How can you tell natural from man caused warming?

[westwall]

The answer is that you can't.

old fraud and Co. will denigrate Dr. Spencer because he is a "denier" but he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere and global warming than they ever will so I think his opinions are valid.

Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[edthecynic]

The answer is that you can't.

old fraud and Co. will denigrate Dr. Spencer because he is a "denier" but he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere and global warming than they ever will so I think his opinions are valid.

Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Spencer has denigrated himself because he and his partner Christy at the UAH got CAUGHT fudging the satellite data by using the OPPOSITE sign to compensate for diurnal satellite drift, creating the phony Troposphere "data" used by deniers for a decade. Before UAH were caught using the opposite sign, deniers claimed Spencer and Christy's data was the ONLY accurate data and all the other data was fudged. Once the correct sign was used the Christy and Spencer UAH data matched the other data exactly. Now suddenly Troposphere data means nothing.

So either Spencer deliberately used the wrong sign, or this person who "knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere" has no idea how to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most BASIC calculations involved in collecting satellite data.

No honest person expects Spencer to ever tell the truth about global warming.

P.S. - Spencer has expanded his "lying by miscalculation" into lying about oil seepage in the Gulf, further discrediting himself.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The answer is that you can't.

old fraud and Co. will denigrate Dr. Spencer because he is a "denier" but he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere and global warming than they ever will so I think his opinions are valid.

Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Spencer has denigrated himself because he and his partner Christy at the UAH got CAUGHT fudging the satellite data by using the OPPOSITE sign to compensate for diurnal satellite drift, creating the phony Troposphere "data" used by deniers for a decade. Before UAH were caught using the opposite sign, deniers claimed Spencer and Christy's data was the ONLY accurate data and all the other data was fudged. Once the correct sign was used the Christy and Spencer UAH data matched the other data exactly. Now suddenly Troposphere data means nothing.

So either Spencer deliberately used the wrong sign, or this person who "knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere" has no idea how to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most BASIC calculations involved in collecting satellite data.

No honest person expects Spencer to ever tell the truth about global warming.

P.S. - Spencer has expanded his "lying by miscalculation" into lying about oil seepage in the Gulf, further discrediting himself.

Wow, I didn't know that. I believe that we should be honest and use correct data and facts, and stay the hell away from fudging things. If we can't win without fudging then we already lost. Sad, because the satellite data is likely better if not fudged then surface data being that it can see the oceans and area's that have poor surface data coverage.

 

[edthecynic]

The answer is that you can't.

old fraud and Co. will denigrate Dr. Spencer because he is a "denier" but he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere and global warming than they ever will so I think his opinions are valid.

Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Spencer has denigrated himself because he and his partner Christy at the UAH got CAUGHT fudging the satellite data by using the OPPOSITE sign to compensate for diurnal satellite drift, creating the phony Troposphere "data" used by deniers for a decade. Before UAH were caught using the opposite sign, deniers claimed Spencer and Christy's data was the ONLY accurate data and all the other data was fudged. Once the correct sign was used the Christy and Spencer UAH data matched the other data exactly. Now suddenly Troposphere data means nothing.

So either Spencer deliberately used the wrong sign, or this person who "knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere" has no idea how to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most BASIC calculations involved in collecting satellite data.

No honest person expects Spencer to ever tell the truth about global warming.

P.S. - Spencer has expanded his "lying by miscalculation" into lying about oil seepage in the Gulf, further discrediting himself.

Wow, I didn't know that. I believe that we should be honest and use correct data and facts, and stay the hell away from fudging things. If we can't win without fudging then we already lost. Sad, because the satellite data is likely better if not fudged then surface data being that it can see the oceans and area's that have poor surface data coverage.

That, of course, was the claim of deniers who used Spencer and Christy's cooked UAH data to discredit the surface data, but in reality the surface and the uncooked satellite data match almost exactly.

 

[Old Rocks]

The answer is that you can't.

old fraud and Co. will denigrate Dr. Spencer because he is a "denier" but he knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere and global warming than they ever will so I think his opinions are valid.

Misinterpreting Natural Climate Change as Manmade Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Suckee... I disagree completely with Dr. Spencer's assessment. However, it is gratifying that you finally found out who he was, after denigrating all the data I have been posting from his website. Yes, he is the person at the UAH website that has said this year is on track to equal 1998 and 2005.

APRIL 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.50 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Arctic temps (not shown) continued a 5-month string of much above normal temps (similar to Nov 05 to Mar 06) as the tropics showed signs of retreating from the current El Nino event. Antarctic temperatures were cooler than the long term average. Through the first 120 days of 1998 versus 2010, the average anomaly was +0.655 in 1998, and +0.602 in 2010. These values are within the margin of error in terms of their difference, so the recent global tropospheric warmth associated with the current El Nino has been about the same as that during the peak warmth of the 1997-98 El Nino.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Spencer has denigrated himself because he and his partner Christy at the UAH got CAUGHT fudging the satellite data by using the OPPOSITE sign to compensate for diurnal satellite drift, creating the phony Troposphere "data" used by deniers for a decade. Before UAH were caught using the opposite sign, deniers claimed Spencer and Christy's data was the ONLY accurate data and all the other data was fudged. Once the correct sign was used the Christy and Spencer UAH data matched the other data exactly. Now suddenly Troposphere data means nothing.

So either Spencer deliberately used the wrong sign, or this person who "knows a whole hell of a lot more about the atmosphere" has no idea how to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most BASIC calculations involved in collecting satellite data.

No honest person expects Spencer to ever tell the truth about global warming.

P.S. - Spencer has expanded his "lying by miscalculation" into lying about oil seepage in the Gulf, further discrediting himself.

Wow, I didn't know that. I believe that we should be honest and use correct data and facts, and stay the hell away from fudging things. If we can't win without fudging then we already lost. Sad, because the satellite data is likely better if not fudged then surface data being that it can see the oceans and area's that have poor surface data coverage.

That, of course, was the claim of deniers who used Spencer and Christy's cooked UAH data to discredit the surface data, but in reality the surface and the uncooked satellite data match almost exactly.

Man, those Cows are seriously fucking us over..

 

[konradv]

You can't??? LOL!!! We know that CO2 and other gases trap infra-red radiation. We know that their concentrations, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. A concept called Conservation of Energy tells us so.