There is no Planet B

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Lobster grounds are moving North. Ask any NE lobster fisherman.

And I have met plenty of commercial fisherman who think the fish stocks are just fine, it’s just the crazy fisheries scientists who say the fish have decreased. I had a subscription to National Fisherman for about 50 years, kept my Dads subscription going after he passed. I finally gave it up because they went so over the top with using “sustainable” to describe everything while changing nothing.

Remember that Sinclair post you like; it applies here as well.


Waters along the NE coast of Newfoundland were in the low 60’s last year.

you mean like this news article I found . From 1922

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Exactly what is the interaction by which X-rays are causing the climate to warm?

The x-rays heat the upper thermosphere. We already are seeing a roughly 600C cooling in the thermosphere in conjunction with the current solar minimum. The temperature at the surface of the earth is directly affected by the lapse rate and gravitational compression, so if the upper layers of the atmosphere cool, the lower layers will follow. Tracking sunspot cycles, there seems to be a roughly 40 year delay between the sunspot minimums and the lowest temperatures at the surface, just due to the thermal mass of the oceans.

IR is not the only frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum that can heat a gas. The sun's output of x-rays has dropped way down during this quiescent phase, and that is consistent with cooling at the surface in the future. We are already seeing just the first hints of where we are headed.

[newhaul]

Here is an interesting one. According to the UAH satellite data Australia is actually .07℃ below the 1981-2010 baseline average. Kind of disprove the narrative that the month was the hottest ever in Australia . Roy Spencer, PhD

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is an interesting one. According to the UAH satellite data Australia is actually .07℃ below the 1981-2010 baseline average. Kind of disprove the narrative that the month was the hottest ever in Australia . Roy Spencer, PhD

As a former climate change skeptic, I spent some time searching the web looking for the facts. There are lots of very professional looking pages claiming to have proof that AGW doesn't exist. Except they all seem to have a personal agenda. Roy Spencer is a classic example of bias masquerading as science.

If you research Roy Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance he is a creationist and evangelical christian pushing a barrow for some pretty wealthy people and in no way an unbiased scientist. It is impossible to give him any credibility. As you said Newhaul, Follow the money!

The same Evangelicals that got Trump elected and US climate policy changed.

Soryy I had to include religion and politcs into this thread, but it is relevent.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by swampbush

As a former climate change skeptic, I spent some time searching the web looking for the facts. There are lots of very professional looking pages claiming to have proof that AGW doesn't exist. Except they all seem to have a personal agenda. Roy Spencer is a classic example of bias masquerading as science.

If you research Roy Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance he is a creationist and evangelical christian pushing a barrow for some pretty wealthy people and in no way an unbiased scientist. It is impossible to give him any credibility. As you said Newhaul, Follow the money!

The same Evangelicals that got Trump elected and US climate policy changed.

Soryy I had to include religion and politcs into this thread, but it is relevent.

you really should do a lot more research into Dr Spencer .

His personal religious beliefs in no was affect his scientific studies.

At a minimum you should fact check your incorrect assertions .

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really should do a lot more research into Dr Spencer .

His personal religious beliefs in no was affect his scientific studies.
.

I have researched it extensively. Unfortunately his very public religous beliefs drive his agenda. Read up about the Cornwall Alliance to which he is a signatory.
Try here for a start https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...wall-alliance/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by swampbush

I have researched it extensively. Unfortunately his very public religous beliefs drive his agenda. Read up about the Cornwall Alliance to which he is a signatory.
Try here for a start https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...wall-alliance/

Do you understand how his raw data is acquired, the methodology he uses to translate this data into earth temperatures, and whether or not his temp data is close or not to temps produced by others who get their raw data from the same source? If so, then in what way do you believe his religious beliefs affect the results of this data?

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by Exile

Do you understand how his raw data is acquired, the methodology he uses to translate this data into earth temperatures, and whether or not his temp data is close or not to temps produced by others who get their raw data from the same source? If so, then in what way do you believe his religious beliefs affect the results of this data?

There are plenty of others who have issue with his data. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his data. I simply point out that he has a stated agenda that is to prove that global warming is not man made, rather than investigating the cause of it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by swampbush

There are plenty of others who have issue with his data. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his data. I simply point out that he has a stated agenda that is to prove that global warming is not man made, rather than investigating the cause of it.

I've read a good bit of his website, read many critiques, and have failed to find any "stated agenda that is to prove that global warming is not man made." His direct competitor (RSS), uses the same raw data from the same NASA satellites and has produced produced similar temps. In the latest versions of the two datasets, Spencer's (UAH) temps were a bit lower than RSS, but in their respective earlier versions, Spencer's were higher. So if you are correct that Spencer has a religious "agenda," then whoever is running the RSS program must have one too. Spencer's expert opinion is that since the sat data shows less of a warming trend than the terrestrial datasets, the warming is more consistent with natural as opposed to human forces. But he agrees that humans have played a role, and that AGW exists.

How does this all square with someone who's religious beliefs purportedly skew his scientific work? This has been bandied about many times before in this thread & others, but the accusations never seem to get beyond mere insinuation. Do you have something new that has not yet been uncovered?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by swampbush

There are plenty of others who have issue with his data. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his data. I simply point out that he has a stated agenda that is to prove that global warming is not man made, rather than investigating the cause of it.

sounds about normal don't like the science so you attack the scientist .

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sounds about normal don't like the science so you attack the scientist .

Actually I went looking for scientists that were on both sides of AGW. Roy Spencer is one of the few meterologists on his side of the debate. So worth a look I thought. But then I started to look at why others disagreed with him, and I found it easily. He seems to me to cherry pick data to fit his agenda, although a fair bit of that goes on from both sides.
The agenda of the Cornwall Alliance is clear, and Spencer is a signatory according to them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by swampbush

Actually I went looking for scientists that were on both sides of AGW. Roy Spencer is one of the few meterologists on his side of the debate. So worth a look I thought. But then I started to look at why others disagreed with him, and I found it easily. He seems to me to cherry pick data to fit his agenda, although a fair bit of that goes on from both sides.
The agenda of the Cornwall Alliance is clear, and Spencer is a signatory according to them.

you really didn't dig to deep did you.
How about Christy or Currie they are both also well respected scientists as is Dr spencer

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really didn't dig to deep did you.

How about Christy or Currie they are both also well respected scientists as is Dr spencer

The deeper I dig the worse it looks for him.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by swampbush

The deeper I dig the worse it looks for him.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

After reading just the first sentence of that link, it seems the only thing you're interested in digging is s**t.



The person it looks the worse for, is you,

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

After reading just the first sentence of that link, it seems the only thing you're interested in digging is s**t.



The person it looks the worse for, is you,

Exactly what I was thinking! Except it was the first two sentences that did it for me.

"Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a proponent of Intelligent Design."

So a former top-level NASA scientist who pioneered a new technology for measuring the earth's temperature is a "crank," a religious zealot and "denialist," and has apparently been diagnosed with a psychological disorder. Hey, that sounds exactly what we'd read on CF from the usual posters demanding "facts" and "research."

I think it's entirely reasonable to question the guy's bias given his outspoken religious beliefs and associations with organizations which oppose the mainstream AGW agenda. There are many who also reasonably question the motives of leading scientists on the other side because of their lefty politics, along with the prestige and renumeration they've garnered for the opinions they hold. But without any actual evidence that such beliefs or personal benefits are corrupting their actual science, I don't see how one can put such faith in websites that are basically just engaged in libel. Got a more credible source?