Posted on 11/23/2009 9:39:37 PM PST by JohnRLott
That explains nothing; why should CO2 be where this graph shows it? It’s too late to defend the claimed certainty based on the complexity, complexity drives uncertainty.
The Mauna Loa CO2 record is the only data now not subject to great scrutiny; it is the keystone of the entire edifice.
But the building will crumble where the bricks and mortar turn to powder.
For this tower reaching into the sky, the masons now need to mix up some new mortar.
It's a demonstration of human influence on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
Particular note should be paid to the discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971).
I'm not trying or going to try to make any excuses, lame or otherwise, for the authors of the stolen email from CRU. They should have been more circumspect, partly realizing that anything they said, if made public, might get used against them. A lot of climate scientists have been profoundly naive about how this issue is being presented to the general public. It is clear that the skeptical side is dominating the debate. Science was way behind the ball in addressing the tobacco-cancer link, Scientific Creationism, and this (and several other issues of public import). Ivory tower scientists don't understand the how capable a motivated opposition can be in influence public opinion -- and they really underestimate how motivated the opposition is. And in this era of the Internet, they don't get how easily it is to spread information that you want a particular set of people to find.
The discipline of science itself has taken a massive hit over the past two weeks and it could take years for science to regain credibility with the public.
I agree.
A lot of that burden must fall on honest scientists, and the first and most important thing they must do is scream for the heads of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and the rest of the fraudsters. I guess we'll see if they have the integrity to do it....
With Pachauri calling the hackers "saboteurs", I don't see this happening directly. What they might hope is that the internal investigations lead to censure, thus forcing other scientists to take over the leading edge.
Are you a scientist?
I came pretty close and thought I would be, either academic or industrial, but when Plan A didn't work out and I tested Plan B, I found out that I didn't really have the temperament for academic science and I then followed a more lucrative, though probably more boring, Plan C. (It's in my profile.) Short answer: maybe I once was, sorta, but not now.
Sorry, no. And that is precisely the point. There are far too many factors in WARMING involved to draw any such conclusion. That CO2 causes some fraction of increase in heat deposition to the planet is obviously incontrovertible physics, but whether that increased heating will result in actual temperature increases is totally unknown.
So doesn't that heat have to go somewhere?
It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols. Only with anthropogenic forcings (including SO2 aerosols, besides greenhouse gases) can realistic results be obtained. If you take out CO2, then some other mystery factor with similar radiative forcing power has to be substituted. I've been down this road before... there isn't any other realistic factor. It's fruitless to continue discussion on this point with people that think there is. (Same goes for glacial-interglacial cycles, which is why I really want to do this in depth on my future blog.)
This quote says you don't know ANYTHING about science. ALL science is about making predictions, special relativity no less than atmospheric physics. ... And right now, the evidence is that the solar physicists are doing a better job of predicting what climate will do than the AGW climatologists.
I know about science and predictions. Part of climate science is forecasting future climate states. Relativistic physics does not do "forecasts". (If I'm wrong, enlighten me. Is it forecasting an oncoming gravity wave tsunami?) Now, solar physics is different, and they are trying their skill with forecasting. I guess we'll see how that works out over the next few years and cycles.
The physicist's models have predicted cooling. Cooling is currently happening. The climatologists have predicted warming, and warming is NOT happening.
Are you quoting from Lean and Rind 2009?
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns
"The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases."
As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record."
Checking... ahh, Judith Lean is a noted solar physicist. David Rind is a climate modeler at GISS. I'm comfortable with these predictions. (Actually, I think they're very troubling, but I'm comfortable with the accuracy of their predictions.) BTW, Rind shows up in the Climategate emails. He comes across as critical, and no friend of the "Team". Don't take my word for it, check for yourself.
Also this summary article:
Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen
Note the stuff about Latif, about halfway down. More about the Sun, from Lockwood, after that.
Sorry, but my interpretation/understanding of the archeological and historical record says that it was warmer then than at present.
Feel free to think so. I'll go with the NAS on this one.
Would you mind, just for my own understanding, lay out precisely what your academic background is in science.
