Roy Spencer pulls another misleading stunt

Check out this story:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

The Heartland Institute is NOT a scientific organization affiliated with NASA at all, but a right-wing think tank.

{{{NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.}}}

The greenhouse effect is NOT about how much heat is being released by the atmosphere into space, because that would be the same no matter what the composition of the atmosphere! It’s about how long the heat that is in the Earth’s atmosphere remains BEFORE it is released. If LESS heat was being released, the atmosphere would soon grow so hot that life would be impossible and then the oceans would completely boil away, and the temperature would just keep rising to infinity! No “alarmist” climate scientist has ever claimed that would happen. This article is one long strawman type fallacy!

Roy Spencer is a FRAUD! Not only is he a climate change denialist, he is also a CREATIONIST. He has NO business doing science if he doesn’t even support the theory of evolution, a basic concept of modern biology!

Not to mention that last year he was caught doing this to his own data presentations:

Another phony global warming denialist busted!

10 thoughts on “Roy Spencer pulls another misleading stunt

  1. Sorry but Roy Spencers paper has been peer reviewed and published, so it all true.

    La la la la..I can’t here la la..

    (Dale Husband: Did you read my rebuttal? First, the paper may be valid, but the conclusions made about it by both Roy Spencer and James Taylor are not. Note that Spencer does not specify what computer models are contradicted by his findings. You can make vague assertions, but details are what make the claim credible. When you misrepresent what your own opponents are claiming and attack that instead of what they really say, then you are lying.

    Second, Creationists have their own journals that are supposedly peer reviewed, but they don’t follow the actual methods of science. They rely on Biblical dogmatism instead.

    Third and most obvious, your spelling sucks.)

  2. Dan Satterfield of the American Geophysical Union weighs in on the matter above:

    So does Stephanie Pappas, a senior writer for LiveScience:

    Here is a highly technical reply from Barry Bickmore:

    Most damning of all was the response from RealClimate:

    The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published……….The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).


  3. For the ultimate proof of how Roy Spencer is driven more by ideological bias rather than legitimate scientific issues, just see this he wrote about a different topic:

    We must reduce wasteful spending, and we must reduce the governmental tax and regulatory burdens on businesses which are keeping those businesses from growing. Politicians must make tough decisions that will save the country without regard for whether they will be re-elected or not.

    The problem cannot be fixed by “taxing the rich more” because (1) there is not nearly enough money there to fix the problem, and even more importantly, (2) unless there is at least some incentive for people to financially benefit in proportion to their good ideas, there is no motivation to take the risks involved in bringing new and better products and services to market. After all, most of those attempts fail, and people who want more of what “the rich” have, are not willing to share in the failures of those who tried and failed.

    Remember, “the rich” have kept only a small fraction of the total wealth they have provided to our country in the form of a higher standard of living with innumerable products at reduced prices, along with the millions of jobs provided to bring those products to market.

    We need to celebrate the rich, not demonize them.

    What a lying little $#it he is! It is EXACTLY because there are so many rich, richer, and still richer people limiting cash flow for the rest of us that we keep having recessions! That, and we keep spending waaaaaaay too much on our military, and we keep letting corporations outsource their manufacturing to China! It ALL adds up to the “free market” economy imploding on itself!

    • “What a lying little $#it he is! It is EXACTLY because there are so many rich, richer, and still richer people limiting cash flow for the rest of us that we keep having recessions! ”

      Rich people limiting cash flow for the rest of us causes recessions, are you for real? I can’t believe you would actually say that. Pal, wake up, you live in the West, you are part of the rich. And you have the nerve to call Spencer a lying little $#it. Only a Marxist would understand your brand of macro-economics. Wow.

      (Dale Husband: Oh yes, I am very real! Maybe you should take a harder look at all that “free market” bullcrap that the corporations and their ultra-rich overlords have spoon fed you for most of your life. And you know why we in the West are so damned rich and other parts of the world are not? IMPERIALISM and its aftermath down to this very day! Learn some history!)

      • Ouch, you sure told me.

