From his blog http://www.drroyspencer.com/ which I’m repeating here to help get wide exposure.
A Challenge to the Climate Research Community
I’ve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the ’settled science’ of global warming. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way “proves” it.
If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.
The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.
Or we could just stick to the scientific method and ask for the paper describing the experiment or observation that promoted the AGW hypothesis to theory. If the issue were about science that should be really easy.
If we assume the issue is not about science then that should be made clear too.
stephen richards says:
February 2, 2011 at 1:01 pm
cochrane says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Dice rolling is an independent probability at each throw. The odds remain the same no matter haw many times you throw the dice. Each throw cannot influence the next unless you eliminate the previous number and then the odds get better on you being right. Did I miss soemthing ?
===========================
Ok, I’ll place a $100 dollar bet with you. You have to roll three sixes to win, and I’ll pay you $600 (the odds of rolling one six). If you fail you pay me $100. How does that sound?
Laurie Bowen says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:59 am
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times . . . . and that ought to be enough . . .
22/7 = ? anyone . . .
3.142857142857142857142857142857142857142857…
Leif Svalgaard:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out experimentation by little green aliens as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
Leif, you have completely missed the point. That’s because several natural cycles exist and they can easily be identified. But existence of aliens is not scientifically proven.
Dr. Spencer makes relevant challenge: If science if settled, then the other hypothesis shall be ruled out. Not so easy.
Interesting challenge. I have one for Dr. Spencer:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has demonstrated natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
You can’t prove a negative, particularly one that isn’t even defined (which natural cycles, for example?). You can prove (or disprove) a positive statement.
Here’s one more challenge for him:
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out actions of the lawn gnome Illuminati (they’re everywhere, and only move when you aren’t looking) as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.
Undefined natural cycles, lawn gnomes, invisible pink unicorns – pretty much one and the same. It’s a dishonest challenge.
Dr Roy Spencer has now got Januar UHA update up on his Web site at http://www.drroyspencer.com/
January listed at -0.01C so I guess that there will be few people starting to proclaim that 2011 will be the warmest year ever. You never know though. Maybe James Hansen has found a way of getting 2011 warmer than 2010 already.
Considering most climate researchers are forced to work with temp data that has been fudged, the past keeps getting colder, their error bars are so large that any temp increase is within their “honest” error bars….
Trying to use trees, insects, sea sludge, and ice cores to reconstruct past temps, and claiming 1/10th and even 1/100th degree accuracy –
-who in their right mind would believe any of that
Making them prove their wild claims about how much the temps have increased…
…would be right up there with the nul
17. Cochrane says, Feb 2, 2011 at 1.03 pm
Am I to assume Sir that you are the famous Cochrane involved in all those medical studies that everyone has read about? If that is so we are greatly honoured by your visit.
Yes, you missed something. You don’t need a statistician – you need a bookie. Ask him to explain how a trifecta works,
steven mosher says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“first you have to state the null in a quantitative manner.”
So, what do you want? Are you asking that we specify quantitatively all inputs to natural variation in recorded weather and a maximum range for each and for all together? (You cannot be asking us to specify inputs to natural variation in climate because just what constitutes climate is one of the questions in dispute.)
Lucy Skywalker says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm
What they won’t say is what 350 ppm really represents. Not only that, but they don’t say anything either about how many of those 350 ppm we are responsible for. And of course, they don’t say anything about the carbon cycle and how important CO2 is for life on this planet.
In other words, they only say what they want to say in order to scare the ignorant people that don’t know better (including most politicians).
Ray you said:
“AGW is a belief system that does not need to be proven. You just need faith. It is exactly the same thing with God. There are never been any peer-reviewed papers on the existence of God. The whole thing is based on a bunch of gray literature papers (dead sea rolls) that they conveniently put together and named it Bible. Not an once of science in it, yet people always killed each other to impose their belief system.”
There is a major difference between the global warming debate and faith in God. A devout Catholic, such as myself, does not try to prove the existence of God. I accept this on faith. The problem with the global warming people is that they are claiming science has proven their theory. Accepting something on faith and being open and honest about that acceptance, is entirely different that stating that something is proven true by scientific methods.
The ones who often berate those of us who believe in the existence of God are actually comparing apples to oranges. There is no conflict in my mind between scientific reason and faith. They compliment each other but are entirely different approaches to truth.
I have no problem with your lack of belief in God but I often resent that particular argument being used in this on-going debate.
Theo Goodwin @ur momisugly 41
“Challenge them to present one physical hypothesis that is reasonably well-confirmed and that can be used to explain and predict some so-called positive forcing. There is not one.
Really? Take a look at this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ – in particular figure 2a. Those numbers are apparently from Hansen 2007, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha00210r
There are plenty of forcings, both positive (carbon, ozone, GHG’s, snow albedo) and negative (aerosols, land use, volcanoes, etc). The dominant current forcing change is the positive one from well-mixed greenhouse gases.
Scottie says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:30 pm
The most persuasive argument for AGW that I’ve heard so far goes along the lines of, “Do you think we can go on pumping tonnes of CO2 (anyone seen a CO2 pump?) into the atmosphere without it having an effect?”
It seems that personal incredulity is an accepted proof in climate science.
