• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple climate change refutation challenge

David Rodale said:
"Peer reviewed". Ignorance of PNAS publishing process is enlightening.
Hint: Track I Track II Track III


Aside from that, don't you find it odd H2O is not mentioned anywhere in either of those pal reviewed essays?


Maybe you can answer this question: do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in?
Click to expand...

H20 is a feedback, and is incorporated as such. Nothing is adding it directly to the atmosphere as a drive of climate.
 
Alric said:
This is Craig Venter scientist/adventurer extraordinaire. He has added more gene sequences to gene databases than anyone else. This is his opinion of the state of affairs of carbon....
Click to expand...

In Alric's words:

"Not a climatologist".
 
a_unique_person said:
H20 is a feedback, and is incorporated as such. Nothing is adding it directly to the atmosphere as a drive of climate.
Click to expand...

You most certainly should inform the IPCC of your certainty on this issue, which they list as having "LOW" level of understanding.

Or conversely, we could just say you were wrong in that certainty?
 
a_unique_person said:
H20 is a feedback, and is incorporated as such. Nothing is adding it directly to the atmosphere as a drive of climate.
Click to expand...

What is the feedback?

"The" climate models say water vapor should be increasing and precipitation decreasing comparatively, so it can be said AUP disagrees with the consensus. Very good, there's hope for you yet. However you are totally wrong in your assumptions about the total role water vapor (which includes clouds) plays in climate. What does IPCC AR4 say about clouds?

How much rain will global warming bring?
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.
Click to expand...


You would also be correct in stating cloud feedbacks are a significant problem for climate models as well.
Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Review


But now new research has emerged.
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
We explore the daily evolution of tropical intraseasonal oscillations in satellite-observed tropospheric temperature, precipitation, radiative fluxes, and cloud properties. The warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesis of climate stabilization. These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction.
Click to expand...

Spencer's next article will be released shortly. He discusses it here
The two reviewers of the manuscript (rather uncharacteristically) signed their names to their reviews. To my surprise, both of them (Isaac Held and Piers Forster) agreed that we had raised a legitimate issue. While both reviewers suggested changes in the (conditionally accepted) manuscript, they even took the time to develop their own simple models to demonstrate the effect to themselves.
Of special note is the intellectual honesty shown by Piers Forster. Our paper directly challenges an assumption made by Forster in his 2005 J. Climate paper, which provided a nice theoretical treatment of feedback diagnosis from observational data. Forster admitted in his review that they had erred in this part of their analysis, and encouraged us to get the paper published so that others could be made aware of the issue, too.
Click to expand...

You are aware who Isaac Held and Piers Forster are?





We are currently witnessing the undoing of 20+ years of warming. In a short time, you folks will be here linking to RealClimate giving their unsubstantiated opinions and excuses of why it is happening as CO2 AGW does not agree with these observations. Megalodon will create new graphs showing the trend is still up. Shall we go back and revisit what I said last year amid the scoffs and howls from your side?

So I will ask the same question: which way do you think it will go, up?

Does global warming now cause global cooling? Ah, that's right, weather isn't climate, so we must wait at least ten years. No volcanoes to blame, so what is causing the cooling? La Nina? Ok, but how can this be when CO2 is King of climate change? 2007 was supposed to be the mother of all years giving birth to the upward and onward march of catastrophic global warming. What happened? If the sun doesn't affect climate significantly (that is the claim), how can such rapid cooling take place? Could it be.....why yes it is! Global warming does in fact cause global cooling!
Greenpeace agrees so it must be true.




BTW, why isn't the lower troposphere retaining heat (via increased atmospheric CO2) at an increasing rate? Better still, why is the LT cooling?
 
I'm enjoying this Topic

David Rodale said:
What is the feedback?

snip

BTW, why isn't the lower troposphere retaining heat (via increased atmospheric CO2) at an increasing rate? Better still, why is the LT cooling?
Click to expand...

I'm sure enjoying this topic. I'm learning a lot from one side, but not the other. Care to guess which side :cool:
 
Interesting

Piers FORSTER, Department of MeteorologyUniversity of ReadingUNITED KINGDOM

Isaac HELD, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)USA

:D
 
So how does one paper that "potentially supports" Lindzen's iris hypothesis disproves climate change? Previous papers have more conclusively disagreed with Lindzen's hypothesis. And even if the iris effect exists it is not known whether it can counteract the effects of climate change at all.

