The Mad, Mad Mind of Roy Spencer - dissecting climate science fraud

I came across this video I feel like sharing. Dedicated to Mike Yohe.

Roy Spencer ("not a climate denier” but, in reality a criminal climate science misinformer and [fraudster]
has been playing dirty science for decades and Peter Hadfield has recently released another video that does an excellent job of outlining some of the highlights of Roy Spencer’s dirty dealing
with climate science, an activist-scientist whom the Republicans idealize and rely on beyond measure.

{Dirty dealing when it comes to pursuing scientific physical truth regarding AGW, and conveying findings honestly.}

One reason for this fawning over the work of these (the Spencer, Christy team) meteorologists is they believe they have a responsibility to tax-hating fat-cats. Namely, that lying about the science is justified in the name of minimizing taxes (Of course, they are extremely myopic and never ever think about, let alone dare discussing, the consequences of such deception.

Roy Spencer: I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government. April 6, 2015
But that doesn’t justify doing dishonest misleading fraudulent science!!!

potholer54

PS. is that the only gaze that crazy eyed critter tucker has, looks like something that belongs on punching bags to encourage connecting.



Well, thank you for thinking of me CC.

Recent analyses from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that the extreme tail risks from global warming, associated with very high emissions and high climate sensitivity, have shrunk and are now regarded as unlikely if not implausible.

Apart from the relative importance of natural climate variability, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century – if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

The planet has been warming for more than a century. So far, the world has done a decent job at adapting to this change. The yields for many crops have doubled or even quadruped since 1960.

Over the past century, the number of deaths per million people from weather and climate catastrophes have dropped by 97%. Losses from global weather disasters as a percent of GDP have declined over the past 30 years.

I disagree that global warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are a threat. They are both hugely beneficial.

Yes lets not worry about CO2 emissions. All is well in paradise,

Until it becomes hell. And as far as declining losses from global weather disasters ( GDP has NOTHING to do with it), you are so very wrong it is shameful.

2010-2019: A landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions). Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 258 weather and climate disasters* where the overall damage costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index, as of January 2020). The cumulative cost for these 258 events exceeds $1.75 trillion .

During 2019, the U.S. experienced a very active year of weather and climate disasters. In total, the U.S. was impacted by 14 separate billion-dollar disasters including: 3 major inland floods, 8 severe storms, 2 tropical cyclones (Dorian and Imelda), and 1 wildfire event. 2019 also marks the fifth consecutive year (2015-19) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events have impacted the U.S.

image

Over the last several years costly disasters have been particularly destructive. The historic 2019 U.S. inland flooding across many Central states follows the historic 2018 and 2017 Atlantic hurricane and Western wildfire seasons, which set new damage cost records. These disasters have impacted dozens of Eastern, Central, and Western states, in addition to Caribbean territories (i.e., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure (i.e., values at risk of possible loss), vulnerability (i.e., how much damage does the intensity (wind speed, flood depth) at a location cause) and that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters (NCA 2018, Chapter 2).

Number of events

The 14 separate U.S. billion-dollar disasters in 2019 represent the fourth highest total number of events (tied with 2018), following the years 2017 (16), 2011 (16) and 2016 (15). The most recent years of 2019, 2018 and 2017 have each produced more than a dozen billion-dollar disasters to impact the United States—totaling 44 events. This makes a 3-year average of 14.6 billion-dollar disaster events, well above the inflation-adjusted average of 6.5 events per year (1980-2019).
[2010-2019: A landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters | NOAA Climate.gov](2010-2019: A landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters | NOAA Climate.gov?

msclkid=593e8426a9ac11ecbc33488ccb86d3b6)

Of course you do, you suffer from Fat Cat Myopia and willfully ignorant of most the facts, and twist the rest into a fantasy projection. That’s why I call your quote, empty words.
Also, why I challenge you to provide some evidence.
Got any references that support your unscientific business focused perspective?

Oh please do provide specific citations, for educational purposes.

Also, we should all appreciate that IPCC is an ultra conservative climate science data processing group that then has to go through a hideously politicized compilation process, with watering down at every step, before the final reports are allowed to be printed.

