamics, then you aren't much of an engineer, imho. All of this is true whether or not one believes in a god.

here go read from phys.org. . Researcher explores how the universe creates reason morality

 

[IanC]

I need data to examine it please

That would be in the thread I bumped for you. For US data Google Quayle 1991 for a pdf of what was done at that time. I believe there is also a paper done on Fort Collins Texas that is quite important, with a follow up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years

On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap

 

[IanC]

Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years

On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap

Was that intended for me?

Carry on posting up pictures of thermometers then. I thought you might be useful but apparently you are a bit of a one trick pony.

 

[rdean]

1. Roy Spencer
   Climatologist
2. Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.Wikipedia

Sounds like every Climate Change fearists dream.

IDiocy
While Spencer has become an ID PRATT machine, he hasn't contributed any new cards to the creationists' deck. He mostly just parrots the greatest hits like "no transitional fossils" and "microevolution notmacroevolution."[18] He also flogs the "secular religion" trope even harder when it comes to evolution than he does for global warming.

Pallin' around with cranks and shills
Spencer is affiliated with a number of astroturf and Christian fundamentalist organizations. He is a member of the George C. Marshall Institute, which was founded by expert for hire Frederick Seitz and is a think tankand front group for various corporate interests including oil companies. He also makes the rounds at the Heartland Institute's denialist conferences.[19]

The fundamentalist organizations he has worked with include the Cornwall Alliance and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), which reorganized into the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. The organization promotes "Bible-based environmental stewardship," which translates to "a bunch of cranks denying science." He helped the ISA author their "Call to Truth," a denialist manifesto for evangelicals.[20][21]

As is common amongst cranks, Spencer flaunts his credentials at every turn. His website is called Roy Spencer PhD and is entitled "Roy Spencer, Ph.D." Contrast this with the scientists at realclimate.org, who go by names like "Gavin" and "Mike.

Roy Spencer - RationalWiki

----------------

Do a Google Search on Dr. Spencer. It's hilarious.

 

[jc456]

1. Roy Spencer
   Climatologist
2. Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.Wikipedia

Sounds like every Climate Change fearists dream.

IDiocy
While Spencer has become an ID PRATT machine, he hasn't contributed any new cards to the creationists' deck. He mostly just parrots the greatest hits like "no transitional fossils" and "microevolution notmacroevolution."[18] He also flogs the "secular religion" trope even harder when it comes to evolution than he does for global warming.

Pallin' around with cranks and shills
Spencer is affiliated with a number of astroturf and Christian fundamentalist organizations. He is a member of the George C. Marshall Institute, which was founded by expert for hire Frederick Seitz and is a think tankand front group for various corporate interests including oil companies. He also makes the rounds at the Heartland Institute's denialist conferences.[19]

The fundamentalist organizations he has worked with include the Cornwall Alliance and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), which reorganized into the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. The organization promotes "Bible-based environmental stewardship," which translates to "a bunch of cranks denying science." He helped the ISA author their "Call to Truth," a denialist manifesto for evangelicals.[20][21]

As is common amongst cranks, Spencer flaunts his credentials at every turn. His website is called Roy Spencer PhD and is entitled "Roy Spencer, Ph.D." Contrast this with the scientists at realclimate.org, who go by names like "Gavin" and "Mike.

Roy Spencer - RationalWiki

----------------

Do a Google Search on Dr. Spencer. It's hilarious.

from phys.org.. Researcher explores how the universe creates reason morality

 

[jc456]

Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years

On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap

Was that intended for me?

Carry on posting up pictures of thermometers then. I thought you might be useful but apparently you are a bit of a one trick pony.

the dude did somethng similar to me on the politics forum. He replied to a post I had entered for another poster. He started one after the other like he went on a rant at me and I never had a discussion with him. He wrote, f you and I have this and I have that, put up pictures of women he knew, I'm like, dude settle down, I don't know you, never replied to you. He eventually stopped. He seemed ok for the last week until that post after yours. I'm like, here we go again. LOL!!!!

