Climate Denier’s Fave Scientist Admits: March Temperatures Record High

April 2, 2016

spencer040216

Roy Spencer has had an enviable career, in that he has made a name for himself, mostly on the strength of being wrong.
Failing up is a time honored tradition among those who carry water for the one percent, as George Bush and others have so unably demonstrated. So it is with Roy and his partner, John Christy,  whom I’ve christened as the “Ned Flanders of climate denial.”
Nobody would ever have heard of either of them, and they certainly would not be frequent witnesses for legislators anxious to please fossil fuel donors,  except for their stubborn insistence that the planet was cooling, then that it was not warming, then that, ok, it was warming, but not as fast as crazy alarmists say, and finally, ooops….

Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog:

NOTE: This is the twelfth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2016 is +0.73 deg. C, down a little from the February record-setting value of +0.83 deg. C (click for full size version). This makes March 2016 the warmest March in the satellite record (since 1979), and statistically tied with April 1998 for the second warmest month.

Not surprisingly, comments are closed.

They like to complain about “well funded” videos attacking them. Like this one.

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Climate Denier’s Fave Scientist Admits: March Temperatures Record High”

  1. neilrieck Says:

    Ned Flanders. That just cracks me up 🙂

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Me too, as does the uncanny resemblance between Spencer and that total whacko Adrian Vance, who seems to have disappeared from Crock.

      If temps continue to increase in 2016, perhaps Spencer and “Ned” will finally go away also,


      • Ideology doesn’t go away. It’ll merely reinvent itself and continue to until every molecule of hydrocarbon that can be profitably burnt, has been! That doesn’t mean it will be, just that Crocks will probably still be going in twenty years time.

      • neilrieck Says:

        Not sure about Ned but Spencer is still cranking out nonsense at that politically motivated non-think-tank known as the “George C Marshal Institute”. ( http://marshall.wpengine.com/?s=spencer ).

        It’s a funny thing about these organizations in that when they get caught with their pants down they just morph into something else. Many would claim that the Marshall Institute ended operations in 2015 but it now appears they just changed their name. ( http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029290 ).

        I was under the impression that Spencer was getting $700k per year as a “board member/contributor” of the Marshal Institute but perhaps that income source dried up after the Guardian published some damning emails from an interchange between William Happer and someone a Greenpeace posing as a Saudi oilman.

        The Marshal Institute might be listed as a non-profit (501c) organization but cranking out counterfactuals was very profitable for the people associated with it.

    • paulie200 Says:

      The first two sentences were pretty good quips too, had me laughing.

  2. Tom Bates Says:

    You do not suppose the El Nino had anything to do with the higher temperature do you? Naw, the world is coming to an end and we must throw a whole lot of virgins in the Volcano God in Hawaii to save mankind. It would be interesting to see how the earlier version of the UAH calculated the temperature and if all those temperatures back to 1979 were redone in this version. it is called reality checking and nobody does that anymore. RSS using the same data shows no spike and STAR using the same data shows a decrease so what we have is mostly likely a software glitch.

  3. Torsten Says:

    Tom Bates sez “It would be interesting to see how the earlier version of the UAH calculated the temperature and if all those temperatures back to 1979 were redone in this version.

    It’s not hard to do, if you are truly interested. The UAH version 5.6 lower troposphere data can be found here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
    (They only go to the end of February as of today.)

    And charting the time series yields this:

    The RSS Time Series Trend Browse Tool (default setting for lower troposphere) can be found here:
    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    The STAR site is here:
    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/

    They don’t show a trace for the lower troposphere (that part of the atmosphere in which we live). Once again, Tom sees a declining stratospheric temperature, and thinks this is a sign of global cooling, when it is what is expected if the cause of surface warming is increased atmospheric CO2.

    Tom also sez “ it is called reality checking and nobody does that anymore“. I do this all the time. It’s too bad that the average denier such as is too lazy to do it. Or simply innumerate


  4. Spencer even got this wrong and had to be corrected by a commenter:

    oz4caster April 1, 2016 at 4:40 pm
    Roy, thanks for the timely update. A minor nitpick, but I’m guessing that March 2016 is statistically tied with April 1998 for the second highest temperature anomaly, rather than temperature (since globally April is typically higher in temperature than March and thus if the anomalies are the same, then the April 1998 temperature will be higher than the March 2016 temperature).

    Roy Spencer April 2, 2016 at 3:59 am
    yes, you are right.


  5. And speaking of Roy Spencer comments, did anyone else see this one in WUWT when Bob Carter died? Spencer is actually admitting the deniers are dying out and there will be no one to replace either Spencer or Christyat UAH.

    Roy Spencer January 19, 2016 at 12:07 pm
    Bob was a great guy, a class act.

    And I fear this is the beginning of the end. There are only a handful of us skeptics who publish in mainstream journals, our average age probably exceeds 60 now, and young researchers risk their careers if they go down the skeptic route…they simply won’t get funded. For example, we have no one to take over production of the UAH satellite dataset when John Christy and I are gone.

