BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

[firstfloor]

Your point is? That Spencer is not a scientist? That 40 molecules of CO2 in every 100,000 molecules will inevitably increase to 43 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air in another 15 years? And that will be a catastrophic amount of an essential nutrient of all plant life on the planet, i.e., CO2?
What has made you so CO2 phobic? After all, we are talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.

My point is that Spencer plays down a massive spike in the data. Even if you have no idea of the consequences it is a reckless attitude. The correct scientific approach is to recognize that there is a large data spike and it might be important because we know that CO2 will trap heat. Then you go measure other things and look for correlations and build models to try to calculate outcomes and so on. What you do not do is just sit on your hands.

[John Reece]

My point is that Spencer plays down a massive spike in the data. Even if you have no idea of the consequences it is a reckless attitude. The correct scientific approach is to recognize that there is a large data spike and it might be important because we know that CO2 will trap heat. Then you go measure other things and look for correlations and build models to try to calculate outcomes and so on. What you do not do is just sit on your hands.

And how is it that you have ascertained that Spencer has just sat on his hands?

[firstfloor]

And how is it that you have ascertained that Spencer has just sat on his hands?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/...warming-nazis/

[Sparko]

Notice how Roy Spencer on his own website plays down this important fact:

“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.”

Put that way, it sounds like nothing, almost too few molecules to mention; even that increased CO2 is good for the environment but that is 2.5% in 5 years and 10% in only 20 years. And when you see that on a graph it is a massive spike. A scientist seeing that sort of spike in the data starts rubbing his chin rather than pretending at the outset that it is nothing to worry about.

and the planet has a feedback system. More CO2, the better plants thrive, and absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen.

[firstfloor]

and the planet has a feedback system. More CO2, the better plants thrive, and absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen.

Maybe, but the equilibrium is disturbed and there is no experience yet of how well any balancing mechanism works. We need to do better than just cross our fingers because we are continuing to charge the system with CO2.

[Sparko]

Maybe, but the equilibrium is disturbed and there is no experience yet of how well any balancing mechanism works. We need to do better than just cross our fingers because we are continuing to charge the system with CO2.

Jumping to conclusions and yelling "The Sky is Falling!" is not exactly the correct response.

[John Reece]

Why would a real scientist refer to his colleagues as Nazis?

Dr. Spencer answered that question in the context to which your link took me.

Do you know what a Holocaust denier is? Do you not understand the allusion that the slanderous word denier bears?

Here is Dr. Spencer's answer to your question:

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

[firstfloor]

Jumping to conclusions and yelling "The Sky is Falling!" is not exactly the correct response.

I agree. Scientific papers as opposed to commentary are very unemotional.

[Sparko]

I agree. Scientific papers as opposed to commentary are very unemotional.

As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.

Nice job Chicken Little.

[tabibito]

As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.

Yup - when the data was shown to not be consistent with the projections, you'd expect a real scientist to admit there was a problem with the hypothesis. Instead of working out where the hypothesis failed, excuses have been proffered for why the data is wrong. Nor has any apology been offered for basing predictions on hypotheses before they had been verified.
But - despite the temperature projections being wildly inaccurate - sea levels continue to rise, and despite the increased area of the polar ice sheets, the actual volume is reduced. That data doesn't indicate that global warming is a myth - it just means that the climatologists got their sums wrong.
And they can't demonstrate that human activity has contributed significantly to global warming through increased CO2 levels because .... they got their sums wrong.
They are making faith claims and nothing more ... Even if in the end they are shown to be right, they will have been right by mistake.

[firstfloor]

Dr. Spencer answered that question in the context to which your link took me.

All this stuff is noise; claim and counter claim; you naturally jump into one camp or the other based not on your knowledge of climate science but your political opinions. You cannot understand the science or even detect a consensus about anything if you are reading commentary at this level. A lot of the actual peer reviewed science is behind a pay-wall but it is usually possible to get at least the authors summary free.

[firstfloor]

As you said, we don't understand the feedback mechanisms that well, so there is no way to model the effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that is exactly what you and the "scientific papers" claim to know, therefore begin yelling "the sky is falling" based upon faulty models and no evidence.

Nice job Chicken Little.

Once again, it is no surprise that you did not understand what I said. It matters naught.

[John Reece]

You cannot understand the science or even detect a consensus about anything if you are reading commentary at this level.

Ah, so you think science is a matter of consensus?

See here.

[firstfloor]

Ah, so you think science is a matter of consensus?
See here.

No, but look at the size of the project that climate scientists are engaged in, it encompasses the entire globe and even the sun. There has to be a synthesis at some point. And someone has to report to governments on the overall situation and that requires the formation of a consensus.

How would you manage it?

[John Reece]

No, but look at the size of the project that climate scientists are engaged in, it encompasses the entire globe and even the sun. There has to be a synthesis at some point. And someone has to report to governments on the overall situation and that requires the formation of a consensus.

It really isn't all that mysterious and complex in terms of actual science.

What is so complex is computer modeling designed to fabricate an outcome to satisfy a desired political consensus.

See here.