So it would be quite interesting to find out specific what gives you confidence that we have less and less to worry about, as the world continues unraveling at pretty much every level you’d care to examine.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

IPCC - MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREME EVENTS AND DISASTERS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

For interest, how about a review of agriculture trends of the past decade compared to the past century?
As an aside, how about the condition of continental glaciers that are the king pins to regional hydrology?
I ask that because you have a habit of treating stale old data as if it were recorded yesterday.

As for that IPCC process, for those not interested looking it up, here’s a rough summary.

Draft, review, draft, review

Governments and other bodies nominate potential IPCC authors who are experts in their field, and are selected also to try and produce a geographical and gender balance. Groups of around 10-20 experts prepare individual chapters covering their area of expertise. The first step in bringing these chapters together to form an assessment report starts when authors and co-chairs meet to develop a Zero Order Draft, which will take about three months, perhaps involving additions from invited Contributing Authors. The draft is then distributed to a small number of reviewers, who for each chapter provide feedback on how well the structure and proposed content works.

The next step is to prepare a First Order Draft, which is distributed for expert review. At this stage anyone can self-nominate as an “expert”, if they can justify their credentials and expertise, and on condition that they agree to adhere to the rule of confidentiality, so there are no leaks of early drafts.

Several months are allowed for expert comments, …

A Second Order Draft is prepared based on review comments, including a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that summarises the most important conclusions. This draft is returned to the experts for another review, and also to government panel members for their comments. The AR5’s Second Order Draft for Working Group I received 31,422 comments from about 800 experts and 26 governments.

Tying things together

At this stage we approach the cut-off date for scientific literature that can be cited in the report, usually about six months before the final Plenary meeting where the document is approved.

Authors meet again to consider the comments on the Second Order Draft, and to start preparing the Final Draft. This, once ready, is passed to government members for a final review. The final author meeting is held immediately prior to a Working Group Plenary and responds to government comments on the final draft. The revised draft is then taken into the Working Group Plenary for discussion and, ultimately, approval.

The Summary for Policymakers is discussed and approved line-by-line and, if necessary, word-by-word.
… (and so on…)

When will that be? Never mind. We have been told. By the year 2000. Update – by the year 2007. Update – by the year 2012. Update – by the year 2016. Update – by the year 2030. Update – by the year 2050. Update – by the year 2100. Update – Sometime in the 2200 century.

How does GDP affect the environment?
The production and use of goods can deplete natural resources and generate pollution. In addition to the scale of consumption increasing with income, the composition of what people consume changes, which could either exacerbate or offset their environmental footprint.

I get your point. Climate Change has nothing to do with the environmental footprint. You are so smart.

A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming. There is no confidence in IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming. That is just simple science.

What you posted says that weather due to a combination of things causes damage. Good boy. When did I first hear that? Second or third grade?

You really need to follow the subject matter. The increase in frequency was projected a decade before it happened. Due to the coming GSM.

No predictions by the Climate Change events ever come true or a deadline met by the IPCC in 34 years that were not weather. Where is the science in that?

Thanks for a good laugh.

Psychologists Richard Simmons et al. find that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. Such ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ include choices about which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analysis methods to use. Each of these choices may be reasonable, but when added together they allow for researchers to extract statistical significance or other meaningful information out of almost any data set. Researchers making necessary choices about data collection and analysis believe that they are making the correct, or at least reasonable, choices. But their bias will influence those choices in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Further, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – meaning they give the results the researcher wants.

Example: An article by Ben Santer, PH.D in the Hill. How IPCC went from ‘not proven’ that we cause climate change in 1990 to ‘we are guilty’ in 2021 Ben studied the five IPCC reports and wrote the story.

Ben did talk about the models. But failed to mention the failure rate of the models after 25 years. On predictions, that is what the models are for, has been running at 100% failure rate for 25 years. By all means, lets use the IPCC data to change the world.

The meaning of the term “climate change” has been changing every few years. The term today is; “Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term.”

If we knew the weather patterns good enough to compare “climate change” to. Then the lawyers could start the legal processes against the Co2. That has not happened, except for political reasons. Not for scientific reasons.

Yes, until the long range statistics confirm definite trends.
You are overlooking that weather is a chaotic system and it is impossible to make short term predictions. Only long term trends show a pattern in a chaotic system .

And it is an indisputable fact that the past 20 years have recorded the largest long term trend towards GW and the resulting more chaotic and intense weather patterns.

Extinction events do not occur overnight unless it is by some catastrophic cosmic calamity like a meteor impact . Normally the long term changes are barely noticeable over centuries or even millenia.

The Industrial revolution occurred some 450 -400 years ago. This event is clearly responsible for the gradual increase in global temperatures.

The numbers do fluctuate but do show a general warming trend without any immediate change in sight.
image image
Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia

It’s 70 degrees warmer than normal in eastern Antarctica. Scientists are flabbergasted.

1 Like

Not true. If you include clouds and the sun. For example, In your above posting about disasters was predicted by four of the eleven solar cycles ten years ago. The IPCC will not use the sun. And for years said that clouds zeroed out and therefore had zero affect. The IPCC is now just starting to gather cloud data. Every farmer that uses greenhouses knows the greenhouse affect of warming. Higher humidity. All this talk about warmer weather creating deserts. Which place has higher humidity desert or rainforest? Heat is exchange more quickly when the air contains more water vapor, or humidity.

But I do agree that the IPCC can not do short term predictions because of their short comings.

OK. What does that mean? We should be in the lag of the warm period of the Ice Age we are in. We are in the Pleistocene Epoch. We have just gone through the intermediate period of 11,000 years. If we have a cycle jump we could have ice year-round over half the county. But until the lag ends we should be experiencing Global Warming. Jumps and lags are not talked about on this site. To technical. But we can go there if you want.

Just the fact that we are no longer in the intermediate period all scientists will tell you that you should expect chaotic and intense weather patterns.

Is that good or bad? Mankind and most living things on earth does better in warmer temperatures. It is hard to grow food in a snowbank.

Again, we are just now leaving the warm period of the intermediate period. How long is the lag going to be before people must start moving south? Some say 100 to 300 years. It takes 10K yrs to cool the earth and 90K years to warm the earth back up. The jumps are mostly in the cooling cycle. The good news is that because of the increase in C02 that we might just be extending the intermediate period to another 2k to 3K years.

Don’t have time to read the article. WP, I try and stay away from. Fake news sites. What I have read is that Eastern Antarctica has had record cold where the western side has had record warmth. Then lately they found a lava lake somewhere in the east side. Then this week there was a new study released that stated the amount of ice in antarctica was less than we thought. Which should help with the sea level rise.

Washington Post is not fake news, but I really don’t want to argue with someone who enjoys real Fake News and calling it truth.

You really don’t want the sea level rising. That’s the thing with Climate Change- it melts the polar ice caps, submerging coastal cities as it raises the sea level.

And you think this means? What?

Mike Yohe makes lots of hollow claims and broadcasts a ruthless storyline.

Please notice Mike Yohe, does not offer any scientific backing for his various myopic, tortured rationalizations, that plays fast and loose with the truth and the rules of honesty in a debate.

Yeah a century ago there were way the heck fewer building codes, weather forecasting wasn’t happening (beyond the Almanac), neither were Earth Observation satellites, medical sciences was barely out of the Middle Ages, as were most people’s diets which remained borderline, and on and on.

Yes, certain soulless corporations, and their puppets, love to compare the death number as though nothing was different about a century ago and today.

Climate change leads to more extreme weather, but early warnings save lives

A disaster related to a weather, climate or water hazard occurred every day on average over the past 50 years – killing 115 people and causing US$ 202 million in losses daily, according to a comprehensive new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting. But, thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold.

According to the WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970 – 2019), there were more than 11 000 reported disasters attributed to these hazards globally, with just over 2 million deaths and US$ 3.64 trillion in losses.

The living hell is already happening for too many, and it will continue spreading - but it requires a bit of humanity and empathy to be honest enough to face what’s happening.

The Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by the UN in 2018, clearly states that one of the factors causing large-scale movements of people is “the adverse impacts of climate change and environmental degradation,” which includes natural disasters, desertification, land degradation, drought and rising sea levels. For migrants who are forced to leave their countries of origin due to environmental degradation, the compact clearly states that governments should work to protect climate refugees in the countries of their arrival by devising planned relocation and visa options if adaptation and return is not possible in their countries of origin.

Earlier, in March 2018, the UN Human Rights Council adopted an outcome document that discussed the issue of cross-border movement of people brought about by climate crises from the perspective of human rights protection.

Lava lakes are actually quite rare. This is only the eighth discovered in the world.

So what!?!

Please do try to explain: What that has to do with our climate system and Anthropogenic Global Warming?

