Spencer is correct that the conventional monitoring stations use thermometers that were never designed to measure temperatures in tenths of a degree or of higher resolutions. The rest of his statements on this is both fallacious and disingenuous. His saying that the thermometers are of non research quality is disingenuous. The siting stations have their instruments calibrated and properly positioned. Those that are not so maintained are brought into question and the data produced from then are further analyzed to determine if they fall too far outside the range of the nearby monitoring stations and their data. Spencer, and you by quoting him, suggests that monitoring stations are set in place without any regard to their siting and without any assurance as to if the instruments are in proper working condition. That is just being fallacious and out right LIE. Then there is the, ".... in-filled with fictitious data." Spencer, nor you, can justify the use of the word "fictitious" in the statement. He, nor you, offer any evidence of such. He makes a blind statement that he expects all to believe to be true. Do you believe it be true, Ottawa Mike?
When reading Spencer's article he immediately makes the claim that 2014 will not be the warmest year on record. "I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record." Then, a very few sentences later, he says this, "And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern...". Well, that should cover all of the bases for the year 2014. Do you not think so?
Spencer is using the RSS data, which measures the lower tropospheric temperatures. The RSS data coes not incorporate the ocean warming nor the poles. These are the areas that have shown the greatest amount of warming over the past decade or so. Sure, through out this data and Spencer might be able to make his claim, but it is a false claim.
Spencer then says, "...our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:". What? Wait! The first thing that catches my eye is the often claimed, "no global warming for 16 (or whatever) years!". Now Spencer is saying that the year 2010 as well as the year 1998 (the denier's favorite cherry picked year) were warmer than 2014? Does not 2010 happen 12 years after 1998? Where is this cry of 16 years of no global warming coming from then? Again, Spencer is just talking about the lower tropospheric temperatures. Does our planet only consist of its lower troposphere? The poles do not exist? The lower layers of the oceans do not exist?
Spencer then goes on to say, "With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.". Is this just a clever choice of words to add some credence to what he is saying overall? Does it matter when he he is factually incorrect on the overall warming of the planet?
Keep trying, Ottawa Mike. So far all you have done is to show that Spencer truly is a whack job and that you do not understand Science. Neither of you have yet to show how the AGWT violates any of the Laws of Physics. You both circumvent evidence in order to promote your individual ideologies. Well, at least you are consistent with this. Lord help us all if you were to ever have an original thought.
Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The measure a larger, higher depth of the troposphere. When you measure different things you get different results.
I hope you are not seriously quoting Spencer. You posted his quote as a joke right? Always-wrong-Roy Spencer is not taken seriously anymore because of the number of times he has embarrassed himself by being wrong. It took him 15 years to correct his data for diurnal and even longer to get the stratospheric bias removed from his data. It's funny that in the essay you link he complains that the science community pays him no attention anymore and he blames politics -- the reason is because nobody trusts Always-Wrong-Roy anymore. I regularly look at his data because it is readily available, but as both you and he pointed out he has become irrelevant among climatologists. His data may be largely fixed by now, I don't know, but his credibility is so shot that his rants about accuracy are laughable.
On his point about the precision of early thermometers; it doesn't make any significant difference! Even if the early records were taken to the nearest degree, the errors would average out. It's the same principle as rolling a dice in that, regardless of the individual results, the average will tend towards 3.5 for a large number of throws. And we are talking of very large numbers of individual thermometer readings!
As for the rest of his points, I'll just take your kind offer and call him a creationist whackjob!
Wow - Clearly you hit a nerve. These global warming "scientists" want to hand pick the method that best gets them to the conclusion they are seeking. Do wonder they are choosing the least accurate measurement systems.
Spencer was kicked out of NASA for a good reason
and he's a creationist
you value his opinion why?
satellite data is not temperatures.
EDIT: Mike.. Calibration sounds like tampering with data. The satellite date is NOT temperatures. Spencer had a number of problems and looked ridiculous to his peers.
I will provide Dr. Roy Spencer's opinion regarding this question:
"The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data."
"Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds."
Read the whole thing here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/
You could address some or all of Spencer's points and add some technical thoughts of your own or you could simply call him a Creationist whackjob and move on.
On a related note, a Goggle News search on 2014 Hottest Year Ever yields 229,000 hits. And the year isn't even over yet!!
As a secondary question, what data set are all those reports based on?
