2011-09-02 03:37:37More 'fun' with Roy Spencer
Julian Brimelow

I just can't help it, his reasoning is so flawed it is beyond belief!  This cannot go unnoticed or unchallanged....


You say <i>"Well, what *I* deny is that we can say with any level of certainty how much of our recent warmth is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability."</i>
What an intriguing statement because you, on this very blog have asserted very confidently that:
<i>"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!"</i>
And you are also on the record saying that:

<i>"A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the <b>Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – <b>including three-quarters of the warming trend.</b>"</i>

So you seem to believe that one can state confidently and with much certainty that most of the observed warming is attributable to internal climate variability, but that one cannot state with any level of certainty how much of the warming is attributable to the radiative forcing from anthro GHGs.  A very curious belief that you hold there, and yet another logical fallacy.

Also, what do you then think of the claim made by Loehle and Scarfetta (2011) that,<i>"About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by this natural 60-year [solar] climatic cycle during its warming phase."</i>
Now this is getting confusing Roy, because "skeptics" are claiming with much certainty that 60% of the observed warming is because of natural variability of <b>external forcing</b>.  So there is a problem and inconsistency here, you are claiming confidently that this is because of <b>internal forcing or variability</b>, while other 'skeptics' are loudly claiming that the warming is from an <b>external forcing cycle</b>.  So which is it?  By your logic Loehle and Scarfetta must be wrong-- if so, I and others would agree with you.

I am sure that I could find many more examples of such inconsistencies and logical fallacies made by self-styled 'skeptics'.
You also make this unsubstantiated claim:<i>"I would say that it is Mr. Gore who is the “climate denier”, since he denies the role of nature in climate variability".</i>
Even if what you claim is true, more relevant though is that this is not a position held by your fellow climate scientists, and you know that.  You are arguing a strawman Roy."

2011-09-02 06:09:24
Dana Nuccitelli

Technically L&S propose astronomical, not solar cycles (that Jupiter and Saturn nonsense), but either way it's an external forcing.

As the Aussies would say, good on ya' for taking Spencer to task for his double standards and self-contradictions, Alby :-)

2011-09-02 06:41:30


A friend pointed me to this old paper on Jupiter and Saturn cycles. Apparently the idea is not new.

2011-09-02 07:45:46
Julian Brimelow

Hi Dana,

Thanks, didn't thinki I had it quite right, but as you note the main point still stands.

Hi Riccardo, thanks for the paper.