It's in my profile. I didn't have the necessary mathematical acumen for a Ph.D. in chemistry; I couldn't handle physical chemistry math. I was trying for analytical chem. I dabbled in geochemistry to see if I could hack it there, but ultimately decided the pursuit of science (primarily in an academic setting) wasn't in the cards. If you think that my understanding of the subject of climate change is therefore inconsequential, that's fine. I'm not aggrieved by that.
That there was warming up until recently is correct. That for the last few years the warming has stopped, is also correct.
Well, that will make what happens next year pretty interesting, won't it? It's all up to El Nino. The ensemble mean of models is that El Nino will last into Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. If that happens, 2010 will set a new all-time global temperature record. (Big IF, of course.)
(The El Nino conditions in the Pacific just officially became an El Nino episode. I'll make a tiny little prediction here: if the following 12-month period could be compared to any other 12-month period in the instrumental record: May 2009 - April 2010: I predict that this period will be the warmest 12-month period ever recorded. I wonder if anyone in the climate science community will try that analysis in May 2010.)
Thanks for that link - - VERY interesting! I especially enjoyed the first “blue block” synopsis. That page was chock full of great lines. What is most amazing is that back then (and I was in college in the mid ‘70s, remember the hoopla quite clearly) there was no “new” media to combat the forces of global socialism that were pushing the “global cooling” myth like we have in place today, and which is in the process of debunking the “global warming” myth.
Perhaps the scientists of the time simply had more integrity? Perhaps the politicization of granting and funding scientific studies was not as corrupt (and corrupting) as it is today? Whatever the case, it is amazing how little things change over the decades, isn’t it? There’s always a “crisis” that needs to be “studied” (and that takes lots of funds and grants, naturally). Also (naturally), the press always loves a good crisis, and (even more naturally) so does big government.
Meet the new alarmists, same as the old alarmists.
FRgards,
LH
Why would I comment on something with no link to the methodology. I have no way of knowing how those specific numbers have been derived, and given the proven propensity for warming non-scientists for "cooking the books", the graph is worth precisely nothing.
"So doesn't that heat have to go somewhere?"
Sure, but there are MANY other factors involved. Not all feedbacks are positive. One may cause increased heating, one increased cooling. The delta T is the result of all this.
It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols. Only with anthropogenic forcings (including SO2 aerosols, besides greenhouse gases) can realistic results be obtained. If you take out CO2, then some other mystery factor with similar radiative forcing power has to be substituted. I've been down this road before... there isn't any other realistic factor. It's fruitless to continue discussion on this point with people that think there is. (Same goes for glacial-interglacial cycles, which is why I really want to do this in depth on my future blog.)"
Sorry, but the existing models are simply inadequate. They do not include the effect of water vapor, for which even the direction of the feedback is not known. And even your own "Team" admits (clandestinely) that their models have failed to predict current cooling. You don't believe THEIR OWN analysis???
"I know about science and predictions. Part of climate science is forecasting future climate states. Relativistic physics does not do "forecasts". (If I'm wrong, enlighten me. Is it forecasting an oncoming gravity wave tsunami?) Now, solar physics is different, and they are trying their skill with forecasting. I guess we'll see how that works out over the next few years and cycles."
Which again just proves that your knowledge of science is inadequate. Look up "theory of relativity" and "global positioning system" and then come back and tell me that "relativistic physics does not do "forecasts"".
"Are you quoting from Lean and Rind 2009?"
No.
"World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns"
And other solar physicists have made different predictions.
"It's in my profile. I didn't have the necessary mathematical acumen for a Ph.D. in chemistry; I couldn't handle physical chemistry math. I was trying for analytical chem. I dabbled in geochemistry to see if I could hack it there, but ultimately decided the pursuit of science (primarily in an academic setting) wasn't in the cards. If you think that my understanding of the subject of climate change is therefore inconsequential, that's fine. I'm not aggrieved by that."
Yup, that's pretty much my opinion. Answer just ONE chemistry question---what is the Beer-Lambert law, and how does it affect global warming??
"Well, that will make what happens next year pretty interesting, won't it? It's all up to El Nino. The ensemble mean of models is that El Nino will last into Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. If that happens, 2010 will set a new all-time global temperature record. (Big IF, of course.)