    As Marc Morano recently said, we win the science battles but we’re losing the war on the political front. Our only hope is that the public is still largely on our side…but it remains to be seen whether that even matters anymore in the policy arena.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      morano interviewed here

      • dumboldguy Says:

        And Morono is as delusional as ever. How do you so easily manage to get him to expose himself? If I were him, I’d run from you rather than sit down and spout delusional BS and look the fool.

        He says the deniers are “winning the debate scientifically” but losing it politically? Has the thought ever occurred to him that the reason they are losing politically is because they are actually first losing on the science? That the public is seeing how they’ve been manipulated by the Merchants of Doubt and accepting AGW more and more, and the only reason it took so long is that the whores for fossil fuel like him, Spencer, and “Ned” have managed to confuse the issue (with the collusion of the politicians and the media)? You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc, and we are watching that play out now.

        Yes, Roy is correct, and all the sick old denier farts are dying off, and there is no one to replace them because Exxon and the Kochs are being exposed and will not be able for much longer to pay for whores—-that twisted logic line about “young researchers risk their careers if they go down the skeptic route…they simply won’t get funded” is the laugh of the day.


      • Speaking of Peter speaking of “Not surprisingly, comments are closed”, is this proof that Peter does not read Dr Spencer’s blog all that carefully? Dr Spencer stated quite specifically why comments no longer appear there, and his decision does not have one thing to do with AGW critics: “Blog Comments Suspended” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/blog-comments-suspended/

        So will Peter amend his post here with apologies to Dr Spencer along with an explanation of just what the heck that Doug Cotten commenter at Spencer’s blog was all about? Or is this new urban legend of Spencer being ‘afraid to debate AGW believers’ going to continue to fester?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          No Russell, IMO the “not surprisingly, comments are closed” comment by Peter is just some appropriate mocking of Spencer by Peter, as is “Spencer has had an enviable career, in that he has made a name for himself, mostly on the strength of being wrong”, and “Failing up is a time honored tradition among those who carry water for the one percent, as George Bush and others have so unably demonstrated”. Funny stuff, along with hanging the “Ned Flanders” tag on Christy.

          I think that Spencer is simply and conveniently using that moron Doug Cotton as an excuse to avoid talking to ANYONE about the inadequacies of Spencer’s and Christy’s “theories” and their lying before Congress. A mere straw man to hide his real purpose.

          Spencer could keep trying to ban Cotton from the site and NOT answer any queries about Cotton—-maybe have a stock reply like “Cotton is a maniac who hijacks sites with his crazy science—ignore him. I will not respond to any of his comments or to any questions about him”. Others have had to deal with Cotton coming to their sites and have NOT shut off all comments.

          You and Spencer are birds of a feather, and are both just hiding from dealing with the truth. His excuse sounds very much like YOUR excuse for allowing no comments on that POS site you created and rant on—-the GobSpitfiles. Here’s your evasive “no comments allowed” BS verbatim—Russell says:

          [ * 10/28/14 Author’s note: I endorse the pledge of Transparency, Accountability, and Openness as advocated at the TAO of Journalism web site, but in a bit of full disclosure, I don’t feel I can sign the pledge because of my reluctance to allow all varieties of so-called ‘open dialog’ comments to be placed at my blog posts – which that site’s pledge mandates. But is my lack of time to deal with comments as questionable as the LA Times’ refusal to allow comments from “climate change deniers”?]

          (I love the sheer audacity of that whole thing, particularly the last sentence where you conflate your “reluctance” and “lack of time” with the LA Times refusal to print lying bullshit from deniers like you. Brilliant evasion and deflection but very sick. I LMAO every time I read that).

          So, it appears that Spencer, like you, really IS now “afraid to debate AGW believers” on his site, and IMO the only thing Peter needs to apologize for is not banning YOU from Crock.


    • “For example, we have no one to take over production of the UAH satellite dataset when John Christy and I are gone.”

      Why doesn’t Exxon pick up that ball and run with it? After all, Exxon demonstrated *decades ago* that it knows how to fund and manage a top-notch climate-research program.

      And as for young researchers “risking their careers”?

      Exxon could easily provide solid career paths for “skeptical” up-and-coming scientists. If there really were a scientifically-credible case to be made against limiting CO2 emissions, Exxon would make it rain $$$ for the next generation of Spencer/Christy skeptics.

      So why isn’t Exxon stepping up to the plate and ponying up those $$$?. (That’s a rhetorical question, BTW.)


  6. Actually I found it quite interesting reading Roy Spencer’s explanation of his new algorithm. Pretty easy to get a bit lost in it but a few things really do stick out a bit for me.

    One is just how complex the retrieval corrections seem to be. When you consider the errors that can be involved and how small the signal to noise ratio effectively is and how little redundancy there is available to average things out its amazing that any useful trend can be reliably extracted! But at least he has spent the time trying to explain it.

    Secondly is his comment about how many of the satellites,especially in recent times, are unusable because of calibration or sensor problems.

    And thirdly about how making things agree was in some cases done empirically rather than based on modelling of the physics.

    And this is supposed to be the “gold standard” in temperature modelling??


  7. […] comments from the WUWT (Anthony Watts blog, HQ for online climate denial lunacy) copy and paste of Roy Spencer’s latest article about the UAH lower troposphere record. There was much speculation about the reappearance of a […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: