Dr. Spencer asks the question: What do we really know about Global Warming?
This is from Wednesday morning July 9th.
This is well worth watching, and I get a mention. Some of the graphs he presents are not only hilarious for their satire of the issue, but are valuable in demonstrating that correlation is not causation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To see all of the presentations at The Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change, click on the link below. Patrick Moore’s, to pick out one other than Spencer’s, is excellent.
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Excellent. Thank you Dr.Spencer.
Brilliant !
It just shows that doing science right way is hard work and not a lot to show for. As for myself, I rather have some fun doing science the ‘wrong’ way.
That was brilliant!
How I wish I could have been there for all of the talks, presentations and to meet all the people I only know online.
Thanks for the post.
Dr. Spencer did a wonderful job of explaining where we are at in regards to what we know about “global warming”. This short speech should be shown to schoolchildren around the country to counterbalance the hysteria that they are normally exposed to.
I would like someone to make some of those slides (the charts and graphs) available someplace. I would like to print off some of those graphs in large format and color (maybe use an office supply house to do that), have the charts laminated, and give them to some science teacher friends to hang in their rooms. Can anyone help me on how to do this?
Once again, the speech by Dr. Spencer was outstanding. (and the audio plus camera work was also)
~ Mark
Some truth at last. Thanks Dr Spencer.
Counter fire: Greens against plant food.
I would like to withdraw a comment I made on this blog about two years ago. I said at that time that causality seemed to run from temperature to the AMO and not the other way around. Since then I’ve acquired a much larger data set and run the tests again, and I was wrong. AMO influences temperature, shifting more heat or less from the ocean to the air. While carbon dioxide accounts for 76% of the variance of temperature since 1850, the AMO accounts for an additional 10%, which is significant. Still doesn’t affect the trend, which is almost all CO2, but it definitely affects the year-to-year variation.
Barton Paul Levenson:
In your post at July 14, 2014 at 4:11 am you say
That is an interesting model. It is obviously wrong because changes to CO2 follow changes to global temperature at all time scales. But it is interesting: do you have a link to it?
Richard
Thanks for posting it, Anthony. I enjoyed that presentation.
richardscourtney says:
July 14, 2014 at 4:36 am
“All time scales?” That includes some low hanging fruit, e.g. the last 17-18 years – no temperature change and increasing CO2.
Spencer is one of the best speakers we have. Completely devoid of the “holier than thou” personality that Lord Monckton sometimes uses that can be a bit irritating.
Another good talk was his “debate” at the ICCC in Washington. I was at the lunch table with Roy, and he was shaking his head at Richard Denning’s acting out of diatomic and CO2’s vibrational modes. Roy was shaking his head saying “I can’t compete with that” but but came up with interesting response about where he agreed and disagreed with Denning.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc6/ – first link.
Barton Paul Levenson says:
…………
I did some research into the AMO too. The AMO can’t influence even the nearby CET in the winter months, not to mention the global temperature (if there is such a thing). The AMO is only reflected in the CET summer months (see LINK ) with no significant uptrend in the CET’s 350 year long record.
The AMO is a delayed consequence of the Arctic atmospheric pressure quasi-periodic variability, preceding the AMO change by some years; and so is the whole of the N. Hemisphere’s temperature variability, which is wrongly attributed to the AMO.
The CO2 factor I will leave to Mr. Courtney, someone who knows and understands far more than I will ever do about the CO2.
.
Kudos to Dr. Spencer for an entertaining, informative, and enjoyable presentation.
I was looking at the WUWT links at the right side of the page and couldn’t find a Dr. Roy Spencer link to his website: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Am I mistaken?
Climate change is very real. For example, the average climate of the northern hemisphere is so cold as to cause the ground to be buried under a thousand feet of ice. The cycle of glacier on/glacier off takes place every several hundred thousand years and can be clearly seen in many ways. Even as the science is settled that glaciation has taken place, the causes are still undergoing vigorous debate.
With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that proposes what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science coincidently converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
I watched several of the sessions live and plan to watch several more as I get a chance. What impressed me was how many of the speakers noted how important the WUWT website and Anthony’s other work is to the debate. Anthony, you are without a doubt a very important central figure in this issue, and I very much appreciate your contribution.
Ric Werme:
Your post at July 14, 2014 at 4:50 am says in total
Yes, “All time scales”.
At shortest time scales analyses indicate the delay is between 5 and 9 months and it varies with latitude. This was first observed by Kuo, Lindberg and Thomson who observed the lag is ~5 months at Mauna Loa.
(ref. Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’ Nature, Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990); doi:10.1038/343709a0)
At longest time scales the ice core data suggests CO2 changes lag temperature changes by typically ~800 years.
Wait ~ 800 years and you may see a variation to atmospheric CO2 as a result of the hiatus to global temperature change which began ~17 years ago.
Richard
couldn’t access the live streaming. Is there or will there be anywhere that the lectures (or transcript s) can be seen or obtained? BTW the split screen showing both slide and speaker is perfect.
Richard Courtney, I was not aware that the lag was present in short-term timescales. What are error bars for short-term to longer time scales?
Thanks.
Most excellent.
24 minutes well spent.
“The driving force behind the global warming debate isn’t science”.
Thankfully, he said “global warming” and not “climate change”.
We all should keep the conversation on GW and not let the Alarmists move the goalposts toward the always happening climate change.
Jim Lakely, when will these be available on your YouTube channel?
Regards Ed
Have enjoyed following this conference and listening to keynote speakers.
Perhaps someone can answer this for me:
Along with increased plant life from more atmospheric plant food in recent decades have there been measured increases in oxygen produced by the abundant flora?
Mark says…
I would like someone to make some of those slides (the charts and graphs) available someplace. Can anyone help me on how to do this?
…………………………………………………………..
This might help…nice place to send your friends, too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/with/14527956564
A great presentation by Dr. Spencer.
Dr. Spencers Climate models vs. Reality graph has probably been the best icon for CAGW’s failure since McIntyre busted Mann’s Hockey Stick.
It only gets worse from here.
BTW, does anyone know what the hell happened to the Antarctic Sea Ice satellite data? My theory is that after hitting a 35-yr record, the hard drive of the data may have crashed…. LOL!
The IRS is investigating the matter. Oh, goody…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png