"(The El Nino conditions in the Pacific just officially became an El Nino episode. I'll make a tiny little prediction here: if the following 12-month period could be compared to any other 12-month period in the instrumental record: May 2009 - April 2010: I predict that this period will be the warmest 12-month period ever recorded. I wonder if anyone in the climate science community will try that analysis in May 2010.)"
I'll wait for the data.
Since you're so fond of Graphs, I came across an interesting set of 'human influence' type today.
Reading this just a few minutes ago reinforces my long-standing contention that the working data has been over-stretched, much like a paperclip slowly worked to the breaking point by a bored office worker might discover when it all fell apart one day.
"Around Adelaide in South Australia and Melbourne in Victoria, the land surface temperatures were up to 12 degrees Celsius (22 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in mid-November. For Adelaide, the event was the first springtime heatwave since records began in 1887, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The city had temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius (95 Fahrenheit) for 8 consecutive days. (Five days at those temperatures constitutes a heatwave). Later in the month, some areas experienced heavy rain, which broke the heatwave in some areas, but not all."
And I know that weather's not climate.
It hasn't gotten better since 2003.
One bad weather station? OK. Does that explain this?
And yet you can say: "Today's story from my home state of Louisiana--"earliest snowfall since 1938". Houston "earliest snowfall ever recorded". And the graph indicates why; it's been cold over North America -- anomalously cold. In contrast to everywhere else. Australia is mired in a horrible heat wave (also supported by the data).
Springtime Heatwave in Southeastern Australia
"So doesn't that heat have to go somewhere?"
Sure, but there are MANY other factors involved. Not all feedbacks are positive. One may cause increased heating, one increased cooling. The delta T is the result of all this.
Understood. Cloud feedbacks would be the one possibility for a significant negative feedback loop.
It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols. Only with anthropogenic forcings (including SO2 aerosols, besides greenhouse gases) can realistic results be obtained.
Sorry, but the existing models are simply inadequate. They do not include the effect of water vapor, for which even the direction of the feedback is not known.
All current research indicates positive water vapor feedback. Roy Spencer has been making noise about an alternative, but he hasn't launched it yet. Any useful climate models include positive water vapor feedback parameterized according to current knowledge.
Additional info: Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?
Now, I am generally curious. The above is the main thing I point to when I discuss the influence of CO2. It says: "However, as shown in Figure 1, models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors." I would be FLOORED if said models didn't include water vapor feedback. I think you're making an extraordinary claim here. Put me on the floor; show me the extraordinary evidence.
Here's a couple of links to help you:
Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns
And even your own "Team" admits (clandestinely) that their models have failed to predict current cooling. You don't believe THEIR OWN analysis???
I've seen most of what I think are the "high content" emails. Would you mind quoting the one (or two) in which they say that their models failed to predict the current cooling? If you're talking about Trenberth's "travesty" email, I don't think he's saying what you want him to be saying. If it's a different email, go right ahead and show me.
"I know about science and predictions. Part of climate science is forecasting future climate states. Relativistic physics does not do "forecasts".
Which again just proves that your knowledge of science is inadequate. Look up "theory of relativity" and "global positioning system" and then come back and tell me that "relativistic physics does not do "forecasts"".
I read the link, thanks. We're probably talking past each other. I read it as a prediction of effects that would be observed (and confirmation). For me, a forecast is a defined future state based on a model. Semantics can be troublesome.
And other solar physicists have made different predictions.
How do you personally evaluate which predictions are the best ones?
If you think that my understanding of the subject of climate change is therefore inconsequential, that's fine. I'm not aggrieved by that."
Yup, that's pretty much my opinion.
So, arguments from authority are the only ones that pass muster, huh? If a National Academy of Sciences Fellow makes the same arguments as I do, then you would listen to him, but not to me? If he references a paper in Science, then he knows what he's doing, and I don't? Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't automatically confer greater knowledge and understanding, and not having one doesn't mean you can't have a decent grasp of a subject. Skeptics quoted the late Michael Crichton as an authority, and belittle Gore for not being a climate scientist. I sense a double standard.