 

[IanC]

Dude I know my job, if I didn't know my job I wouldn't be living here , I know injection molding A to 'z and that includes an expert at the Progression in temperature Monitoring over the years

On a side note , I Didnt even want to fucking know that Crap

Was that intended for me?

Carry on posting up pictures of thermometers then. I thought you might be useful but apparently you are a bit of a one trick pony.

the dude did somethng similar to me on the politics forum. He replied to a post I had entered for another poster. He started one after the other like he went on a rant at me and I never had a discussion with him. He wrote, f you and I have this and I have that, put up pictures of women he knew, I'm like, dude settle down, I don't know you, never replied to you. He eventually stopped. He seemed ok for the last week until that post after yours. I'm like, here we go again. LOL!!!!

Well, I cannot be sure that was directed at me.

It could actually be pretty useful to have someone around who could easily find the specs on different automated thermometers and their strengths and weaknesses. Often it's not the actual thermometer but the enclosure that causes discrepancies.

But he does seem to be fixated on one rather simple aspect of the whole issue. Yes, people may not read a LIG correctly but if they read it the same way every time it doesn't matter much. You don't hear much about the evaluation of sunspots and that is even more of a value judgment.

 

[orogenicman]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.

What part of my question did you not understand? It was a yes or no question, dude?

 

[IanC]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.

What part of my question did you not understand? It was a yes or no question, dude?

it's not a yes or no question, as my answer displayed

hey orogenicman, do me a favour and name two cities in the thread GISS adjustments over the last three years US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[orogenicman]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.

What part of my question did you not understand? It was a yes or no question, dude?

it's not a yes or no question, as my answer displayed

hey orogenicman, do me a favour and name two cities in the thread GISS adjustments over the last three years US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's the point? Do I need to say it? If you have homework to do, I suggest you get on with it and stop asking strangers for help.

 

[Kosh]

You do realize, of course, how long it takes for limestone to form, right?

Are you talking about a single chemical reaction that forms a precipitate that settles to the ocean floor, or the process that turns it to stone, or the tectonics that move it to the surface a la White Cliffs of Dover?

PS. In case you didn't know, the chemical reaction takes the least amount of time.

What part of my question did you not understand? It was a yes or no question, dude?

it's not a yes or no question, as my answer displayed

hey orogenicman, do me a favour and name two cities in the thread GISS adjustments over the last three years US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's the point? Do I need to say it? If you have homework to do, I suggest you get on with it and stop asking strangers for help.

Yet still no datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Then again the AGW cult has gone off the deep end especially when the UK met off office disputes such claims..

UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data
UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to 8216 uncertainty ranges 8217 of the data Watts Up With That

 

[Treeshepherd]

Bear- you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.

To Bear's point, scientists in the 1800's used to catch rides on merchant ships and scoop up ocean water with canvas bags, then take the water below deck and stick a mercury thermometer in the puddle. That was the methodology that climate scientists attempt to weave in with modern methods to show historical trends. How was the data coverage in the south Indian Ocean during the 19th Century?

What you learn in statistics is that different methodologies yield different results.

Since the 70's we've had RSS satellite data. NOAA seems to include that data when it's convenient and ignore it for a report like earlier this month (2014 hottest year) when it's not supportive of their conclusions.

 

[orogenicman]

Bear- you seem to know a lot about thermometers. Perhaps you could add your expert opinion on the calibrations between the newer types of equipment that have taken over since the 80's.

To Bear's point, scientists in the 1800's used to catch rides on merchant ships and scoop up ocean water with canvas bags, then take the water below deck and stick a mercury thermometer in the puddle. That was the methodology that climate scientists attempt to weave in with modern methods to show historical trends. How was the data coverage in the south Indian Ocean during the 19th Century?

What you learn in statistics is that different methodologies yield different results.

Since the 70's we've had RSS satellite data. NOAA seems to include that data when it's convenient and ignore it for a report like earlier this month (2014 hottest year) when it's not supportive of their conclusions.

