Roy Spencer Climate Skeptic Speaks
obozn
friends!
October 7 2008
QUOTE: Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I
think the IPCC made a big mistake. They're pandering to the public not
understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent they make it sound
like they've come up with some kind of objective, independent,
quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It
isn't. All it is is a statement of faith
QUOTE: Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and
Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like
this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is
them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is
garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they
don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
QUOTE: And I think there's still substantial uncertainty in how much
it's actually warmed.
QUOTE: The direction we're going on policy is going to kill millions of
people for no good reason. As it is environmentalists have already
killed millions of people for no good reason, with the DDT ban.
QUOTE: I think the assumption that CO2 is necessarily bad is a
philosophical assumption, not a scientific statement. Nature has picked
a certain balance, but I don't see it as preordained, or necessarily the
best balance. If you talk to some plant physiologists they make it sound
like life on Earth is actually starved for CO2.
QUOTE: If you and other global warming skeptics are right, and the IPCC
is wrong, why do so many scientists feel so strongly about climate
change?
Most scientists don't understand the big picture, and they are willing
to defer to the climate modelers
QUOTE: If you talk to most of the scientists who are ardent about the
issue, they have a political or ideological worldview that says mankind
needs to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a religious belief
and it's widespread in the scientific community.
QUOTE: Congress gives money to study problems. If manmade global warming
is a problem, that's what the money goes to. If manmade global warming
isn't a problem there's a risk of losing a lot of funding.
Roy Spencer, visited Houston today to give a talk sponsored by the
conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Spencer, a team leader on
NASA's Aqua satellite, believes natural cycles account for most of last
century's warming, with carbon dioxide increases contributing only a
modest amount.
He also unveiled new research, which has been submitted to Geophysical
Research Letters for publication, which appears to show that climate
models overstate the positive feedback from more carbon dioxide, and
therefore grossly overstate the projected warming during the next
century. Spencer says his work suggests the Earth will warm by about 1
degree Fahrenheit or less during the next century, not the 4 to 8
degrees projected by the IPCC process. Careful readers will spot some of
the questions suggested by readers.
The IPCC estimates there's a 5 to 10 percent chance they're wrong about
mankind's impact on global temperatures --
Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think
the IPCC made a big mistake. They're pandering to the public not
understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent they make it sound
like they've come up with some kind of objective, independent,
quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It
isn't. All it is is a statement of faith. Sorry for the rant.
That's OK. But wasn't it part of their mandate to put probabilities on
global warming?
I think they do need to have statements that will convey their
confidence. But I think using numbers is misleading because it makes it
sound more accurate than it is.
Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like
this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is
them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is
garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they
don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
With the current attitudes toward skeptics, then, can such viewpoints
still get published in major climate and science journals?
We're finding, the only place I'm submitting right now is Geophysical
Research Letters. The American Geophysical Union is still kind of open
minded. They've come out with a policy statement that goes along with
the IPCC, but it seems like their editorial policy for their journals is
still pretty flexible. But again I don't think there's that much good
skeptic science going on right now. There's a lot of good ideas, but
nobody's funded to do anything.
Is it simply a funding issue, then?
I think that's a huge part of it. Congress gives money to study
problems. If manmade global warming is a problem, that's what the money
goes to. If manmade global warming isn't a problem there's a risk of
losing a lot of funding.
How good would you say we are, today, at determining an average global
temperature?
We do pretty good job with that right now. It doesn't matter what the
absolute number is, because you can ask, "Well, do you mean at sea
level, or at a 2-meter height above the Earth's surface, or do you mean
the temperature of the Earth's skin, or do you mean a deep layer
temperature?" With the satellites we get really good agreement between
two satellites that are taking independent measurements. So we have
really good measurements of year-to-year changes. So we can say that
this year really was so many hundredths of a degree warmer or cooler
than last year. The problem comes in determining long-term trends. I
think the most significant thing to talk about what's happened during
the last 100 years. And I think there's still substantial uncertainty in
how much it's actually warmed.
So if not mankind, then what accounts for the 0.7 degrees Celsius, or
so, of warming during the last century? From your talk you seem to point
to natural warming, and specifically cycles such as the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation.
That was just the first one I looked at from among the main modes of
natural climate variability. So I'm not necessarily hanging my hat on
the PDO. What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible, and I think
likely, that natural modes of climate variability have associated cloud
changes. All it takes is a 1 or 2 percent change in global cloudiness
and you can get this warming and cooling for decades upon decades, for a
century.
For you is there any observation that would make you believe humans are
causing the planet to warm significantly?
In order to have a smoking gun we would have to have about 50 years of
really accurate satellite temperature data. It's even questionable
whether the satellite data we have from the last seven years, which are
our best, are good enough. But I think 50 years of satellite
measurements would do it. But we don't have it.
The global temperature trend since the year 2000 has been relatively
flat. Have you seen any change in climate scientists' point of view as a
result? Does this cause them consternation?
Not that I know of. I think too much is being made of that. I don't use
that, or see that as any evidence that global warming has stopped.
Because if you just look at the last 30 years we've had periods of no
temperature increase for 7 or 8 years. That's because of natural climate
variability on top of the global warming signal, whatever the global
warming signal is due to. So I don't point to that.
That's interesting, because I think some people are surprised by that.
Really?
Yes, if you tell someone the planet hasn't warmed appreciably since the
year 2000 they're often surprised. I see the global temperature trend in
the same light as the Arctic Sea Ice, something simple that's iconic for
the entire issue of global warming, something simple to serve as a proxy
for much more complex scientific issues.
I do think that if it doesn't start warming for another five to 10
years, I think scientists will start questioning the theory, too.
In Science, in 2005, you, John Christy and others admitted there was a
correction needed in some of your data. Has that actually been
incorporated into your temperature data?
Yes. I can't believe this keeps coming up. We made the corrections. It's
a non-issue although it's one the BBC, I think it was two weekends ago,
they had a special and they interviewed skeptics. It was a hit piece. I
remember them interviewing me for two hours, and they kept asking me
about this whole satellite data thing and basically what they wanted me
to do was admit on camera that I made a mistake. Which I did, and we
corrected it. That's science. But that's all the BBC showed from the
interview.
You've argued that temperature doesn't necessarily move in lock step
with carbon dioxide emissions. But it's still not a good idea to emit
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were 270 parts per million in
the atmosphere. We're now at 385 or 390 ppm. Big greenhouses run CO2 at
1,000 ppm. I think the assumption that CO2 is necessarily bad is a
philosophical assumption, not a scientific statement. Nature has picked
a certain balance, but I don't see it as preordained, or necessarily the
best balance. If you talk to some plant physiologists they make it sound
like life on Earth is actually starved for CO2. I think that is a
position that ought to be impassionately considering, rather than
automatically assuming that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is bad
because that is not a scientific statement.
If you and other global warming skeptics are right, and the IPCC is
wrong, why do so many scientists feel so strongly about climate change?
Most scientists don't understand the big picture, and they are willing
to defer to the climate modelers. The climate modelers are willing to
put all of the different pieces together into the climate model. And
then the climate model is supposed to magically give you the answer.
I'll bet a lot of the scientists are skeptical, but they won't admit it
publicly. If you talk to most of the scientists who are ardent about the
issue, they have a political or ideological worldview that says mankind
needs to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a religious belief
and it's widespread in the scientific community.
So how did scientists like James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and others gain
ascendancy in the scientific community and become spokesmen for the
issue, when not all scientists support their views?
By making bold statements. And what kind of statements get reported on
in the media?
What's it like being a skeptic in this field, in the year 2008?
Well, as I get older I have less and less energy. So this debate helps
keep me awake. This wouldn't be important if it weren't for the policy
implications. The direction we're going on policy is going to kill
millions of people for no good reason. As it is environmentalists have
already killed millions of people for no good reason, with the DDT ban.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/10/post_55.html
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
: "They don't tell you, that, in their computer models, it's assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It's garbage in,
garbage out. If you don't program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University