Coincidentally, Lindzen now accepts global warming. He also does not believe there is a connection between lung cancer and smoking and receives funds directly from Exxon and Daimler-Chrysler.
 
Last edited:
David Rodale said:
"Peer reviewed". Ignorance of PNAS publishing process is enlightening.
Hint: Track I Track II Track III


Aside from that, don't you find it odd H2O is not mentioned anywhere in either of those pal reviewed essays?


Maybe you can answer this question: do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in?
Click to expand...

This says it all
from

http://www.pnascentral.org/cgi-bin/main.plex

PNAS said:
Welcome to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' online submission and peer review system.
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
Why not, R=0 is R=0 is R=0. This means FYI that the data that Mann presented does not allow for any conclusion. You can still assert that the "hockey stick is plausible", just not on Mann's study. So why not? All I said is let's agree to toss it, and move on to other studies. Surely you could pick a better one then. But if you want to continue to defend the indefensible, go for it. I'm just trying to move forward a bit here.
CO2 is just the easiest gas to measure. All man-made greenhouse gases are produced more or less by the same processes so measuring one, you get an idea of all others.
​
Well, no you don't. Again, FYI Bob is pretty serious about AGW and he is trying to tell you to get at least partly off the big bad CO2 bandwagon. Bob notes -
...the effects of an annual increase in atmopheric CO2 concentration will warm the planet for a long time and thus we can not expect to see global temperature and CO2 concentration to increase in a lock-step fashion, even if they were the only factors affecting climate change.
​
Major sources of methane are animals (livestock), decomposing plant matter, dams on rivers. So methane isn't largely produced by the same processes as CO2.

And about a decade, for reasons that no one seems to understand, the curve of methane in the atmopshere flatlined. CFCs, same story. We don't really know much aboiut CFC decomposition but for sure it isn't related to CO2.

You see, as I have been saying, mainstream science does not support your views as you have presented them so far. Doesn't take "deniers and contrarians to rebut them".
Click to expand...

Actually what I was trying to point out was that any simplistic attempts to correlate CO2 with temperature to disprove AGW are lacking in scientific dicipline. All your R=0 statements are irrelevant.

Hey remember that we are currently in a solar mimimum, and the +/- 0.1 percent output of the Sun is a climate forcing about as equal as the current forcing due to increased CO2. Where will we be at the next solar maximum?

there are a lot of thumbs on the scale of this chicken we are trying to weigh.
 
David Rodale said:
No it doesn't. Track I Track II Track III

Nice try. Next?
Click to expand...
You know what would be even more useful than posting that again...explaining what the heck it means! I mean, I bet I could research on the internets and figure it out, but considering you already know the answer, why don't you tell us?

The same with how water droplets freeze. You keep on bringing that up as a coy question. If it is important, please provide the answer and explain the significance.

I mean, I think that I know the answers. But come on, throw us a bone. I don't want to have to read 20 other sites just to follow what is posted here!
 
David Rodale said:
No it doesn't. Track I Track II Track III

Nice try. Next?
Click to expand...
David Rodale said:
"Peer reviewed". Ignorance of PNAS publishing process is enlightening.
Click to expand...
Nice, thanks for the ad hom

"Communicated by," "Edited by," or "Contributed by" the responsible Member.

there you go, Track I, Track II and Track III are part of peer review process.

Are you saying elected members of NAS have an easier time getting published?

As they should.

Your argument that PNAS is not peer reviewed is frankly fringey.

Did you reread that article yet?
 
Isn't PNAS the one that basically you get published if you have a buddy to rubber stamp it? I was under the impression that it was clearly NOT independantly peer reviewed in any sense, but haven't cared or seen any reason to investigate the matter.

PNAS has a "reputation", so to speak.
 
With an impact factor usually >10, PNAS has a very good reputation.

So to speak.
 
Oh, oh..now Pipirr brought up impact factor and its going to make a lot of heads explode. Papers discussing climate change are regularly published in PNAS, Science and Nature. All journals with impact factore >10. Lohele's paper, for example, was published in "Energy and Environment". The paper questioning global temperature was published the "Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics". Journals with an impact factor near Zero. If we invoke a minimum impact factor for publication discussion, most papers submitted by the contrarians would disappear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom