Unreliable sources to "balanced" approach to Climate Change

[blizzard1024]

http://www.realclimate.org/  Real Climate

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/  skeptical science

 

http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm   the heat is on-line

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/  Dot Earth 

 

Anything MSNBC says too is biased. 

 

 

 

 

 

To see a full list on both sides of the argument (or politics really). 

A truly neutral site is   http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/   

[donsutherland1]

http://www.realclimate.org/  Real Climate

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/  skeptical science

 

http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm   the heat is on-line

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/  Dot Earth 

 

Anything MSNBC says too is biased. 

 

 

 

 

 

To see a full list on both sides of the argument (or politics really). 

A truly neutral site is   http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/   

 I can see why you may have chosen to exclude blogs and/or clearinghouse sites, but Realclimate is staffed by people who are involved in the field of climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10. Hence, it's not a typical blog or clearinghouse site.

[skierinvermont]

Skeptical Science also relies solely upon peer-reviewed research and therefore is a valuable resource. 

 

 

Dot Earth is not too bad either and often references peer-reviewed research and speaks to scientists directly. However, the degree of narration by the author is probably greater and Revkin has at times given too much attention to non-scientists like Anthony Watts. 

[FloridaJohn]

To see a full list on both sides of the argument (or politics really).

A truly neutral site is http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

The problem with this site is the same one you find in newspapers and on TV. It gives equal weight to all arguments, even though some arguments are clearly wrong ( I.e backed up with data and facts).

Are you telling us that the Real Climate website, staffed with real climate scientists currently working in the field (aka experts), has the same credibility as Senator Inhofe's website?

[skierinvermont]

Well I'll certainly agree the site is balanced. It provides a balance between reliable informed sources and unreliable manipulative sources.

 

Also it seems more geared towards politics and action than the science of climate change.

[blizzard1024]

 I can see why you may have chosen to exclude blogs and/or clearinghouse sites, but Realclimate is staffed by people who are involved in the field of climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10. Hence, it's not a typical blog or clearinghouse site.

 

There were too many too list. Real climate is full of PHDs etc who dominate the peer reviewed literature and anything that comes along that is not in line with

CAGW gets slammed. Also PNAS stated that real climate was a reliable climate change blog. That is the same organization that made exceptions to the

review procedures for Lindzen and Choi (2011) which was an improvement over their 2009 paper. The reasoning was that their paper countered 20 years of research and

modelling. This is called tribalism. I read Real Climate stuff and have learned some...but their views are very very biased toward CAGW no matter what

their CVs say. Just my opinion. and I am just a MET, not a climate science. So take this as you wish. 

 

The problem with this site is the same one you find in newspapers and on TV. It gives equal weight to all arguments, even though some arguments are clearly wrong ( I.e backed up with data and facts).

Are you telling us that the Real Climate website, staffed with real climate scientists currently working in the field (aka experts), has the same credibility as Senator Inhofe's website?

I never said this...I never say anything about anti- CAGW or AGW sites. 

[skierinvermont]

There were too many too list. Real climate is full of PHDs etc who dominate the peer reviewed literature and anything that comes along that is not in line with

CAGW gets slammed. Also PNAS stated that real climate was a reliable climate change blog. That is the same organization that made exceptions to the

review procedures for Lindzen and Choi (2011) which was an improvement over their 2009 paper. The reasoning was that their paper countered 20 years of research and

modelling. This is called tribalism. I read Real Climate stuff and have learned some...but their views are very very biased toward CAGW no matter what

their CVs say. Just my opinion. and I am just a MET, not a climate science. So take this as you wish. 

 

I never said this...I never say anything about anti- CAGW or AGW sites. 

 

The idea that peer-review rejects anything not in line with CAGW is a lie. Peer-review accepts a wide range of conclusions so long as they are supported by the evidence. This is why climate sensitivity is generally thought to be between 2-4.5C and possibly slightly higher or lower than that. There is a wide range of conclusions which are supported by the evidence.

 

I will take it as I wish. Coming from someone who isn't qualified, doesn't really understand the science (but thinks he does), and is bordering on conspiracy theorist.

[blizzard1024]

Well I'll certainly agree the site is balanced. It provides a balance between reliable informed sources and unreliable manipulative sources.

 

Also it seems more geared towards politics and action than the science of climate change.

 

Climate change has become political unfortunately. Again these are blog sites, many of which don't have much

science just politics. 