If you can’t, then you’re just supporting my contention that you are nothing but a cold blooded manipulator of facts, devoid of any scruples - interested only in sowing confusion and weaving facts into deplorable stupefying misinformation.

The discovery on Mount Michael on Saunders Island, reported this month (July 2019) in the journal Volcanology and Geothermal Research, was made using satellite images and is the first to be identified within the British overseas territory, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. In 2001, analysis of low-resolution satellite data revealed a geothermal anomaly but could not prove the existence of a lava lake. Now higher-resolution satellite images from 2003-2018 and advanced processing techniques have revealed a lake 90-215 metres in diameter with molten lava of 989-1279 °C present throughout this period.

Got distracted by other stuff going on.
My interest in lava lakes. When we have the Schwabe Cycles we can have a difference in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). A multidecadal increase in TSI should cause global warming (all else being equal); similarly, a multidecadal decrease in TSI should cause global cooling. Researchers have speculated that multi-decadal and longer changes in solar activity could be a major driver of climate change. During the last 11 millennia, there have been 11 grand solar minima, with intervals between them ranging from a hundred years to a few thousand years. The most recent grand minimum was the Maunder Minimum, during 1645-1715. The lava lakes activity would be indication if neutrinos are heating the earth enough to cause the cycles in plate movement. The sun’s hydrogen fusion process can be measured in Solar Neutrino Units. Which can vary by 23%. The Climate Models uses an 8B neutrino flux and has claimed the discrepancy between theory and observation is not serious. Recently however, it has become clear that the discrepancy must be regarded as significant. And that’s why I have an interest in lava lakes.

Again not a citation to be found anywhere.

What the heck are you talking about?
Neutrinos heating Earth enough to cause plate movement??? What you think Earth’s internal temperatures, pressures, convection currents are impacted by slight variations in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s seems rather insane sounding. Please do explain what you are on about in this particular deflection.

Google that and you’ll find stuff like this,

https://www.nature.com/articles/293122a0

but nothing about how it relates to Earth’s current climate changes, which are clearly driven by Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Time for you to show your cards, or is it like I suspect you can’t do more than bluff.

==================================================

Nor does food grow well in parched soils, nor do food crops hold up well to torrential rains accompanied by extreme wind events. Ignoring those realities is akin to mental illness.
We evolved within this climate system, those cold winters keep down pests and diseases and created glaciers that sustained massive regional ecosystems.

Mike have you ever tried doing physical labor in hundred degree temperatures. What do your precious power plants do when rivers run dry. I could tack on many more reality focused questions.

As for the early warming if Mike Yohe ever took the time to invest in some good faith homework and read some of the information he’s offer such as,

Abstract

The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW).

Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability and the response to human influences in the present and future climate. This review discusses the observed changes during the ETCW and hypotheses for the underlying causes and mechanisms.

Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution, particularly to regional anomalies like the Arctic warming in the 1920s and 1930s.

The ETCW period also encompassed exceptional events, several of which are touched upon: Indian monsoon failures during the turn of the century, the “Dust Bowl” droughts and extreme heat waves in North America in the 1930s, the World War II period drought in Australia between 1937 and 1945; and the European droughts and heat waves of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Understanding the mechanisms involved in these events, and their links to large scale forcing is an important test for our understanding of modern climate change and for predicting impacts of future change. (fascinating detailed overview for those who actually want to understand the situation and also the diversions and dishonesty of our in house fraudster.)

he would find many of his questions thoroughly answered.

Frequently Asked Question 9.2
Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf

Is what you are posting a five-minute data search, or do you understand this data? One question, the IPCC stance on neutrinos is that neutrinos are not made of matter so that is the reason of no importance. If not made of matter, then no energy transfer. If no energy transfer, then it really has nothing to do with Climate Change does it. Climate Change is all about energy. Do you agree with the IPCC’s conclusion?

What IPCC conclusion, are you going on about. Where are your citations!!! That is, references that we can all look at.

I’ve studied it enough of it that I can find the legitimate reference you should be offering to support your conclusion. I’ve offered plenty you can learn from, but learning isn’t what you are about.

You’re simply lip flapping nonsensical baloney again, like that nonsense about a little itty bitty lava lake being related to neutrinos and implying it relates to global warming. I
You offer nothing that can be fact checked.

Mike Yohe, your track record of dedication to deception remains unblemished.