Roy Spencer, Climatologist & Climate Skeptic

[Airbrush]

Any climate scientists out there understand the point that a reputable Ph.D. climatologist, Roy Spencer makes to dispute the consensus view of climate change? This is from his web site. I was searching for a climate science expert that is a skeptic and Roy Spencer looks like the real thing.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

 

"It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO₂.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."

 

[Phi for All]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

"For some reason it stopped warming in the last 10 years, which is one of those dirty little secrets of global warming science" - Roy Spencer

He's just wrong.

[Airbrush]

Thanks for the link. Interesting site. Guess I'm going to be there for a while researching for my debate with my brother.

 

Roy Spencer's web site home page has the word "Climatologist" after his name.

 

Wikipedia says:

 

"Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982.^[3] His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.^"

 

^​If someone gets a M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology, does that make them a climatologist?

[StringJunky]

Thanks for the link. Interesting site. Guess I'm going to be there for a while researching for my debate with my brother.

 

Roy Spencer's web site home page has the word "Climatologist" after his name.

 

Wikipedia says:

 

"Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982.^[3] His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.^"

 

^​If someone gets a M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology, does that make them a climatologist?

He's climatologist with a clear right-wing agenda; he's a shit scientist because it informs and colours his conclusions. If he was a neutral scientist he wouldn't be talking about economic burdens; he would just say "This is the way it is based on what the data tells me".

Edited December 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

 

^​If someone gets a M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology, does that make them a climatologist?

 

 

He held a job as a climatologist (Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center).

 

OTOH, I've been employed in a chemistry department and as an astronomer (for my postdocs), and would not claim to be either one.

[Ken Fabian]

"It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F).

 

Haven't we already had 1 degree of warming and not yet reached a doubling of CO2? And the transient response - near term change we are experiencing - is going to be short of the ultimate equilibrium response - long term change.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[swansont]

This doesn't look like a minimal effect

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/808642167870722048

 

Haven't we already had 1 degree of warming and not yet reached a doubling of CO2? And the transient response - near term change we are experiencing - is going to be short of the ultimate equilibrium response - long term change.

 

Depends on your starting point. If you look at the graph I just posted a link to, it's just under a degree if you start before ~1900. Less if you start later.

[Airbrush]

Then Dr. Roy Spencer would be among the 3% of climatologists that are not pro climate change?

 

Is there a Ph.D. degree in climatology? Or do most climatologists have their Ph.D. degree in meteorology?

 

A poster had suggested that the 97% of climatologists in favor of climate change are from a skewed set of students. To be interested in climate science, most students would chose that discipline because they are worried about the environment and already believe in climate change. So they want to do research to prove what they already believe. Those that were skeptical, or deniers, in advance would NOT be interested in the subject to begin with.

 

"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,^[31][32] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.".^[33] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.^[34] This view contradicts the scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Edited December 19, 2016 by Airbrush

[Prometheus]

To be interested in climate science, most students would chose that discipline because they are worried about the environment and already believe in climate change.

 

To get onto any PhD. a student would have already done a few years study. In that time the student would have been exposed to the consensus understanding of the subject: in physics the Standard Model is first taught, not one of the alternative models.

 

So why would climate science be any different?

 

Has science not been making progress over the last few centuries such that we need to abandon its methods for something new?

[EdEarl]

Among scientists there are honest differences of opinion. When opinions affect business, dishonest differences of opinion are bought and sold. Some science is interesting, but whether an opinion is right or wrong, no one will be adversely or advantageously affected, for example the age of the Universe. However, some science can affect the fate of man, beast or Earth, for example climate change.

 

It is important to know the affects of climate change on the Earth, because there are potentially adverse affects, and some say adverse affects have already occurred. Since I am neither a climatologist nor meteorologist, it seems to me like humanity is juggling a loaded gun, and if it goes off, it may hit a vital organ and we all die, only injure us, or miss us entirely. I'd rather we take a safe route, and not juggle a loaded gun. The problem is that juggling is good business and we want to continue the good business, and many ignore the potential disaster or they are willing to gamble with the fate of humanity. To me it is not rational, and should not be done.