 

I believe WUWT and Icecap for instance are to the right of the argument and unreliable as realclimate and skeptical science

is to the left. 

 

I will take it as I wish. Coming from someone who isn't qualified, doesn't really understand the science (but thinks he does), and is bordering on conspiracy theorist.

 

I know way more about it than you. You come across as a lunatic greenie who wants to go back to the stone age.....

[blizzard1024]

 I can see why you may have chosen to exclude blogs and/or clearinghouse sites, but Realclimate is staffed by people who are involved in the field of climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10. Hence, it's not a typical blog or clearinghouse site.

 

 

Skeptical Science also relies solely upon peer-reviewed research and therefore is a valuable resource. 

 

 

Dot Earth is not too bad either and often references peer-reviewed research and speaks to scientists directly. However, the degree of narration by the author is probably greater and Revkin has at times given too much attention to non-scientists like Anthony Watts. 

 

see http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-activists-try-to-shape-the-climate-conversation/

 

 

This could explain why WUWT is the top climate blog which is unfortunate. 

 

 

 

http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-activists-try-to-shape-the-climate-conversation/

[BeastFromTheEast]

  You come across as a lunatic greenie who wants to go back to the stone age.....

Stay classy...

[blizzard1024]

 

"I will take it as I wish. Coming from someone who isn't qualified, doesn't really understand the science (but thinks he does), and is bordering on conspiracy theorist." -   skierinvermont

 

 

Stay classy...

 

I REFUSE to take this from this guy who throws insults around on this forum to me and especially others and you say I have to be "classy" to him.  He is saying I don't understand the science and I am a conspiracy theorist...ha. If I am a conspiracy theorist he is a wackie greenie greenpeace dude. 

 

Based on his postings he basically is regurgitating whatever the IPCC says. No thinking on his own. My position on climate change is that we know there is some warming but I don't believe the science is settled on climate sensitivity which is very uncertain. To say this is settled is arrogant and shows a profound lack of understanding of the atmosphere and climate. 

[WeatherRusty]

I REFUSE to take this from this guy who throws insults around on this forum to me and especially others and you say I have to be "classy" to him.  He is saying I don't understand the science and I am a conspiracy theorist...ha. If I am a conspiracy theorist he is a wackie greenie greenpeace dude. 

 

Based on his postings he basically is regurgitating whatever the IPCC says. No thinking on his own. My position on climate change is that we know there is some warming but I don't believe the science is settled on climate sensitivity which is very uncertain. To say this is settled is arrogant and shows a profound lack of understanding of the atmosphere and climate. 

 

Of course skier regurgitrates IPCC info. That is what the IPCC is for, and they represent the actual peer-reviewed science which is under attack. You attack both skier and me when you attack the IPCC. You attack the entire mainstream science community when you disparage PNAS. If you think we don't weigh the science against the backdrop of conventional scientific wisdom, you are wrong. AGW physics fits nice and coherently within the framework of the broad range of sciences which go toward building the scientific basis. We do think for ourselves and find the theory completely tenable.

 

Skier was originally, and not all that long ago very close to your apparent present state of skepticism, being what we regard as a lukewarmer. He has since delved deeply into the science and recognizes where the uncertainties lie. He also well understands the nature of the disinformation machine. He is as well informed and rational as anyone on this site with regard to his understanding of what is going on. He understands that uncertainty is not our friend, and that a significant change in global climate poses a serious threat to human civilization and the biosphere. Not knowing where within the spectrum of uncertainty equilibrium climate sensitivity will be does not give one a warm cozzy feeling.

[blizzard1024]

Of course skier regurgitrates IPCC info. That is what the IPCC is for, and they represent the actual peer-reviewed science which is under attack. You attack both skier and me when you attack the IPCC. You attack the entire mainstream science community when you disparage PNAS. If you think we don't weigh the science against the backdrop of conventional scientific wisdom, you are wrong. AGW physics fits nice and coherently within the framework of the broad range of sciences which go toward building the scientific basis. We do think for ourselves and find the theory completely tenable.

 

Skier was originally, and not all that long ago very close to your apparent present state of skepticism, being what we regard as a lukewarmer. He has since delved deeply into the science and recognizes where the uncertainties lie. He also well understands the nature of the disinformation machine. He is as well informed and rational as anyone on this site with regard to his understanding of what is going on. He understands that uncertainty is not our friend, and that a significant change in global climate poses a serious threat to human civilization and the biosphere. Not knowing where within the spectrum of uncertainty equilibrium climate sensitivity will be does not give one a warm cozzy feeling.

To be honest, I am a lukewarmer too. I just look at everything both sides of the arguments. I don't shut out the other side. You can find flaws and sometimes good points. Just because you have peer viewed papers doesn't prove anything anymore. I know there is corruption, group think, "pal" review, tribalism etc. It dominates many fields...not just climate science.

[WeatherRusty]

Of course there is group think, and for good reason. The scientists who work closest to the research are most familiar with what is going on in the field. Of course all but a small band of politically motivated scientists working in the field think pretty much the same way, the evidence is what they are responding to and that evidence is to be found in the many decades of work and study which supports a consensus conclusion. The world is warming and human activities are almost entirely the reason, how warm and in what time frame not sure, but heading in one of two dangerous directions with indications from paleoclimatology and studies of Earth's deep past that climate can and will warm or cool dramatically. It is no accident that human civilization developed and prospered during an interglacial period where it is neither to cold or to warm and blessed with relative stability.

[blizzard1024]

Of course there is group think, and for good reason. The scientists who work closest to the research are most familiar with what is going on in the field. Of course all but a small band of politically motivated scientists working in the field think pretty much the same way, the evidence is what they are responding to and that evidence is to be found in the many decades of work and study which supports a consensus conclusion. The world is warming and human activities are almost entirely the reason, how warm and in what time frame not sure, but heading in one of two dangerous directions with indications from paleoclimatology and studies of Earth's deep past that climate can and will warm or cool dramatically. It is no accident that human civilization developed and prospered during an interglacial period where it is neither to cold or to warm and blessed with relative stability.

that's a fair statement IMO. 

[donsutherland1]

Skeptical Science also relies solely upon peer-reviewed research and therefore is a valuable resource. 

 

 

Dot Earth is not too bad either and often references peer-reviewed research and speaks to scientists directly. However, the degree of narration by the author is probably greater and Revkin has at times given too much attention to non-scientists like Anthony Watts. 

 

I agree with you. I tried to understand Blizzard1024's reasoning, but found no compelling reason for his exclusion of Realclimate. He has since posted, and has expressed is views about peer review, in general. IMO, that peer review is rigorous does not mean that it is political.

[blizzard1024]

I agree with you. I tried to understand Blizzard1024's reasoning, but found no compelling reason for his exclusion of Realclimate. He has since posted, and has expressed is views about peer review, in general. IMO, that peer review is rigorous does not mean that it is political.

Here are two recent examples of peer reviews that look to be more political to papers that are against the mainstream but hold merit and should be studied more...

 

Paltridge et al 2009 that shows water vapor decreasing in the higher altitudes took on a lot of heat.  see

 

http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/

 

Also Lindzon an Choi 2011 ( a revised paper from their pivotal work in 2009) which answered many questions raised

in 2009. 

 

Take a look at this.... paper rejected from PNAS was very fishy... 

 

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/

 

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/

 

Basically if you go against the mainstream you have a hard time

publishing. Their science is solid enough and raises good 

questions. They don't publish this stuff because it leads

to doubts and that is not what they want. The science is 

settled you know. This is what makes me frustrated. 

 

Again, there is a possibility that warming could be higher

than 2C. I happen to believe it will be less for various

reasons. But I can not rule out higher sensitivity.

There are too many unknowns, like clouds, convection

and even the water vapor feedback at higher altitudes. 

 

That's whats gets me going...this science is not settled,,

climate sensitivity. 

[skierinvermont]

I know way more about it than you. You come across as a lunatic greenie who wants to go back to the stone age.....

 

Why is it then that I have to constantly educate you on things like the long-term ice record, that positive feedback does not = runaway warming, that CO2 is not considered a primary driver of the interglacials (only one of several positive feedbacks)?

 

And your comment about me wanting to go back to the stone age is very revealing. This is clearly about politics to you and left vs right. That has nothing to do with it for me. The fact that you even think mitigating climate change means going back to the stone age shows just how little you know about what mitigation requires and how biased you are. This is just a ridiculous comment.

[blizzard1024]

Why is it then that I have to constantly educate you on things like the long-term ice record, that positive feedback does not = runaway warming, that CO2 is not considered a primary driver of the interglacials (only one of several positive feedbacks)?