Answer just ONE chemistry question---what is the Beer-Lambert law, and how does it affect global warming??
The Beer-Lambert law describes the absorption of light by a substance in a medium. This is commonly used in spectroscopy, where the property absorbance is measured (for liquids) as a function of the path length of the measuring cell and the number of "absorbers" (which will be expressed in units of molarity). The Beer-Lambert law has different expressions for absorption of light in a solid medium or in a gas. In the atmosphere, the Beer-Lambert law is an inadequate representation of optical effects because you also have to take into account scattering and reflection from particles. However, the absorption of light (including longwave IR radiation) can in part be characterized by Beer-Lambert absorption. And if you think that this means CO2 absorption will saturate in the atmosphere, then I have a few links I can provide that explain why it doesn't, because you also have to account for changing atmospheric dynamics.
I'll wait for the data.
Apparently the WMO didn't.
"And 2009 is another of the warmest years, according to the UN's weather experts the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) which published provisional findings that this year was 0.44C above the long term average of 14C. It is expected to become the fifth warmest year since instrumental records began in 1850, the Met Office said, and will be warmer than 2008 because of the emergence of El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific Ocean which contribute to warmer temperatures. The data from the WMO shows that for large parts of southern Asia and central Africa, it will have been the warmest year on record. But north America experienced conditions that were cooler than normal - although Canadian cities Vancouver and Victoria saw new record temperatures set and Alaska had the second-warmest July on record."
The use of relativity corrections to the GPS system is precisely "a prediction of effects that would be observed (and confirmation)" which is again precisely the same as "a defined future state based on a model". There is no semantic problem.
"It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols."
We don't BEGIN to know what all the "natural forcings" ARE, much less their effects quantitatively.
"I would be FLOORED if said models didn't include water vapor feedback."
Correction. What I meant was the effect of water, not necessarily water VAPOR. Specifically cloud cover. Again, we simply do not know what the effects are sufficiently well enough to model them.
"And if you think that this means CO2 absorption will saturate in the atmosphere, then I have a few links I can provide that explain why it doesn't, because you also have to account for changing atmospheric dynamics."
Yes, I do think precisely that. And as a spectroscopist, I'm also well aware of the effects of particulate scattering and other parameters.
"So, arguments from authority are the only ones that pass muster, huh? If a National Academy of Sciences Fellow makes the same arguments as I do, then you would listen to him, but not to me? If he references a paper in Science, then he knows what he's doing, and I don't? Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't automatically confer greater knowledge and understanding, and not having one doesn't mean you can't have a decent grasp of a subject.
ROFLMAO. And you don't see that you are using precisely the argument that your fellow warmers have used to beat down virtually all the skeptics.
But if a NAS Fellow made the same arguments you did, I wouldn't believe him either, until I had checked to see if he was full of shit. I've worked with NAS Fellows on occasion, and one Nobel Laureate. And they can be mistaken too. What matters is HONEST science, because the truth WILL eventually be known. And at this point, "climate science" doesn't fit in that category.
"The data from the WMO shows that for large parts of southern Asia and central Africa, it will have been the warmest year on record. But north America experienced conditions that were cooler than normal - although Canadian cities Vancouver and Victoria saw new record temperatures set and Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.""
Your pretty graphic from the last post indicates to me what is probably going on. Simply put, the "warmers" in control of the "corrections" are "cooking the books" to show increased warming in areas in which data are not readily available for fact-checking by skeptics.
Explain to me in simple language how an Arctic that is up to 5 degrees warmer than normal can provide air masses to drive Canadian and US weather that is 5 degrees cooler than normal. This seems to be just "slightly" counterintuitive.
I will let you have the final statement on this particular subject.
"It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols."
We don't BEGIN to know what all the "natural forcings" ARE, much less their effects quantitatively.
Start with the major ones and work down the list.
"I would be FLOORED if said models didn't include water vapor feedback."
Correction. What I meant was the effect of water, not necessarily water VAPOR. Specifically cloud cover. Again, we simply do not know what the effects are sufficiently well enough to model them.