////////////////////////////////////////////
Scottie, this does seem to convince a lot of people but only because they do not know what quantity Mother Nature herself pumps out, which quantity completely dwarfs that quantity pumped out by man
steven mosher says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“But failing that, we have some examples of things never seen before. The problem with the “null” as Spencer states it, is that he doesnt specify what that null is exactly.
Further and more importantly there are events that do not trangress the bounds of “natural variability” that can be explained by mechanisms. Volcanoes do not cool the atmosphere outside the bounds of natural variability, BUT we dont attribute the cooling to natural variability.”
Isn’t that merely conventional? If so, then why not change it? If not, what are the reasons?
Please, Dr Spencer,…
The IPCC provides the exact answer to your question. It is ‘peer-reviewed’, right?
Dr Spencer’s challenge is dishonest/unfair, at least for IPCC members that follow IPCC principles.
Excerpt form the Principles Governing the IPCC’s work……
“…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
So, the IPCC is not interested in natural cycles and variability, according to its own principles.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:46 pm
“Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.”
So, you are claiming that this phenomenon of “ice cycling like its never cycled before” could only be caused by warming caused by manmade CO2? Is that what you want to discuss in this forum?
I bet that you cannot state in your own words one or more physical hypotheses which describe the regularities that make up this phenomenon of “ice cycling like never before.” Without such hypotheses, you are working with hunches. Have you done any empirical work to identify the regularities in the new pattern of cycling? Do you have one or more reasonably confirmed hypotheses which allow you to predict quantitatively this phenomenon of “cycling like never before.?”
The key number one problem with climate scientists is that not one of them has a clue as to the difference between a hunch and a reasonably confirmed empirical hypothesis.
steven mosher says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Would you please make a list of these “things never seen before”. Also, please prove that what we humans have witnessed is the sum total of all climate and weather events. Lacking that, your post is unfounded.
richard verney @ur momisugly 63 – We know how much we pump out (~29 GT/year), and we know how much atmospheric CO2 is increasing (2 ppm, or 15 GT/year). Hmmmm….
If we weren’t pumping out 29 GT a year, we would expect the atmospheric CO2 to decrease at ~2ppm/year accordingly. At least for while – I suspect the rate of natural CO2 sink absorption would slow when it approached the 280 ppm pre-industrial levels.
Please, Dr Spencer,…
The IPCC provides the exact answer to your question. It is ‘peer-reviewed’, right
===================================================
No
Snow albedo is a positive forcing?
[Sarcasm Mode: On]
Top Ten Reasons Why Dr. Spencer’s Challenge Will Go Unanswered:
10) The so-called consensus can’t think of anything else; therefore it must be CO2.
9) The Earth’s climate was perfectly average from the end of the Pleistocene up until 1850 and CO2 levels had not been above 300ppmv since the Miocene; therefore it must be CO2.
8) If it is assumed that CO2 causes all of the observed natural variability, CO2 must be causing all of the observed natural variability.
7) The elimination of all data apart from the thermometer record, the Keeling Curve and Antarctic ice cores simplifies the equation; therefore Occam’s Razor says it’s CO2.
6) Geologists work for oil companies; therefore it’s CO2.
5) Renewable energy sounds Earth-friendly and makes me feel better about the planet; therefore it’s CO2.
4) The CO2 “math” works… The fact that the math is commutative and the causality is an assumption is irrelevant; therefore CO2 drives climate.
3) The utility companies can’t put a meter on the Sun; therefore it’s CO2.
2) Stefan-Boltzmann!!!
1) Even if carbon dioxide isn’t causing global warming, it still must be bad for children, flowers and other living things… At least as bad as dihydrogen oxide.
[Sarcasm Mode: Off]
The real answer is… If no effort is ever made to understand the drivers of pre-industrial Holocene climate change and every effort is made to ignore the overwhelming evidence that century-scale CO2 shifts of 30-60ppmv were common atmospheric features before Dr. Keeling reported to work at MLO… No serious investigation of natural, internal climate drivers can occur.
KR says:
February 2, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Theo Goodwin @ur momisugly 41
“Challenge them to present one physical hypothesis that is reasonably well-confirmed and that can be used to explain and predict some so-called positive forcing. There is not one.
“Really? Take a look at this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ – in particular figure 2a. Those numbers are apparently from Hansen 2007, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha00210r”
OK, I will do the elementary explanation once, even though I think you are a troll. The key words for me are empirical hypotheses. AGW claims that manmade CO2 causes heating in the atmosphere that causes greater water vapor in the atmosphere and that cashes out as clouds and clouds cause positive feedback, additional heating.
At each step physical hypotheses are needed. Take the clouds step. You need physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the behavior of clouds in a warming atmosphere and then additional physical hypotheses that explain and predict the creation of increased heating by these clouds. None of those hypotheses exist. The regularities have not been specified. Inferences from computer models are worthless and have nothing to do with physical hypotheses.
You can test my claims. If any such hypotheses exist, use them (in your own words) to explain the changes in cloud behavior over Florida that I have observed in the last year.
Because I am trying to further this conversation, I accepted your homework assignment in your link. In the future, if you give me a homework assignment I will conclude that you cannot state the hypotheses in your own words and that you are as stupid as you are offensive, teacher.
Mike Haseler, “So, it is very easy to measure the amplitude of this 1/f noise prior to extensive CO2 and compare it that afterwards, and the result is that the change we have seen is entirely compatible with natural noise.” This is totally to the point.