Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[cmc0605]

You are correct about that, as the Earth warms the average wavelength of emission is shortened. However the difference is quite minor given the small change in temperature involved.

I think he's talking about the decreased intensity emitted in the CO2 band being compensated for increased emission in window regions; you seem to be referring to a *very, very, very small* effect from Wien's law. The Planck function drops off very gradually at wavelengths longer than the peak, so this doesn't really matter.

[WeatherRusty]

Think about this. When a molecule is thrusting upward during convection, it must overcome gravity. Once a body on a *non molecular* scale attains kinetic energy it cannot be converted to thermal energy again, but can only be discharged electrically.

When air is lifted to high in the atmosphere by convection, it gains gravitational potential energy. Any water vapor included condenses and falls back to the surface as part of the water cycle. Any other air molecules which rise and fall first acquire gravitational potential energy and the give it back when returning to the surface. So, as far as gravity is concerned this is a zero sum game. It's a wash.

The energy which matters is the warmth produced by solar irradiation of the surface which drives the weather systems, produces convection and evaporates water. This energy provides the lift which temporarily overcomes gravity, but is nearly all lost to space from high altitude.

[WeatherRusty]

I think he's talking about the decreased intensity emitted in the CO2 band being compensated for increased emission in window regions; you seem to be referring to a *very, very, very small* effect from Wien's law. The Planck function drops off very gradually at wavelengths longer than the peak, so this doesn't really matter.

I know, my point was that it is really inconsequential.

The atmospheric windows reside at wavelengths immediately shorter than CO2's main frequencies of emission, so yes if anything a warming of the Earth should 'push' somewhat greater energy into the windows....

However, don't forget as CO2 concentration grows, line broadening effects come into play, effectively closing up the window a bit on the 'wings'.

[turtlehurricane]

One thing that must be remembered when discussing this is we don't really understand how solar cycles effect climate. There's strong observational evidence showing it does, but the theories I've read are all over the place. It's complicated and I don't claim to understand it much, but I do know it's not just TSI that's important.

[physicsguy21]

When air is lifted to high in the atmosphere by convection, it gains gravitational potential energy. Any water vapor included condenses and falls back to the surface as part of the water cycle. Any other air molecules which rise and fall first acquire gravitational potential energy and

the give it back when returning to the surface. So, as far as gravity is concerned this is a zero sum game. It's a wash.

Many individuals believe this but in reality it doesn't work that way. It is the energy required to maintain full bodily motion against gravity in all vectors that matters. An atmosphere in a still, stagnant state contains less total energy than an atmosphere in constant mechanical motion, even if they're at the same 'temperature'. The motion in the atmosphere and oceans is not 'robbed' from gravity. Gravity is not energy, it is a constant force that redistributes the atmospheric pressure field and resulting molecular line broadening. So you get -80C in the upper atmosphere incident to 14.5C at the surface.

And the difference between a stagnant atmosphere and a mechanically active atmosphere is immense! If global wind speed were to decrease by 1 meter per second, the energy we would lose, converted into radiative form, would be so large that the 1.6Wm2 from adding CO2 would only make up a fraction of the error boundaries. Truly amazing.

The energy which matters is the warmth produced by solar irradiation of the surface which drives the weather systems, produces convection and evaporates water. This energy provides the lift which temporarily overcomes gravity, but is nearly all lost to space from high altitude.

You may not not know it but you just keyed in on the issue. The mechanical motion and electric charge in the atmosphere were all at one time initiated thermally via solar heating. So yes the process starts radiatively, but coversions occur so constantly in an open system that accounting for the total budget is a must, otherwise you're assuming that the energy doesn't exist.

[physicsguy21]

Cmc0605:

I'm not sure why you claim I'm a blog junkie but it is not true so please refrain from the accusations?

I appreciate the informative response you provided (which I happen to physically agree with for the most part). It doesn't fix the problem in assuming backradiation in responsibility for Earth's 288K surface temp over 255K at TOA. A portion of it probably is but if does not require a powerful radiative greenhouse effect to achieve that surface temperature. Incorrect Speculations on what our measurements actually mean will not change that.