 

And your comment about me wanting to go back to the stone age is very revealing. This is clearly about politics to you and left vs right. That has nothing to do with it for me. The fact that you even think mitigating climate change means going back to the stone age shows just how uninformed and biased you are.

 

You are NOT educating me on paleoclimatology. I know I have far more training in this area than you. That is arrogant on your part. I KNOW that positive feedbacks do not have to lead

to runaway climate. I know that feedbacks can behave asymptotically.  However, again, if CO2 is not the primary driver then why does Dr Richard Alley/Hansen and others consider it a global

thermostat??? Clouds, water vapor feedback and ocean currents are unaccounted for and not well modeled or understood. Also as I stated on another thread...how do we know the

climate system was in balance in 1850 and not warming? How do we know that all the warming we have seen is from mankind? These are important issues in the climate sensitivity arguments of which it is assumed all the warming is from CO2.

.

This is where I differ from you. I don't believe the climate is as sensitive as the mainstream does and for me this is based on the observations so far. I have an open mind and if data begins to show an amplifying  GH effect. I will believe. But there is nothing that shows this unless you invoke models. Your sensitivity analysis for the climate over the last 1000 years assumes a stable climate and that all the warming comes from CO2 forcing and not an imbalance that could be present. 1% change in low cloud cover can negate all the manmade warming! We don't know how clouds vary. We don't know how convection varies. Two huge sources of climate regulation.  

 

Basically, you insulted me so I gave it back to you. I am tired of people on this forum and their arrogance and especially insults.  If I am a conspiracy theorist than you are a greenie left wing

who wants to take humanity back to the stone age to save the earth. That was my point. You are wrong about me, like my comment likely is wrong about you. 

[skierinvermont]

You are NOT educating me on paleoclimatology. I know I have far more training in this area than you. That is arrogant on your part. I KNOW that positive feedbacks do not have to lead

to runaway climate. I know that feedbacks can behave asymptotically.  However, again, if CO2 is not the primary driver then why does Dr Richard Alley/Hansen and others consider it a global

thermostat??? Clouds, water vapor feedback and ocean currents are unaccounted for and not well modeled or understood. Also as I stated on another thread...how do we know the

climate system was in balance in 1850 and not warming? How do we know that all the warming we have seen is from mankind? These are important issues in the climate sensitivity arguments of which it is assumed all the warming is from CO2.

.

This is where I differ from you. I don't believe the climate is as sensitive as the mainstream does and for me this is based on the observations so far. I have an open mind and if data begins to show an amplifying  GH effect. I will believe. But there is nothing that shows this unless you invoke models. Your sensitivity analysis for the climate over the last 1000 years assumes a stable climate and that all the warming comes from CO2 forcing and not an imbalance that could be present. 1% change in low cloud cover can negate all the manmade warming! We don't know how clouds vary. We don't know how convection varies. Two huge sources of climate regulation.  

 

Basically, you insulted me so I gave it back to you. I am tired of people on this forum and their arrogance and especially insults.  If I am a conspiracy theorist than you are a greenie left wing

who wants to take humanity back to the stone age to save the earth. That was my point. You are wrong about me, like my comment likely is wrong about you. 

 

We had a very long conversation where you insisted positive feedbacks = runaway warming (YOU: "where are the breaking mechanisms??? How does the warming stop???")

 

When climate scientists refer to CO2 as "the earth's thermostat" they do not mean that it is the primary driver behind all warming and cooling. They are referring to the fact that CO2 is unique because it is long-lived.***** High CO2 concentrations take 1000s of years to dissipate. For those 1000s of years, temperatures will be warm. 

 

 

And actually we do not differ on what you say we do. I agree with your assessment "I don't believe the climate is as sensitive as the mainstream does and for me this is based on the observations so far." However, my confidence that climate sensitivity is on the lower side is extremely low. I'd describe it as more of a guess, as I have a hard time disagreeing with experts who have devoted their life to this research and are far more knowledgeable than I. But it seems to me that if climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 was on the high side (~4C+) that we would probably have seen more warming so far and/or a more unstable climate over the last several centuries. It is predicated that aerosols are a strong forcing and have nearly balanced most of the GHG forcing thus far. I find it more likely that net forcing thus far has been greater, and sensitivity lower. I've read a few papers that suggest this so I don't feel that I am going too far out on a limb saying this. Is it possible sensitivity is 4C+? Absolutely, but I am more persuaded by arguments that it is 2-3C.

