Roy Spencer has been showing evidence, for years, that climate models are wrong

[IanC]

First of all, my (and even the IPCC’s) emphasis on changes in the global radiative budget cannot be overemphasized when we are trying to figure out whether “global warming” is mostly manmade or natural, and how the climate system responds to forcing.

Changes in the global-average radiative budget are about the only way for the Earth to warm or cool on time scales of years or longer (unless there is some sort of change in geothermal heat flux…we won’t even go there.)

What we want to know, ultimately, is how much warming will result from the radiative imbalance caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It is natural to try to answer that question by examining how Mother Nature handles things when there are natural, year-to-year warmings and coolings. I believe that the NASA satellite assets we have in orbit right now are going to go a long way toward providing that answer.

The answer depends upon how clouds, evaporation, water vapor, etc., change IN RESPONSE TO a temperature change, thus further altering the radiative balance and final temperature response. This is called feedback, and it is traditionally referenced to a surface temperature change.

UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


who are you going to believe? the data or the models. hahahahaha

 

[Oddball]

Since Limpbagh uses his data, the eco-Malthusians dismiss Spencer out-of-hand.

 

[IanC]

yah, Ive heard that before. it doesnt matter that Spencer is the leader of one of the two major satellite temperature data collection organizations, just that Rush likes him. of course Rush usually runs circles around liberals when it comes to facts to back up his statements. not that I dont think he is a blowhard, just that he is an informed blowhard.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[IanC]

ever notice how the AGW alarmists wont debate publically after Gavin Schmitt got his assssss handed to him arguing against Lindzen and Creighton? Freedom Channel: IQ Squared Global Warming Debate

 

[Oddball]

They've all chickened out.

 

[whitehall]

The weather channel will be the first to tell you that they can't predict the path of a hurricane or tell us what the weather will be next month. Ice core samples give us an absolutely scientific analysis of the last couple of thousand years and the analysis has determined that the Earth undergoes a shocking level of climate change. The big ball in the sky (the sun to liberals) is the cause of global climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

First of all, my (and even the IPCC’s) emphasis on changes in the global radiative budget cannot be overemphasized when we are trying to figure out whether “global warming” is mostly manmade or natural, and how the climate system responds to forcing.

Changes in the global-average radiative budget are about the only way for the Earth to warm or cool on time scales of years or longer (unless there is some sort of change in geothermal heat flux…we won’t even go there.)

What we want to know, ultimately, is how much warming will result from the radiative imbalance caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It is natural to try to answer that question by examining how Mother Nature handles things when there are natural, year-to-year warmings and coolings. I believe that the NASA satellite assets we have in orbit right now are going to go a long way toward providing that answer.

The answer depends upon how clouds, evaporation, water vapor, etc., change IN RESPONSE TO a temperature change, thus further altering the radiative balance and final temperature response. This is called feedback, and it is traditionally referenced to a surface temperature change.

UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


who are you going to believe? the data or the models. hahahahaha

The geological record.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since Limpbagh uses his data, the eco-Malthusians dismiss Spencer out-of-hand.

LOL. Silly ass. I have been posting the data from UAH for a couple of years now. After the little affair with the reversed negative and positive signs, Dr. Spencer is quite careful not to mess up in that manner again. However, his predictions from his ideas have all been pretty far off the mark.

Dec. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.18 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?
As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course ol' Kookybill would love an obese drugged out radio jock.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course ol' Kookybill would love an obese drugged out radio jock.

that he is always spot on target with damn near everything does resonate with the far left like a gigantic thorn in the side...........

Ten years ago he predicted "mad-made" global warming would be a fad........and ten years later, hes as deadly accurate as a Tomahawk missile hitting the bunker of terrorist bad guys.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, silly ass. A fad to which every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science and every major Univesity states is a fact.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sure, silly ass. A fad to which every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science and every major Univesity states is a fact.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html#post3262519

Mr.Rocks would you explain to me why Polar bears case using scientific laws are wrong? It is true that co2 shares some of the wave length with water vapor and it may not be able to readmit at that wave length.

Using the equation he gave it does in fact show a log as he pointed out and does show a decrease in the compounding effect of the effects of co2 as you raise the amount of co2 within the Atmosphere. I would say that a scientific law is a respectable argument for or against something and Mr.Bear used it. DR.Hug found that co2 has the effect of only 20 percent of what climate scientist found.

Beer-Lambert Law
Quote:
A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).


"SHG" = Secondary Harmonics Generation
and that`s where You first learn that CO2 cannot "double cost", because it does not even re-emit the energy it absorbed at the same wavelength where it absorbed it:
Second-harmonic generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Second harmonic generation (SHG; also called frequency doubling) is a nonlinear optical process, in which photons interacting with a nonlinear material are effectively "combined" to form new photons with twice the energy, and therefore twice the frequency and half the wavelength of the initial photons. It is a special case of sum frequency generation.
Second harmonic generation was first demonstrated by P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1961. The demonstration was made possible by the invention of the laser, which created the required high intensity monochromatic light. They focused a ruby laser with a wavelength of 694 nm into a quartz sample. They sent the output light through a spectrometer, recording the spectrum on photographic paper, which indicated the production of light at 347 nm. Famously, when published in the journal Physical Review Letters,[1] the copy editor mistook the dim spot (at 347 nm) on the photographic paper as a speck of dirt and removed it from the pub
Beer-Lambert Law
Quote:
A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).
lication

Can you defend against such and show us why this is wrong? He uses these rule and shows that any more increase would have very tiny effects if any.



Thanks.

 

[edthecynic]

First of all, my (and even the IPCC’s) emphasis on changes in the global radiative budget cannot be overemphasized when we are trying to figure out whether “global warming” is mostly manmade or natural, and how the climate system responds to forcing.

Changes in the global-average radiative budget are about the only way for the Earth to warm or cool on time scales of years or longer (unless there is some sort of change in geothermal heat flux…we won’t even go there.)

What we want to know, ultimately, is how much warming will result from the radiative imbalance caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It is natural to try to answer that question by examining how Mother Nature handles things when there are natural, year-to-year warmings and coolings. I believe that the NASA satellite assets we have in orbit right now are going to go a long way toward providing that answer.

The answer depends upon how clouds, evaporation, water vapor, etc., change IN RESPONSE TO a temperature change, thus further altering the radiative balance and final temperature response. This is called feedback, and it is traditionally referenced to a surface temperature change.

UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


who are you going to believe? the data or the models. hahahahaha

Well, no honest person would ever believe either a model OR data from Spencer!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Since Limpbagh uses his data, the eco-Malthusians dismiss Spencer out-of-hand.

While it is a well known fact that pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard would never under any circumstance use an honest source, that is not why Spencer is rejected by honest people. It is because, he along with his partner in crime John Christy, got caught red handed fudging the satellite data to turn a warming trend into a cooling trend.

 

[Oddball]

See what I mean?

 

[edthecynic]

yah, Ive heard that before. it doesnt matter that Spencer is the leader of one of the two major satellite temperature data collection organizations, just that Rush likes him. of course Rush usually runs circles around liberals when it comes to facts to back up his statements. not that I dont think he is a blowhard, just that he is an informed blowhard.

I've gone over Spencer and Christy's dishonestly and their deliberately using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift with you before, so you know the real reason why Spencer has no credibility with honest people, so I will expose your crap about your MessiahRushie.

The only people who think LimpTard is "informed" are the ones too stupid to know better. He tells them something so obviously stupid and tells them his stupidity is "brilliant" and his DittoTards sware that he is "brilliantly" informed.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For you DittoTards, not one single molecule of CO2 in the entire UNIVERSE has ever come from H2O!!!!