Good, had me scared there. I'd say one approach might be an ensemble of models using different cloud parameterizations, and look at the range of outputs. (Scientists rarely give up and say, "Too hard! Let's just give up.")
"And if you think that this means CO2 absorption will saturate in the atmosphere, then I have a few links I can provide that explain why it doesn't, because you also have to account for changing atmospheric dynamics."
Yes, I do think precisely that. And as a spectroscopist, I'm also well aware of the effects of particulate scattering and other parameters.
No soup for you.
"So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models."
More:
Debunking the 'Skeptics Handbook': More CO2 Does Worsen Climate Change
"So, arguments from authority are the only ones that pass muster, huh? If a National Academy of Sciences Fellow makes the same arguments as I do, then you would listen to him, but not to me? If he references a paper in Science, then he knows what he's doing, and I don't? Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't automatically confer greater knowledge and understanding, and not having one doesn't mean you can't have a decent grasp of a subject.
ROFLMAO. And you don't see that you are using precisely the argument that your fellow warmers have used to beat down virtually all the skeptics.
Really? Didn't see that. If the science community is excluding good research by non-Ph.D.'s, that's a problem. What I see more often is bad science being presented by scientists with Ph.D.'s.
But if a NAS Fellow made the same arguments you did, I wouldn't believe him either, until I had checked to see if he was full of shit. I've worked with NAS Fellows on occasion, and one Nobel Laureate. And they can be mistaken too. What matters is HONEST science, because the truth WILL eventually be known. And at this point, "climate science" doesn't fit in that category.
Blink blink blink blink blink... fine.
"The data from the WMO shows that for large parts of southern Asia and central Africa, it will have been the warmest year on record. But north America experienced conditions that were cooler than normal - although Canadian cities Vancouver and Victoria saw new record temperatures set and Alaska had the second-warmest July on record."
Your pretty graphic from the last post indicates to me what is probably going on. Simply put, the "warmers" in control of the "corrections" are "cooking the books" to show increased warming in areas in which data are not readily available for fact-checking by skeptics.
Which pretty graphic are you referring to? Is the Australian Meteorological Organization a sector of the global conspiracy?
Explain to me in simple language how an Arctic that is up to 5 degrees warmer than normal can provide air masses to drive Canadian and US weather that is 5 degrees cooler than normal. This seems to be just "slightly" counterintuitive.
You should really ask a meteorologist, because my meteorological expertise is minimal. My guess is that unusual circulation patterns are transporting cold air very efficiently into North America from cold climes, even if it is warmer there than previous decades. I.e., I'd finger an unusual circulation pattern, like a deeply-dipping jet stream.
What makes you think we even have the full "list"?? I don't think we even know what all the SOURCES of warming are.
Here's some science: 1)the sun's magnetic field has doubled in the time humankind has been able to make measurements, 2) the earth moves around the sun within said field, 3)many systems on earth are conductors (oceans, magma, etc.), 4)a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates an electric current.
Where, in the models, is the energy that enters the earth's energy balance from the above mechanism accounted for?? Physics says energy has to be generated, and it has to go somewhere. How much, and where??
This is a source of energy that has precisely nothing to do with what happens to the photons from the sun that happen to intersect the earth.
"Which pretty graphic are you referring to? Is the Australian Meteorological Organization a sector of the global conspiracy?"
Post 95 "National Climate Dataa Center/NESDS/NOAA" ain't the "Australian meteoroligical Organization", but it seems to me that the Aussies and New Zeland climate "scientists" are having problems of their own, with "adjusted" data. So the answer is probably yes, anyway.
I didn't say sources of warming, did I? I thought I said forcings. Sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere are a forcing; negatively (i.e., cooling).
What else could there be?
Here's some science: 1)the sun's magnetic field has doubled in the time humankind has been able to make measurements, 2) the earth moves around the sun within said field, 3)many systems on earth are conductors (oceans, magma, etc.), 4)a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates an electric current.
Even if that's a source of energy, I'm not sure it's a radiative forcing.
Post 95 [actually 92] "National Climate Dataa Center/NESDIS/NOAA" ain't the "Australian meteoroligical Organization", but it seems to me that the Aussies and New Zeland climate "scientists" are having problems of their own, with "adjusted" data. So the answer is probably yes, anyway.
Poor impression. If you're talking about Darwin Zero, that's a hash.
Thanks for bringing up a number of subjects that required references for explanation. I'm glad to see that the references I needed are still there, and a few new ones. I appreciate your efforts.
Uh, what the "warmists" are trying to do basically is determine the "energy balance" of the earth. If you don't even know the sources and sinks of all the energy, you can't determine the balance. Our knowledge of either is insufficient.
"Even if that's a source of energy, I'm not sure it's a radiative forcing."
See above point about "energy balance". If an unknown source is pouring heat into the planet which is not photonic, your models cannot be correct. One possible piece of evidence for "magnetic forcing" would be increased vulcanism (which is definitely happening), increasing the flow of heat and many chemicals into both oceans and air. The very recent discovery of many active underwater volcanoes under the Arctic is one datum. This is precisely the area where one would expect the interaction of the sun's field and the earth's field to be at a maximum.
"Poor impression. If you're talking about Darwin Zero, that's a hash."
Well, there's also the New Zealand bunch (and others). And in fact, the more that the "leaked" information is studied and posted, the more "errors" (i.e. fraud) show up.
"Thanks for bringing up a number of subjects that required references for explanation. I'm glad to see that the references I needed are still there, and a few new ones. I appreciate your efforts.
Me too. After actually checking more widely into things, I am more convinced than ever that "global warming" is fraudulent. The number of model failures and outright rigging of data is even more astounding that I had at first believed.
The bottom line of "Climategate" is that the ONLY acceptable solution is total transparency. ALL agencies involved must post all data, all models, and all "adjustments" on the internet for examination by anyone who wishes. In the end, it doesn't matter if "skeptics" are funded by Exxon, Saudi Arabia, or nobody but their own curiosity. If the points of science brought up are incorrect, it will show up as the science is done IF honest peer reviewing is in place. And all parties involved in any way with the effort to pervert the peer review process should be removed from any position in which they can, in future, do so. And all journal editors should refuse to allow them be be reviewers of any sort, or to influence publication in any way.
See above point about "energy balance". If an unknown source is pouring heat into the planet which is not photonic, your models cannot be correct. One possible piece of evidence for "magnetic forcing" would be increased vulcanism (which is definitely happening), increasing the flow of heat and many chemicals into both oceans and air. The very recent discovery of many active underwater volcanoes under the Arctic is one datum. This is precisely the area where one would expect the interaction of the sun's field and the earth's field to be at a maximum.
This is positively Velikovskian. Science deals with reality, not the far-fetched fringe. And while we're at it, there is no appreciable effect from undersea volcanoes on the heat content of the oceans.
Well, there's also the New Zealand bunch (and others). And in fact, the more that the "leaked" information is studied and posted, the more "errors" (i.e. fraud) show up.
WW, you've been reading the wrong sources again!
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends
NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist
Me too. After actually checking more widely into things, I am more convinced than ever that "global warming" is fraudulent. The number of model failures and outright rigging of data is even more astounding that I had at first believed.
And so it goes... considering that you didn't get positive water vapor feedback in models right, didn't get CO2 absorption in the atmosphere right, tried to use weather (influenced by El Nino) to refute climate change... you obviously have demonstrated the power to convince yourself of anything.
The bottom line of "Climategate" is that the ONLY acceptable solution is total transparency. ALL agencies involved must post all data, all models, and all "adjustments" on the internet for examination by anyone who wishes. In the end, it doesn't matter if "skeptics" are funded by Exxon, Saudi Arabia, or nobody but their own curiosity. If the points of science brought up are incorrect, it will show up as the science is done IF honest peer reviewing is in place. And all parties involved in any way with the effort to pervert the peer review process should be removed from any position in which they can, in future, do so. And all journal editors should refuse to allow them be be reviewers of any sort, or to influence publication in any way.
I agree with all of this, but I have two follow-up questions:
Should poor-quality scientific papers be excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of their poor quality?
How shall we judge the quality, integrity, and fairness of journal editors?
LOL. Point out to me where my physics is wrong.
"And while we're at it, there is no appreciable effect from undersea volcanoes on the heat content of the oceans."
And you know this how??? As regards the Arctic, we don't even know how many undersea volcanoes there are, much less whether they have any affect on the heat content of the ARCTIC Ocean. Nor do we know how the chemicals released affect the ARCTIC Ocean. The increase in vulcanism is real, the cause and effects unknown.
"And so it goes... considering that you didn't get positive water vapor feedback in models right,
I didn't realize that you wanted "Clintonian" preciseness of language. Yes, I used "water vapor" where I meant "water". Sue me.
:...didn't get CO2 absorption in the atmosphere right,
There seem to be a few other opinions about the spectroscopy and physics of CO2 in the atmosphere out there which are more in line with MY understanding of how Beer's law works. I "will" be working through both your sources and those. But, unlike you seem to, I don't have unlimited time during the work week to delve into this stuff.
"...tried to use weather (influenced by El Nino) to refute climate change..."
Last I looked, "climate" was the long-term summation of "weather".
...you obviously have demonstrated the power to convince yourself of anything.
Sorry, but I base my opinions on science. And right now, the "warmist" position has more holes than Swiss cheese. And the number of holes increases the more I study the issues. There are simply too many things that just do NOT "add up", and too much evidence of scientific dishonesty and outright fraud.
"Should poor-quality scientific papers be excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of their poor quality?"
Yes.
"How shall we judge the quality, integrity, and fairness of journal editors?"
By the use of HONEST, NON-CORRUPTED, peer review. Which has NOT been the case for climate science, as proven conclusively by the CRU's own emails.
I didn't try to determine if your physics was wrong. But the described mechanism wouldn't affect global temperatures appreciably, if at all.
"And while we're at it, there is no appreciable effect from undersea volcanoes on the heat content of the oceans."
And you know this how??? As regards the Arctic, we don't even know how many undersea volcanoes there are, much less whether they have any affect on the heat content of the ARCTIC Ocean. Nor do we know how the chemicals released affect the ARCTIC Ocean. The increase in vulcanism is real, the cause and effects unknown.
I know because I read and understand. There's zilch-o evidence of an increase in volcanism. (Note that I'm not denying Arctic undersea volcanism.) As for affecting the temperature of the oceans:
What's up with volcanoes under Arctic sea ice
I didn't realize that you wanted "Clintonian" preciseness of language. Yes, I used "water vapor" where I meant "water". Sue me.
Misunderstanding leads to confusion. I wouldn't have reacted as I did if you had initially said water and clouds, rather than water vapor, because positive water vapor feedback is pretty firmly established. For effective dialogue on this topic, the boundaries of knowledge need to be established.
...didn't get CO2 absorption in the atmosphere right,
There seem to be a few other opinions about the spectroscopy and physics of CO2 in the atmosphere out there which are more in line with MY understanding of how Beer's law works. I "will" be working through both your sources and those. But, unlike you seem to, I don't have unlimited time during the work week to delve into this stuff.
I've been doing this for 10 years. The minute you brought up Beer's Law and CO2 absorption, I suspected where you were going with it, and I knew the first reference to pull up to address it. But I did find a couple other good ones. That Google thing is really amazing.
"...tried to use weather (influenced by El Nino) to refute climate change..."
Last I looked, "climate" was the long-term summation of "weather".
Exactly, it's average weather. Thus, anomalies get smoothed. The cold weather (even snow) on the Gulf Coast? Classic El Nino pattern!! Let's check in and see how El Nino is doing this week:
El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic Discussion (it's a PDF)
It's been getting a bit stronger; not a lot, though. Check out slide 14 and 31. The 30-day temperature anomalies, even the 90-day (Slide 14) still astonish me. It's like this autumn's weather was deliberately designed to convince the entire western half of the United States that global warming isn't happening. (I suspect Inhofe.) Despite that, they're exactly what I expected.
...you obviously have demonstrated the power to convince yourself of anything.
Sorry, but I base my opinions on science. And right now, the "warmist" position has more holes than Swiss cheese. And the number of holes increases the more I study the issues. There are simply too many things that just do NOT "add up", and too much evidence of scientific dishonesty and outright fraud.
I am all in favor of a balanced appraisal of what is known, scientifically, about climate. But you have to check your biases at the door. You have to stop viewing this as a conservative-vs.-liberal issue, and concentrate on evaluating the science. I think you can.
"Should poor-quality scientific papers be excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of their poor quality?"
Yes.
Not surprisingly, I agree.
"How shall we judge the quality, integrity, and fairness of journal editors?"
By the use of HONEST, NON-CORRUPTED, peer review. Which has NOT been the case for climate science, as proven conclusively by the CRU's own emails.
I also agree. If a journal editor appeared to allow the publication of a poor-quality paper by selecting reviewers likely to favor publication of said paper, reviewers who might overlook its flaws because of its underlying theme, should scientists question the editor's actions, or not?
And I say again, you know this how?? I've been looking for ANY information on heliomagnetic effects on the earth for quite a while, and find exactly zero information on its effects. Lots of stuff about "earth's magnetic field and solar wind" interactions, but pretty much zip about "sun's field vs. earth". I did find one paper that says that ocean currents and EARTH's magnetic field interact.
"I know because I read and understand. There's zilch-o evidence of an increase in volcanism. (Note that I'm not denying Arctic undersea volcanism.) As for affecting the temperature of the oceans:"
Seems to be plenty of it to me. Pretty much every time I hear the news, or peruse a scientifically directed article there is a new earthquake, volcano eruption, or other vulcanism-related event. Little things like the Yellowstone super-volcano showing increased activity. And since I live in Washington, there is also evidence of increased "small" events that only show up on the local news.
"What's up with volcanoes under Arctic sea ice"
What evidence is supposed to be at your link? I see a bunch of opinions, whose GUESSES at effects range over a factor of ten. Looks like the old "argument from authority" to me. The simple fact is that the sub-Arctic discoveries are so new that the only possible SCIENTIFIC response is "we don't know the effects yet".
"I've been doing this for 10 years. The minute you brought up Beer's Law and CO2 absorption, I suspected where you were going with it, and I knew the first reference to pull up to address it. But I did find a couple other good ones. That Google thing is really amazing."
And I've been doing it for forty. Right now, I'm finding "dueling references" with differing arguments, and I'm working through them. But the handwaving references you posted don't even begin to constitute an argument. Not a number to be seen.
"I am all in favor of a balanced appraisal of what is known, scientifically, about climate. But you have to check your biases at the door. You have to stop viewing this as a conservative-vs.-liberal issue, and concentrate on evaluating the science. I think you can."
Who "views this as a conservative-vs-liberal issue"? The science is the ONLY thing I base my opinion on. And if you've seen any of my postings on corn ethanol fuel and/or solar energy, you would know that. And based on forty years of broad study of science, my opinion disagrees with yours. Right now, what I see of "warmist" science is BAD science, indeed pathological science, and outright fraud. Why should I believe ANY statements from the "warmist climate science" position, given the proven track record of "cooking the books". Frankly, at this point, ANY publication that purports to link some effect to "global warming" is suspect. One has no way of knowing how deeply the demonstrated pathology has spread to other disciplines. How many of that NAS panel were "suggested" by Hansen, Mann, and/or Jones, or those connected to them?? If there's a "true believer" on this thread, it ain't me, bubba.
Here are just a couple of things that "just don't fit".... those graphs that show temperature "adjustments" seem to all be adjusted in only one direction---"up". And the "adjustment" gets larger in magnitude as the time gets closer to the present. Now, why would that be, given that as we get closer to present day, we have better instruments, better data, and supposedly better records, so any "adjustment" should get smaller with time rather than larger, yet it seems not to. And, given the well known "urban island" effect, at least "some" of the graphs should show a "downward" adjustment.
"If a journal editor appeared to allow the publication of a poor-quality paper by selecting reviewers likely to favor publication of said paper, reviewers who might overlook its flaws because of its underlying theme, should scientists question the editor's actions, or not?"
Seen as "flawed" by whom?? A reviewer "suggested" by Hansen, Mann, Jones etc.???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.