 

******Water vapor, for example, could not act as a thermostat because even if you increased water vapor dramatically it would drop back so quickly that there would be very little warming or time for positive feedbacks. The temperature setting of the earth would not have been changed. Albedo could not act as a thermostat. You could have a massive albedo anomaly blanketing the NH in snow, but it would melt so quickly that the temperature setting of the earth would not have been changed. Volcanoes cannot act as a thermostat because the sulfates only last a few years. Some feedbacks would occur and some cooling, but not nearly enough to reset the thermostat. Low clouds could increase but unless the change was permenant and self-reinforcing, the thermostat would not be reset. However, if you increase CO2, the thermostat of the earth is reset. Long-term warming would occur with all of the attendant feedbacks - water vapor, albedo, cloud cover etc. would all change. 

[blizzard1024]

We had a very long conversation where you insisted positive feedbacks = runaway warming (YOU: "where are the breaking mechanisms??? How does the warming stop???")

 

When climate scientists refer to CO2 as "the earth's thermostat" they do not mean that it is the primary driver behind all warming and cooling. They are referring to the fact that CO2 is unique because it is long-lived.***** High CO2 concentrations take 1000s of years to dissipate. For those 1000s of years, temperatures will be warm. 

 

 

And actually we do not differ on what you say we do. I agree with your assessment "I don't believe the climate is as sensitive as the mainstream does and for me this is based on the observations so far." However, my confidence that climate sensitivity is on the lower side is extremely low. I'd describe it as more of a guess, as I have a hard time disagreeing with experts who have devoted their life to this research and are far more knowledgeable than I. But it seems to me that if climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 was on the high side (~4C+) that we would probably have seen more warming so far and/or a more unstable climate over the last several centuries. It is predicated that aerosols are a strong forcing and have nearly balanced most of the GHG forcing thus far. I find it more likely that net forcing thus far has been greater, and sensitivity lower. I've read a few papers that suggest this so I don't feel that I am going too far out on a limb saying this. Is it possible sensitivity is 4C+? Absolutely, but I am more persuaded by arguments that it is 2-3C.

 

******Water vapor, for example, could not act as a thermostat because even if you increased water vapor dramatically it would drop back so quickly that there would be very little warming or time for positive feedbacks. The temperature setting of the earth would not have been changed. Albedo could not act as a thermostat. You could have a massive albedo anomaly blanketing the NH in snow, but it would melt so quickly that the temperature setting of the earth would not have been changed. Volcanoes cannot act as a thermostat because the sulfates only last a few years. Some feedbacks would occur and some cooling, but not nearly enough to reset the thermostat. Low clouds could increase but unless the change was permenant and self-reinforcing, the thermostat would not be reset. However, if you increase CO2, the thermostat of the earth is reset. Long-term warming would occur with all of the attendant feedbacks - water vapor, albedo, cloud cover etc. would all change. 

 

A breaking mechanism is a when a feedback eventually damps or you get a runaway effect. My question back then

was what is the breaking mechanism for the water vapor feedback? If it warms, does not matter the cause, you get more

water vapor which makes sense in the lower atmopshere, evaporation increases, air has more capacity to "hold" water vapor. But water vapor

is a greenhouse gas which then further amplifies the warming.   Now it is even warmer, which leads to more water

vapor, which leads to more warming. Something has to eventually slow this down. That is a breaking mechanism. 

And we know it exists because we would have a runaway greenhouse or icehouse effect. The breaking mechanism

is clouds. It has to be. More clouds, especially low clouds I believe, since they are closest to the evaporation source which

cools the Earth. That is a breaking mechanism from a positive feedback that damps it as an example. No one in

climate science has ever mentioned this or even an asymptotic relationship of a positive feedback. If a CO2 level

leads to a certain amount of water vapor then there should at least been an empirical equation for it. where is that

equation? For 25 years to so they have been on this positive feedback. Where is the equation that shows the relationship of

CO2 to H2O concentration in our atmosphere and how it varies with altitude? Again it can be empirical based on

model results.  Then we can test it with real world observations, especially in the lower altitudes where water vapor

measurements are most accurate. 

 

CO2 by itself has a minor effect on the global climate. You need feedbacks to be mostly positive for there to be

anything to worry about. That is where I am uncertain and question the science. Positive feedbacks alone I don't think

dominate the climate system because we would have runaway effects. There is something (clouds) that 

keeps this in check IMO. 

