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.???