[easternsnowman]

I am conseervative but I am coming to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are playing a big role in the warming. My question is how do we stopthe warming, limits on gases and energy prodution will not stop and even if we did do it in this country China and India will not cooperate. I've heard that cooling the atmosphere with sulphur (similar to volcanic activity) and cooling the oceans will help, I'm not an expert in this field.

[donsutherland1]

I am conseervative but I am coming to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are playing a big role in the warming.

The scientific basis of climate change is not a function of political ideology. If liberals and conservatives focus on the science itself, both should accept the scientific conclusion: greenhouse gases from human activities have made the marginal difference and are the leading driver of ongoing climate change. Doing so only requires an openness to considering the scientific evidence and a reasonable level of confidence in the capacity of climate scientists to reach reasonably accurate conclusions.

My question is how do we stopthe warming, limits on gases and energy prodution will not stop and even if we did do it in this country China and India will not cooperate. I've heard that cooling the atmosphere with sulphur (similar to volcanic activity) and cooling the oceans will help, I'm not an expert in this field.

That's the really difficult issue for a number of reasons including, but not limited to:

1. Differences among conservatives and liberals as to the role of government vs. the role of the market (even if both recognize markets have some limitations e.g., the existence of externalities). In democratic societies, public consensus is essential to adopting and sustaining policies.

2. The global nature of the problem requires a strong degree of global coordination among sovereign states that are at varying levels of development, have varying interests, and differing risk exposure. This makes the interactions highly complex. If there's not enough "buy in," cooperation can collapse, as countries would not want the "free riders" so to speak to gain disproportionate benefits from their lack of participation. Pressure to react to the free riders would be particularly strong in democratic countries where the public would demand equity and have the capacity to choose new governments. Even if the arrangement holds up, it might not be effective, if the non-participants' inaction renders the overall level of policy action ineffectual. In such situations, the most extreme state could either gain a de facto veto by withholding its support until its terms are met or a race to the lowest common denominator could ensue leading to an ineffectual policy outcome. Even in an optimal case of near universal participation, the risk of cheating would be ever present.

3. Human nature: Bias for the status quo vs. the unknown (except during a crisis when fundamental calculations shift) and preference on the short-term over the long-term (even modest short-term sacrifice for long-term gain, especially if that gain disproportionately benefits future generations not the one making the sacrifice, can difficult to achieve, much less sustain).

4. Long-term fiscal issues that will likely intesify the competition for financial resources among priorities and programs in Europe and North America, possibly further undercutting public investment that might prove beneficial if pursued on a robust and sustained basis.

IMO, the approach has to be comprehensive and coordinated. Conservation, efficiency, and investment will all need to be pursued. Mechanisms that ensure that rapidly growing developing countries are not asked to pay the unacceptable price of foregoing development that locks them into inferior living standards would need to be developed. The approach would also need to be realistic (both from the impact it would have in reducing the problem and also from the price it would impose on countries and their citizens).

No silver bullet exists. Even geoengineering has a lot of uncertainties that would need to be evaluated. The end result is that I don't see a way for a rapid policy solution to be adopted, implemented, and sustained anytime soon. I do believe strong leadership and a better-informed public (not just in the U.S.), can lead to a more constructive policy path than one that maintains business as usual.

[dabize]

2. The global nature of the problem requires a strong degree of global coordination among sovereign states that are at varying levels of development, have varying interests, and differing risk exposure. This makes the interactions highly complex. If there's not enough "buy in," cooperation can collapse, as countries would not want the "free riders" so to speak to gain disproportionate benefits from their lack of participation. Pressure to react to the free riders would be particularly strong in democratic countries where the public would demand equity and have the capacity to choose new governments. Even if the arrangement holds up, it might not be effective, if the non-participants' inaction renders the overall level of policy action ineffectual. In such situations, the most extreme state could either gain a de facto veto by withholding its support until its terms are met or a race to the lowest common denominator could ensue leading to an ineffectual policy outcome. Even in an optimal case of near universal participation, the risk of cheating would be ever present.

No silver bullet exists. Even geoengineering has a lot of uncertainties that would need to be evaluated. The end result is that I don't see a way for a rapid policy solution to be adopted, implemented, and sustained anytime soon. I do believe strong leadership and a better-informed public (not just in the U.S.), can lead to a more constructive policy path than one that maintains business as usual.

It is indeed depressing.

I suppose the only hope is for some weather-related event to wake people up SOON - even if it isn't bringing with it immediate catastrophe for all. The back-loading of the really catastrophic consequences of BAU looks tailor made to pin a Darwin Award (or a damn good try for one) on humanity.

[donsutherland1]

It is indeed depressing.

I suppose the only hope is for some weather-related event to wake people up SOON - even if it isn't bringing with it immediate catastrophe for all. The back-loading of the really catastrophic consequences of BAU looks tailor made to pin a Darwin Award (or a damn good try for one) on humanity.

I agree with the situation where we seem to be locked onto the BAU path. With the non-science [maybe "anti-science" is the better term?] crowd loudly disputing any link to climate change for even the most anomalous events, the noise is drowning out what the science is saying. My worry is that when it becomes indisputable that the climate has changed to a more adverse state with all its consequences and the human link is widely recognized, the question will no longer be "How do we avoid whatever climate state should not be reached?" [we'll probably be there] but "How did we get here?"

As with many crises, the defense "no one could have foreseen it" will be advanced. Yet, as is also the case with many crises, attention to the evolving events and modest efforts to respond adequately will have made the adverse climate regime a largely avoidable one, and most definitely a predictable outcome. There will be no rewards for the scientists who were often ridiculed by the non-science crowd, even as they had provided decades or longer of advance warning and the costs of dealing with the consequences will be vastly greater than those that had initially been needed to avoid the climate's having reached its adverse state. The latitude for limiting the consequences will also have shrunk quite dramatically.

[turtlehurricane]

It is indeed depressing.

I suppose the only hope is for some weather-related event to wake people up SOON - even if it isn't bringing with it immediate catastrophe for all. The back-loading of the really catastrophic consequences of BAU looks tailor made to pin a Darwin Award (or a damn good try for one) on humanity.

Yes, everyone in this forum is well aware that you're wishing for a catastrophe.

[ben4vols]

It is indeed depressing.

I suppose the only hope is for some weather-related event to wake people up SOON - even if it isn't bringing with it immediate catastrophe for all. The back-loading of the really catastrophic consequences of BAU looks tailor made to pin a Darwin Award (or a damn good try for one) on humanity.

I don't understand the fear and urgentness. What are you afraid is going to happen in the next 50 to 100 years that is so dire?

[Snow_Miser]

I suppose the only hope is for some weather-related event to wake people up SOON - even if it isn't bringing with it immediate catastrophe for all. The back-loading of the really catastrophic consequences of BAU looks tailor made to pin a Darwin Award (or a damn good try for one) on humanity.

These are the types of comments that I think about when I think about CAGW believers.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am conseervative but I am coming to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are playing a big role in the warming. My question is how do we stopthe warming, limits on gases and energy prodution will not stop and even if we did do it in this country China and India will not cooperate. I've heard that cooling the atmosphere with sulphur (similar to volcanic activity) and cooling the oceans will help, I'm not an expert in this field.

I am conseervative but I am coming to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are playing a big role in the warming. My question is how do we stopthe warming, limits on gases and energy prodution will not stop and even if we did do it in this country China and India will not cooperate. I've heard that cooling the atmosphere with sulphur (similar to volcanic activity) and cooling the oceans will help, I'm not an expert in this field.

There is very little we can do. You can try and limit your footprint. I have driven a car 4 times in 11 months. I use the trains and walk up tob 8-10 miles per day pending where I gotta go. I recycle cardboard, metals, glass, rubber, plastic, almost every thing.

This summer I am going to get some solar technology, my ball and chains father is an electrician and will help.

So you can try to help in small ways.

But it still wont matter co2 ppm is at 395.50ppm up 2.2 ppm from last year and a little over 21 ppm from 2002. When it was 374. so c02 keeps increasing faster and faster.

Methane stalled out after the fall of the USSR. Now its on the move from permafrost melting and methane calthrates destabilizing in the arctic region.

people of course dismiss the arctic ecosystem breaking down completely but they are the same people who said in 2005 sea ice was at a min. 2007 was a blip and recovery was imminent, by 2009 recovery was coming just takes a few years,

Now after the arctic has continued to warm and smash temp record a after record and ice record after record, folks are still clamoring an AMO based recovery is coming.

