Roy Spencer

>> Not sure how this would even be accomplished.

Essentially an end to fossil-fuel combustion as far as is technologically feasible. A large-scale rollout of nuclear power, replacing literally everything, with enough capacity to cover the peaks. Large-scale electric vehicle rollout where feasible, large-scale synthetic-liquid fuel (derived from nuclear energy and atmospheric sources) rolled out where direct electric is infeasible (colder climates and aircraft).

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jrse/4/3/10.1063/1.4719723

There is no technical impediment to a large-scale nuclear rollout. We literally have unlimited power at our fingertips and we cannot find the will to use it. The only thing we need is the political will to solve the waste disposal problem - which is another of those problems that humanity refuses to solve until their house is burning down. Between reprocessing and our geologically-sound repositories we can easily solve the problem until we have cheap and reliable launch capability in 50-100 years (eg launch loop) and launch it into the sun. Arguably we have that now - the Atlas-V has done 106 consecutive successful launches now.

This is actually why I say that we need to solve energy consumption on a long-term basis as well. Nuclear is so good that we will literally poison our planet with waste heat unless we preemptively solve that problem. Depending on your figures the impact of waste heat is between 1% and 50% as significant as the…

> You ask for us to lie?

No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change.

> Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks.

The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher.

Some of that data is reviewed in

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#

The way too high predictions are plotted in

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

> Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming

Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature…

You can't see predictions come true by watching the news because, as climatologists love to say every time there's a cold snap, climate isn't weather. And they're right. Climatology is all about long term averages. Unfortunately whenever there's a fire or hot spell somewhere on Earth, they stay rather silent whilst the media and even their colleagues ignore this and use it to ramp up the fear factor yet again. For example the recent hot weather in western Europe should be recalled with colder/wetter than average weather last year, and in other parts of the world this year. Also note that the news never reports on climate-related good news (the recent coral growth being a rare exception).

The models have always over-estimated warming. Things haven't been warming faster than they predicted, they've warmed slower. Claims to the contrary are the sort of retroactive rewriting of history that makes climatology seem so untrustworthy. If you plot model predictions against reality you get charts like these:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

The blue dotted line is satellite observations. The green dotted line is temperature as measured by averaging surface level thermometers from weather stations. Notice how those two measurements don't agree at all. That's because the surface datasets are heavily corrupted by various factors (ask for details if you're curious). But also notice that both are running well below the…

Knowledge needs to be cheaper to verify than to produce. Otherwise it's simply not worthwhile to produce at all. Choosing to trust "authority" doesn't fix anything. One still has to be the smartest person in the world at determining who's right.

If you show me a battery you say lasts longer, I can verify your claim quite easily. If it doesn't last longer, without knowing a single thing about batteries, I have every reason to believe I'm right and you're wrong. There's a chance I am in fact wrong, but I'll be expecting you to put in the effort to convince me otherwise.

If someone tells me to significantly change my life based off their climate models, and they laughably fail [0], I have every reason to believe they don't have a good climate model. If they don't have a good explanation, and even worse, get angsty when asked for one, I'm out.

It's perfectly possible some small group of people or even an individual possesses knowledge that could save the world from imminent destruction or produce some great benefit. But if there's no way to verify such knowledge, there's no reason to care about it.

[0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Tropical-LT-1536x864.jpg

Thanks ctstover for getting the ball rolling...

An even more egregious quote is "Last week, I wrote about new evidence that shows Earth’s climate system has moved into an unprecedented state over the last several months, at least since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago."

We have no exact data on what temperatures were like during the Medieval Warm Period or other earlier warm periods (Roman and Minoan, both less than 4000 years ago). There is no way to say whether or not El Niño conditions caused higher spikes during those times, but it's highly likely they did based on simple statistics.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png

The other rather important data is that the biggest spike in average global temperature during the 1998 El Niño was considerably higher than the current spike so far. In fact, so far this spike has not even topped 2010.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2015_v6.png

In short, this is breathless hype from Salon, promoting climate related panic in the hopes of pushing through a globalist agenda at the upcoming climate conference. Shameful!

I'm typically not a fan of ad hominem dismissals, but I think there are exceptions for climatologists that say;

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

Or;

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Dude's a quack. A well-trained quack to be sure, but still a quack.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/