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?