Yeah right, we all know we wont be seeing that. And we know the AMO won't go negative as deep or long as before.

this is bad news, you can try and understand it in a practical manner or bury your head on fantasy land.

The most telling thing is how deniers and many skeprtcs want endless validation of AGW but hold no other science or religion hell, Euro club soccer teams are not scrutinized this much.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't understand the fear and urgentness. What are you afraid is going to happen in the next 50 to 100 years that is so dire?

The fear is that if we continue BAU and worse, CO2 concentration will top 600ppm within the next 50-100 years. If that happens everyone had better hope equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be on the very low end of expectations.

[physicsguy21]

The fear is that if we continue BAU and worse, CO2 concentration will top 600ppm within the next 50-100 years. If that happens everyone had better hope equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be on the very low end of expectations.

Sigh. Perhaps one day we'll actually understand what we're measuring. And better yet perhaps one day we'll learn how to calculate a greybody temperature without violating the laws of physics.

What we're measuring at TOA is *not* the same thing that is being measured at the surface. At TOA we're measuring *radiative* temperature, not the *molecular* temperature of the atmosphere itself.

At the surface we are measuring molecular temperature. The *molecular* temperature above the stratosphere is a frigid (minus) -80C in the face of an IR temp of 255K. The surface temp of the Earth is 288K on average versus the 255K emission temp at TOA, quite fine and dandy there. But we are wrong about why this is true, and we're wrong about our greybody temperature. We can easily get that value without incorrectly combining different physical 'temperatures'.

At the same time, the IPCC breaks the laws of physics with their greybody temperature of 255K, that is 35-40C WARMER than the tropopause. There is no way their greybody temperature is accurate, cannot average lower than the greybody temperature. They just chose 255K because it matches Earth's TOA emission temperature for obvious reasons.

There are no physics to connect the two temperatures (molecular & radiative) either, within the greybody constraints of course. One is analogous to velocity, the other to density. Much of the surface 288K is conducted to and from the non-radiative atmosphere rather than radiated upward unimpeded, see daytime/nighttime values. We can call it a greenhouse effect because that is what it is, but it is not operated radiatively, well at least only partially.

We not measuring a radiative Greenhouse effect at all, this whole 33C thing is not real. The real effect is well over 100C.

What we're really measuring is the effect of an atmosphere in a gravitational field, redistributing the pressure field, resulting in significant molecular line broadening toward the surface.

The ground and ocean surface temperatures are determined by the rate at which they shed energy, but don't let this fool you into thinking it is a backradiation phenomenon! The atmosphere insulates the surface at night, windy nights are warmer than calm nights for a reason, it is the increased rate of collisions hence frictional and conductive rates. 99.7% of the atmosphere cannot technically backradiate. Only 0.3% of the atmosphere actually backradiates, and represents a tiny portion of provided energy.

The more O2 that is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the greater the dimishing of stellar radiation during the day. There may still be a slightly lopsided value there, but the point here is that we need a physics revamp. It is certainly odd to see catastrophe theory science defended with such heart, despite obvious inaccuracies.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, everyone in this forum is well aware that you're wishing for a catastrophe.

If something catastrophic is bound to happen anyway, wouldn't it be preferable to detect an early, isolated example so as to enable mitigative strategies which may hold the promise to thwart the occurrence of even greater catastrophe in the future?

[WeatherRusty]

Sigh. Perhaps one day we'll actually understand what we're measuring. And better yet perhaps one day we'll learn how to calculate a greybody temperature without violating the laws of physics.

What we're measuring at TOA is *not* the same thing that is being measured at the surface. At TOA we're measuring *radiative* temperature, not the *molecular* temperature of the atmosphere itself.

At the surface we are measuring molecular temperature. The *molecular* temperature above the stratosphere is a frigid (minus) -80C in the face of an IR temp of 255K. The surface temp of the Earth is 288K on average versus the 255K emission temp at TOA, quite fine and dandy there. But we are wrong about why this is true, and we're wrong about our greybody temperature. We can easily get that value without incorrectly combining different physical 'temperatures'.

