https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views
Another interpretation of this post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat...
(also see ovis's link in a reply below)
Regarding very similar claims:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-do...
It's been speculated on RealClimate that Roy Spencer is continuing to use the highest emission scenario for these comparisons, which is not made clear on his site.
The graph from the last article you linked to: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
The graph from the OP: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mode...
In both cases the actuals are at the low end of the predicted range. They disagree as to how low, obviously, but not as much as I expected.
"If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter." He must be blissfully unaware of how badly the oceans are being affected right now by our impact.
This sentence really needs to cite actual data. "The oceans" are a pretty big place. And "localized" and "average" data are not comparable in any relevant sense given the scale.
Even if you could measure the energy in the ocean to that level of precision (unlikely) your time series data would be so limited so as to present caution in its reference, when discussin the context of global climate history.
It wasn't that long ago when John Muir was fighting the academic climate orthoxy over the sources of Yosemite valley. Its not a partisian or intellectual issue, its merely that data talks and bullshit walks. Muir did alot of walking to get his data, and argued alot with people that sat around theorizing talked alot of bullshit.
Its always worth a little bit of perspective.
Conceived in 1999, this program has been running for more than 10 years now and we do have precise measurements of the energy in the ocean. We also do have less precise measurements before the program.
Sure, it would be better if we had more robots and more observation history, but we do have enough data to do the analysis.
"The total volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi)[7] with an average depth of 3,682 metres (12,080 ft).[8]"
> 3x10^8 cubic miles vs 3x10^3 instruments
> Instrument cannot reach even ~average depth
> 10 years of data
Certainly, it is a start. But...
There is a huge amount about the oceans that we do not know and cannot measure with requisite precision. Understanding the difference between surface temperatures and the actual thermal potential of the earths oceans are two different tasks. EG, due to sub-surface thermal venting there are many areas of the deep ocean that don't at all look like surface temps. {etc} So there is huge potential for the oceans to do unexpected things. For all we know, plate tectonics may be driving huge amounts of thermal energy variation in the deep ocean...and a "proper climate model" would likely need to understand this at some stage. This really goes to the core of the question of the oceans as a heat-sink.
I also think, while imperfect, our information is good enough to support "Earth is heating, the heat is mostly(>90%) going to the ocean" claim.
[#] In general, a useful thought experiment is consider the same way that the fin's on an air-cooled ICE are relevant to the thermal dynamics of the cylinder of a 4s motor. In other words, an air-cooled ICE and a water-cooled ICE with a busted radiator are going to do different things going forward from the same datapoint. That forward looking understanding presumes the mechanic has a handle on what type of engine his thermostat is hooked up to. None of this is intended to belittle the value of the data. But to emphasise the meaning of context and actual expertise in how it is used.
We all know politicians and scientific data tend not to mix objectively.
Ban gym class! Ban exercise!
[1] http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-ac...