I received the following challenge this morning that deserves a thorough response.
(For a more authoritative description of what's going on I've embedded a short interview with Jennifer Francis PhD who's been studying this particular phenomena for a long time.)
On top of that, we shouldn't forget that the melting Arctic ice cap means more ocean is exposed to the sun's insolation, causing massive amounts of heat to be diffused into the ocean and water vapor to be injected into the atmosphere. Where such a thing hasn't happened in eon's. What it means, remains subject to debate, but you can be sure it's going to include torrential down-pours and further disruption of those cycles and weather patterns humanity was nurtured on and depends on for everything. The casual disregard for the complexity and vulnerability of our society's infrastructure astounds me.
Take a look:
Myths sorted by taxonomy
courtesy of skepticalscience.com
Rod seems to put much reliance on Roy Spencer though his mistakes and knowingly misleading utterances over the years are as egregious as they get. I think of the Self-Certain Rods who relentlessly hound Dr. Mann for minor (and acknowledged) imperfections in his team's pioneering work, if these zealots were to apply those standards of expectation to Dr. Roy Spencer the man would be rotting in jail. But nah, he passes their political litmus text, so he's an accepted authority on everything and no misrepresentation is too egregious.
Many have looked into the work and products of this Roy Spencer, below you will find a sampling of what they have found.
Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate
Abraham et al. show that a paper by ‘sceptics’ Spencer & Braswell is rife with unrealistic assumptions in an overly simple model
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob:
Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
Roy Spencer has a post up where he writes:"I prefer to compare us [John Christy and he] to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food."
I hear this from contrarians a lot. It refers to the finding by Marshall and Warren that peptic ulcers weren't caused by stress or food, as was once thought, but by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori. It's also a favorite talking point of Oregon's resident climate denier, Gordon Fulks (here, here, here).
It seems that Spencer and Fulks think the peptic ulcer example shows that any and all consensus is science is wrong -- or, at least, the couple of consensuses they disagree with. (Perhaps it also means they think they deserve a Nobel Prize, as was shared by Marshall and Warren in 2005.)
If Roy Spencer or Gordon Fulks wants to disprove AGW, or show it's not a serious concern, they have to show why it's not a serious concern. With evidence and with science. That's all. But they can't simply refer to some historical scientific idea that was disproven as if it gives their claims about AGW any weight. It doesn't.
There is no disproof by proxy. If contrarians want to prevail in the debate, they need to produce evidence and science that is convincing. Not just convincing to them -- because it's too easy to fool oneself -- or to just their buddies who all live in the same bubble -- but convincing to the scientific community. That has worked in science since it began -- indeed, it's how the peptic ulcer claims themselves were corrected -- by hard work, better evidence, and superior science. … link to the full story
- Clouds provide negative feedback
- Dropped stations introduce warming bias
- IPCC is alarmist
- It's only a few degrees
- Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
- Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming
- Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
- No long tail means climate sensitivity is low
- Record snowfall disproves global warming
- Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
- Satellites show no warming in the troposphere