At the same time, the IPCC breaks the laws of physics with their greybody temperature of 255K, that is 35-40C WARMER than the tropopause. There is no way their greybody temperature is accurate, cannot average lower than the greybody temperature. They just chose 255K because it matches Earth's TOA emission temperature for obvious reasons.

There are no physics to connect the two temperatures (molecular & radiative) either, within the greybody constraints of course. One is analogous to velocity, the other to density. Much of the surface 288K is conducted to and from the non-radiative atmosphere rather than radiated upward unimpeded, see daytime/nighttime values. We can call it a greenhouse effect because that is what it is, but it is not operated radiatively, well at least only partially.

We not measuring a radiative Greenhouse effect at all, this whole 33C thing is not real. The real effect is well over 100C.

What we're really measuring is the effect of an atmosphere in a gravitational field, redistributing the pressure field, resulting in significant molecular line broadening toward the surface.

The ground and ocean surface temperatures are determined by the rate at which they shed energy, but don't let this fool you into thinking it is a backradiation phenomenon! The atmosphere insulates the surface at night, windy nights are warmer than calm nights for a reason, it is the increased rate of collisions hence frictional and conductive rates. 99.7% of the atmosphere cannot technically backradiate. Only 0.3% of the atmosphere actually backradiates, and represents a tiny portion of provided energy.

The more O2 that is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the greater the dimishing of stellar radiation during the day. There may still be a slightly lopsided value there, but the point here is that we need a physics revamp. It is certainly odd to see catastrophe theory science defended with such heart, despite obvious inaccuracies.

Why is this garbage allowed to be perpetuated in any semi-serious discussion of climate change? Buyer beware!

[physicsguy21]

Why is this garbage allowed to be perpetuated in any semi-serious discussion of climate change? Buyer beware!

Because the laws of physics say so. The global tropopause cannot physically be 40C colder than our planetary greybody temperature, that makes no sense whatsoever and violates numerous thermodynamic laws. The 255K figure is wrong, use the moon's net temp as proof. It happens to lie between 192K-197K via Diviner. That alone disproves the 255K assigned to Earth. The IPCC may have picked 255K deliberately.

You'll find out the error is that insolation is weighted first in our blackbody equation giving a temperature much too high. Research Holder's Inequality. If I recall this clear demonstration correctly, invision a flat blackbody at Earth's distance from the Sun with area of 1m2 with little mass but placed full so insolation = 1362Wm2, one side lit, the other dark. Correct application is a flat sunlit half, Full S-B is 1362Wm2 = 5.6704 x 10^-8 x T^4, 394K = T. Nighttime side is set to the 2K deep space value. (394K+2K)/2 = 198K (Reality). If flux is averaged first before being used to calculate temp, You get S_o/2 = 681Wm2. T^4 = 120 x 10^8 = 331K. That is wrong. Once again, measured evidence is on my side.

And yes, planets can emit more energy than they absorb in a given window, answer is the gravitational field, which if you were to assign it a 'speed' it would be faster than that of light.. Jupiter is an example. So is Venus. It just happens that Venus, Mars, Earth, Titan, Neptune, and Pluto, to name a few, have all experienced a recent global warming trend.

[WeatherRusty]

Because the laws of physics say so. The global tropopause cannot physically be 40C colder than our planetary greybody temperature, that makes no sense whatsoever and violates numerous thermodynamic laws. The 255K figure is wrong, use the moon's net temp as proof. It happens to lie between 192K-197K via Diviner. That alone disproves the 255K assigned to Earth. The IPCC may have picked 255K deliberately.

You'll find out the error is that insolation is weighted first in our blackbody equation giving a temperature much too high. Research Holder's Inequality. If I recall this clear demonstration correctly, invision a flat blackbody at Earth's distance from the Sun with area of 1m2 with little mass but placed full so insolation = 1362Wm2, one side lit, the other dark. Correct application is a flat sunlit half, Full S-B is 1362Wm2 = 5.6704 x 10^-8 x T^4, 394K = T. Nighttime side is set to the 2K deep space value. (394K+2K)/2 = 198K (Reality). If flux is averaged first before being used to calculate temp, You get S_o/2 = 681Wm2. T^4 = 120 x 10^8 = 331K. That is wrong. Once again, measured evidence is on my side.

And yes, planets can emit more energy than they absorb in a given window, answer is the gravitational field, which if you were to assign it a 'speed' it would be faster than that of light.. Jupiter is an example. So is Venus. It just happens that Venus, Mars, Earth, Titan, Neptune, and Pluto, to name a few, have all experienced a recent global warming trend.

This is moonbat stuff. Are you kidding me? The temp at the tropopause varies of course, but on average it is about -55C. 255K is -18C. The 255K temperature of the Earth as viewed from space and determined by the Rayleigh-Jeans Law ( a variation on Planck's general radiation temperature for cooler objects) resides on average at about 16,000' above sea level...well within the troposphere (below the tropopause, thus warmer).

Are you just making this stuff up and claiming a violation of thermodynamics when no such violation exists? You have no credibility at all.

Buyer Beware.

[physicsguy21]

This is moonbat stuff. Are you kidding me? The tropopause is 40K colder than the 255K effective temperature? Where do you get that from? The temp at the tropopause varies of course, but on average it is about -55C. 255K is -18C. The 255K temperature of the Earth as viewed from space and determined by the Rayleigh-Jeans Law ( a variation on Planck's general radiation temperature for cooler objects) resides on average at about 16,000' above sea level...well within the troposphere (below the tropopause, thus warmer).

Are you just making this stuff up and claiming a violation of thermodynamics when no such violation exists? You have no credibility at all.

Buyer Beware.

What? You've lost me, please re-check your physics. The supposed radiative emission height via the flawed greybody application (it's not 255K) has no meaning here regardless of whether the radiative greenhouse effect is responsible for the surface temperature or not. Assuming the system is open, which the Earth system clearly is open, the tropopause is colder than the incorrectly calculated greybody temperature. The true greybody temperature of the Earth is about 188K or 189K.

If you start with bad physics you'll end with bad physics, first apply the S-B law correctly. You must then differentiate between molecular temperature (analogous to density) and radiative temperature (analogous to velocity). I stand on a hillside, the Sun's rays incident to 121C, the MSAT incident to 50C, the AT incident to 30C. I can feel all three.

Calling me a moonbat and using faulty science to support your position is not very high class.

[TerryM]

What? You've lost me, please re-check your physics. The supposed radiative emission height via the flawed greybody application (it's not 255K) has no meaning here regardless of whether the radiative greenhouse effect is responsible for the surface temperature or not. Assuming the system is open, which the Earth system clearly is open, the tropopause is colder than the incorrectly calculated greybody temperature. The true greybody temperature of the Earth is about 188K or 189K.

If you start with bad physics you'll end with bad physics, first apply the S-B law correctly. You must then differentiate between molecular temperature (analogous to density) and radiative temperature (analogous to velocity). I stand on a hillside, the Sun's rays incident to 121C, the MSAT incident to 50C, the AT incident to 30C. I can feel all three.

Calling me a moonbat and using faulty science to support your position is not very high class.

And, according to the Urban Dictionary, Moon Bat is a

'Derogatory term for a liberal activist, implying that s/he is a lunatic. The opposite of wingnut'

I believe more fitting terms might be derivatives of the Latin name for our only natural satellite.

BTW

I don't think bad physics exists any more than good physics - it's just physics.

Same with faulty science, there's science and pseudo science - only science gets by the peer review process.

Practitioners of pseudo science are those that usually to refer to science as flawed, and their reasoning's are often difficult to decipher. This doesn't mean they are correct, just obtuse.

Terry

[Jonger]

And, according to the Urban Dictionary, Moon Bat is a

'Derogatory term for a liberal activist, implying that s/he is a lunatic. The opposite of wingnut'

I believe more fitting terms might be derivatives of the Latin name for our only natural satellite.

BTW

I don't think bad physics exists any more than good physics - it's just physics.

Same with faulty science, there's science and pseudo science - only science gets by the peer review process.

Practitioners of pseudo science are those that usually to refer to science as flawed, and their reasoning's are often difficult to decipher. This doesn't mean they are correct, just obtuse.