        You’re still the one who said “..there are so many rich, richer, and still richer people limiting cash flow for the rest of us that we keep having recessions!”. Can’t get around that one, sorry. You posted it on the net and are stuck with it. Lol!


        (Dale Husband: Actually, I could easily delete all the comments here, and in any case I’m not at all embarrassed about my statement. And I’d say it again anywhere I please.

        Maybe you should take Economics 101 and learn about a concept called inflation and what causes it.)

        • Well heres what Investopedia says causes recessions “Many factors contribute to an economy’s fall into a recession, but the major cause is inflation. ”

          And here’s what Wikipedia says about what causes inflation: ” Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.[6] Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied. Low or moderate inflation may be attributed to fluctuations in real demand for goods and services, or changes in available supplies such as during scarcities, as well as to growth in the money supply. However, the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth.”

          If you’ll notice there is no mention of rich people limiting cash flow.

          Oooh rich people, they’re bad. Lol!


          (Dale Husband: You are indeed an idiot! An increase in the money supply is indeed caused by the federal reserve printing and coining more money. Why? Because those who are already rich have become even richer at the expense of the lower classes [you get richer by hoarding money, not spending it] and the federal reserve produces more money to provide to the people in general in an effort to keep the economy from collapsing. This has only a limited effect, of course, because the result is more money with less value, which hurts the lower classes far more than those who are already rich. So you actually prove my point!)

  4. Oh, and Klem, could you please tell Rev. Roy Spencer that he should be demanding a pay raise from ExxonMobil for his efforts, as well as from the Republican Party and whatever fundamentalist denomination he serves? Thanks in advance!

  5. From the environment to economics. I think anyone here knows Ken is criticizing what he doesn’t understand. It’s alright for him to have an opinion (this is America, afterall), but it doesn’t pay to criticize what one does not understand.

    I’m not an economist or an environmentalist (and I tend to leave those to the experts), though I’m not going to lie because I do have my certain opinions on them. But I also realize my opinions are not based on expertise and my opinions may all be bull anyway.

    Whether someone agrees with Spencer or not, denialism in many forms (in this case, the environment) doesn’t look so good, or even sane in many cases. (Creationism, i.e., evolution-denialism comes to mind).

    Thanks for posting, Dale. 🙂

    (Dale Husband: You meant klem, right? I don’t claim to be an expert on economics either, but simple math and logic should be enough to form good opinions on such subjects. Perhaps klem could have looked at some of my earlier blog entries on economics before making an @$$ of himself.)

    • And having seen klem’s last two moronic responses to me, I have banned him from this blog. He should get a blog of his own to promote his contemptible right-wing bigotries.

      For the record, I know Spencer has a job with NASA and is a professor. My sarcasm earlier referred to his true loyalties, not his professional connections. He sold out to the fossil fuel companies, right-wing politics, and fundamentalist dogmas, and that is a disgrace.

      Just because something looks Marxist doesn’t mean it is wrong. Karl Marx had a reason for his concerns and economic theories. Dismissing them is as stupid as following them blindly. I do neither.

  6. @Dale

    Second, Creationists have their own journals that are supposedly peer reviewed, but they don’t follow the actual methods of science.

    Good point. Sean Pitman (who is a Creation Scientist) linked me a paper in an online debate I had with him and insisted that it was “peer-reviewed.” It was on the supposed inaccuracy of carbon-14 dating. I then asked if it was only reviewed by YECs (yeah, stupid question). Then later I found out that the writer of the paper is a physician, NOT a geologist! — I found out too late. I would have loved to have pushed that into Sean Pitman’s face.

    Honestly, I think even Sean would know that for astronomy, you do not consult a biologist. On genetics, you do not consult an archaeologist, and on geology, you do not consult a medical doctor.

    (Dale Husband: And most obvious of all, you don’t take at face value a geologist associated with fossil fuel companies making claims about global warming. That’s a conflict of interest, as much as appointing a CEO of a banking corporation to a government post for the regulation of banks, including his own company.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s