If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, your claim is meaningless. Good luck.

 

[Treeshepherd]

If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, your claim is meaningless. Good luck.

Well, there's a difference between a biased study and a falsified study. The RSS satellite data was ignored for the NOAA's hottest year ever study. The study uses data from subjectively selected weather stations from around the globe. The raw data is adjusted by computers, according to the biases of the computer programmers. And the press release and mainstream media reports failed to explain that the biased results were well within the statistical margin of error. In other words, the biased results for 2014 are in a statistical tie with previous biased results. Those are my claims. I don't accuse anyone of falsification.

"In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that's based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable.
Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant.""
Is 2014 The Hottest Year Ever Satellite Record Says No - Investors.com

 

[orogenicman]

If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, your claim is meaningless. Good luck.

Well, there's a difference between a biased study and a falsified study. The RSS satellite data was ignored for the NOAA's hottest year ever study. The study uses data from subjectively selected weather stations from around the globe. The raw data is adjusted by computers, according to the biases of the computer programmers. And the press release and mainstream media reports failed to explain that the biased results were well within the statistical margin of error. In other words, the biased results for 2014 are in a statistical tie with previous biased results. Those are my claims. I don't accuse anyone of falsification.

"In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that's based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable.
Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant.""
Is 2014 The Hottest Year Ever Satellite Record Says No - Investors.com

Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!

 

[Treeshepherd]

Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!

I have no complaint to make (as if there were an actual climate study enforcement strike team!). I have observations from looking under the hood of climate change studies.

Page 5 of the now famous 2014 Hottest Year study does mention that NOAA is only 48% sure of it's conclusion, and NASA is 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

Yet, the press release failed to include that uncertainty. Every mainstream media outlet failed to mention that, in fact using phrases like "It's official, 2014 was the hottest year" or "There is no longer any doubt".

University of Alabama at Huntsville has charted the RSS satellite data since 1979. According to that data, 2014 was tied for the 3rd warmest since 1979.
Satellite data indicate 2014 will not be warmest year on record but among top several - The Washington Post

The fact that the nuances of these studies are completely disregarded by the mainstream media is noteworthy.

And it's just something that any rational person would take into account; NASA and NOAA (Dept of Commerce) get their climate change funding by convincing the public that the situation warrants millions of dollars. The greater the potential threat, the more $ is warranted to study it. That's not difficult to understand. I mean, if the prison industry lobby says that we need more prisons, don't you take their interests into account?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you believe that NOAA is falsifying data, you should file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of the U.S. or whoever investigates such complaints. Otherwise, your claim is meaningless. Good luck.

Well, there's a difference between a biased study and a falsified study. The RSS satellite data was ignored for the NOAA's hottest year ever study. The study uses data from subjectively selected weather stations from around the globe. The raw data is adjusted by computers, according to the biases of the computer programmers. And the press release and mainstream media reports failed to explain that the biased results were well within the statistical margin of error. In other words, the biased results for 2014 are in a statistical tie with previous biased results. Those are my claims. I don't accuse anyone of falsification.

"In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that's based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable.
Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant.""
Is 2014 The Hottest Year Ever Satellite Record Says No - Investors.com

Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!

 

[Crick]

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are "statistically insignificant.""

How about the cooling? Was IT statistically significant?

 

[orogenicman]

Again, if you have a complaint to make, I suggest you make it to the proper people. Otherwise, your complaint is meaningless. Investors.com? Wow, there is a bastion of scientific peer review if ever there was one. NOT!

I have no complaint to make (as if there were an actual climate study enforcement strike team!). I have observations from looking under the hood of climate change studies.

Page 5 of the now famous 2014 Hottest Year study does mention that NOAA is only 48% sure of it's conclusion, and NASA is 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

Yet, the press release failed to include that uncertainty. Every mainstream media outlet failed to mention that, in fact using phrases like "It's official, 2014 was the hottest year" or "There is no longer any doubt".

Every single media outlet? Are you sure? Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that bullshit statement?