Terry

Let's face it, peer reviewing in this field is HIGHLY likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review

[Snow_Miser]

Let's face it, peer reviewing in this field is HIGHLY likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_peer_review

Through my observations of the Lindzen & Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and Dessler papers makes me agree with you. It took Lindzen and Choi 2 YEARS to get their rebuttal to Trenberth published, wheras it ONLY took Dessler 6 WEEKS to get his published.

Does that smell like bias to you, or what?

[TerryM]

Let's face it, peer reviewing in this field is HIGHLY likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_peer_review

Why on earth would you say that?

[WeatherRusty]

Let's face it, peer reviewing in this field is HIGHLY likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_peer_review

So when a study of climate sensitivity finds a likely value of say 2.4C per doubling of CO2 and passes peer-review that's a good unbiased peer-review, but when another study finds let's say 3.2C per doubling that one is biased? When the full range of peer-reviewed studies find the most likely value to fall somewhere between 2 and 5C, that's a biased process?

[WeatherRusty]

Through my observations of the Lindzen & Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and Dessler papers makes me agree with you. It took Lindzen and Choi 2 YEARS to get their rebuttal to Trenberth published, wheras it ONLY took Dessler 6 WEEKS to get his published.

Does that smell like bias to you, or what?

Maybe that's what happens when you have earned a dubious reputation as a mud slinger.

[PhillipS]

Let's face it, peer reviewing in this field is HIGHLY likely to be biased.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_peer_review

Your assertion isn't supported by the wikipedia article you linked to. Rather, as the article says there is the potential for bias in peer reviews. Where the bias is favorable it is sometimes referred to as 'pal-review'. And where the bias is unfavorable then it can keep good research out of prominent journals.

It is too great a leap to go from the potential for bias existing (something few if any would deny), and even saying that biased peer-review has occured in various fields at various times,to claiming that biased peer-review is highly likely in climate science. With today's internet, ALL papers can get published/posted and made available to others - so the 'bad old days' where dissent might have been censored through biased peer-review are pretty well history.

If you still feel that climate science peer-review is highly likely to be biased then please provide links to several examples. I'm sure that if you're correct, that there would be documented cases of good climatology papers being suppressed.

[physicsguy21]

And, according to the Urban Dictionary, Moon Bat is a

'Derogatory term for a liberal activist, implying that s/he is a lunatic. The opposite of wingnut'

I believe more fitting terms might be derivatives of the Latin name for our only natural satellite.

BTW

I don't think bad physics exists any more than good physics - it's just physics.

Same with faulty science, there's science and pseudo science - only science gets by the peer review process.

Practitioners of pseudo science are those that usually to refer to science as flawed, and their reasoning's are often difficult to decipher. This doesn't mean they are correct, just obtuse.

Terry

I agree with this post. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the viewpoints of my AGWer counterparts, I just do not find the name calling and 'definitive claims' on either side of the debate to be productive toward the advancement of scientific understanding. Politics just make it worse.

[physicsguy21]

So when a study of climate sensitivity finds a likely value of say 2.4C per doubling of CO2 and passes peer-review that's a good unbiased peer-review, but when another study finds let's say 3.2C per doubling that one is biased? When the full range of peer-reviewed studies find the most likely value to fall somewhere between 2 and 5C, that's a biased process?

I think he is referring to claims of skeptical papers being rejected out of bias for the AGW view, but I'm not sure if that is actually happening, it's just noise. I feel any skeptical papers working with the current S-B law and lapse rate application should be outright rejected.

Most skeptics are trying to debunk AGW using physical calculations that can only exist with the contribution of AGW in the first place, so we see a whole load of fake 'negative feedbacks' simply invented by the skeptics with the simple goal of trying to disprove AGW. They can't substantiate these negative feedbacks that by some wierd logic only appear in the future to rising CO2 levels and never operated in the past to get to today's levels. These are imaginary thresholds invented by scientists such as Lindzen and Choi.

It is not surprising to me that it took Lindzen and Choi 2 years to get their rebuttal paper published. Both sides are using imaginary physics for the most part. This is a Galileo situation.