Global Warming Error

Introduction

”the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.”

  --  Roy W. Spencer, formerly of NASA, February 7^th, 2014, on his blog (which includes a chart of those models against actual temperature)  at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

= = = = = = = = = = below is a discussion of Dr. Spencer’s book on global warming = = = = = = =  

The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

By Roy W, Spencer

Book Description on Amazon.com

The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earth’s climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.

In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.

As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating exposé and much-needed call for debate.

Customer Book Review

5 Stars

This book asks questions that need to be asked.
By Daimion on April 24, 2010
 

Whether you are a believer in man-made climate change, or a skeptic, Roy Spencer presents some intriguing questions in "The Great Global Warming Blunder". Chief among them - is man really the only explanation for the changes we have seen in the climate over the last 100 years? The real question, however, - and the reason he wrote the book in the first place - is will the scientific "establishment" give his research a fair hearing?

Spencer fully lays out his research and theories in the book. He's clearly a scientist, not a writer; but what he lacks in style, he makes up for in substance. At its core this book asks a question so elegantly simple that it's hard to believe it's never truly been explored before. A question that goes to one of the basic tenets held by most man-made climate change evangelists on the cause and effect nature of temperature change and clouds. How do we know that global warming is causing fewer clouds, rather than fewer clouds causing the global warming?

Think about that for a moment. Spencer postulates that the increase and decrease in cloud cover is not a reaction to the changes in temperature; rather they are contributing factors to the change in the first place. By taking that in to account, his models show that the earth's climate is rather insensitive to man's CO2 emissions. Instead, what he sees is a global climate that is mostly indifferent to man. One that responds more to global variations in cloud cover as driven by things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), El Nino, and La Nina. As he puts it in the book - Earth's climate "does not particularly care how much we drive SUVs or how much coal we burn for electricity".

Spencer's theory will not be without detractors - and that's okay. All Spencer is really after is a fair hearing in the scientific community, and an objective testing of his research. All too often, however, the global climate change debate has been charged with politics and decisions based on faith, instead of fact. (In fact, British courts recently held that environmental beliefs have the same weight under the law as religious beliefs). We owe it to ourselves to look at all possible explanations for climate change. After all, there have been demonstrable changes in our climate for thousands of years - long before man industrialized. To think that we are the only explanation for what we see now, smacks of hubris.

Read the book and take an objective view of the science Spencer presents. It's a compelling case. Ask yourself - does the data support what Spencer is claiming? Is Man truly to blame for global warming? Most importantly - make up your mind for yourself. Don't just accept manmade global warming because there is a "consensus". Ask questions. Gather information. After all - there used to be a consensus that the Earth was an immovable object at the center of the Universe - until Copernicus showed that it wasn't. That consensus was vigorously defended by the establishment of the day, and played in to Man's ego and hubris about his place in the cosmos. Sound familiar?

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594036020/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436767585&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Great+Global+Warming+Blunder

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Footnote by the Blog Author

IPCC 2007 and IPCC 2014 are not falsifiable because they are conclusions from math model iterations, which themselves are not laboratory findings or data.  Therefore IPCC 2007 and IPCC 2014 are not consistent with the scientific method.  Further, the forecasting standards were not even consulted and dozens were broken (see Armstrong and Green).  Further, “global warming:” has been contradicted by SIMPLER, falsifiable data-driven results from academic studies at Southampton and Waterloo.  On that note, let me refer you to the math geniuses at Princeton.  This quote summarizes why the global warmists utterly lose the argument they have presented:

“A simple falsifiable model that has been properly validated [even if in a more limited sense than that of Oreskes et al. (1994)] is better than an ill-conceived complex model with scores of poorly constrained proportionality constants [also see Murray (2007) for a discussion of this point]. Finally, we should never lose sight of the fact that in a model “it is not possible simultaneously to maximize generality, realism, and precision” (atmospheric scientist John Dutton, personal communication, 1982).”

 
--Modeling and Mathematical Concepts, page 3, press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9502.pdf

 

Definitions

Generality -- a statement or principle having general rather than specific validity or force:

"he confined his remarks to generalities" (from Oxford Dictionaries)

Realism -- the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly:

"the summit was marked by a new mood of realism"
synonyms: pragmatism · practicality · common sense · levelheadedness (from Oxford Dictionaries)

Precision -- the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate:

"the deal was planned and executed with military precision"

synonyms: exactness · exactitude · accuracy · correctness · preciseness · care · carefulness · meticulousness · scrupulousness · punctiliousness · methodicalness · rigor · rigorousness (from Oxford Dictionaries)