[skierinvermont]

A breaking mechanism is a when a feedback eventually damps or you get a runaway effect. My question back then

was what is the breaking mechanism for the water vapor feedback? If it warms, does not matter the cause, you get more

water vapor which makes sense in the lower atmopshere, evaporation increases, air has more capacity to "hold" water vapor. But water vapor

is a greenhouse gas which then further amplifies the warming.   Now it is even warmer, which leads to more water

vapor, which leads to more warming. Something has to eventually slow this down. That is a breaking mechanism. 

And we know it exists because we would have a runaway greenhouse or icehouse effect. The breaking mechanism

is clouds. It has to be. More clouds, especially low clouds I believe, since they are closest to the evaporation source which

cools the Earth. That is a breaking mechanism from a positive feedback that damps it as an example. No one in

climate science has ever mentioned this or even an asymptotic relationship of a positive feedback. If a CO2 level

leads to a certain amount of water vapor then there should at least been an empirical equation for it. where is that

equation? For 25 years to so they have been on this positive feedback. Where is the equation that shows the relationship of

CO2 to H2O concentration in our atmosphere and how it varies with altitude? Again it can be empirical based on

model results.  Then we can test it with real world observations, especially in the lower altitudes where water vapor

measurements are most accurate. 

 

CO2 by itself has a minor effect on the global climate. You need feedbacks to be mostly positive for there to be

anything to worry about. That is where I am uncertain and question the science. Positive feedbacks alone I don't think

dominate the climate system because we would have runaway effects. There is something (clouds) that 

keeps this in check IMO. 

 

 

You still do not understand the concept of a positive feedback. No breaking mechanism is required to prevent runaway warming.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I REFUSE to take this from this guy who throws insults around on this forum to me and especially others and you say I have to be "classy" to him.  He is saying I don't understand the science and I am a conspiracy theorist...ha. If I am a conspiracy theorist he is a wackie greenie greenpeace dude. 

 

Based on his postings he basically is regurgitating whatever the IPCC says. No thinking on his own. My position on climate change is that we know there is some warming but I don't believe the science is settled on climate sensitivity which is very uncertain. To say this is settled is arrogant and shows a profound lack of understanding of the atmosphere and climate. 

You ARE a borderline conspiracy theorist, always thinking the "peer review" is some kind of cult. You support junk science that cannot be backed with scientific facts from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Anyone who compares wuwt with realclimate is a joke! You said it yourself, you have no experience and aren't qualified in climate science, and yet you attack the climate scientists who are doing PEER REVIEWED work. This is the type of non sense this CC forum has to deal with from the anti AGW ninnies.

[donsutherland1]

Here are two recent examples of peer reviews that look to be more political to papers that are against the mainstream but hold merit and should be studied more...

 

Paltridge et al 2009 that shows water vapor decreasing in the higher altitudes took on a lot of heat.  see

 

http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/

 

Also Lindzon an Choi 2011 ( a revised paper from their pivotal work in 2009) which answered many questions raised

in 2009. 

 

Take a look at this.... paper rejected from PNAS was very fishy... 

 

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/

 

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/

 

Basically if you go against the mainstream you have a hard time

publishing. Their science is solid enough and raises good 

questions. They don't publish this stuff because it leads

to doubts and that is not what they want. The science is 

settled you know. This is what makes me frustrated. 

 

Again, there is a possibility that warming could be higher

than 2C. I happen to believe it will be less for various

reasons. But I can not rule out higher sensitivity.

There are too many unknowns, like clouds, convection

and even the water vapor feedback at higher altitudes. 

 

That's whats gets me going...this science is not settled,,

climate sensitivity. 

 

Several issues on the Lindzen-Choi paper (as there's a reasonably large paper trail from the link you provided):

 

1. How much of the Lindzen-Choi paper was based on Lindzen’s earlier work with M.D. Chou? If a significant portion relied, in part on that earlier work, then PNAS is correct that Chou would not be an appropriate reviewer. That they have not collaborated for “over 5 years” is irrelevant if the Lindzen-Choi paper depends to a significant part on Lindzen’s earlier collaboration with Chou.

 

2.Lindzen disagrees with PNAS’s assessment of Dr. Happer’s expertise but fails to provide evidence that Dr. Happer is, in fact, an expert in the area PNAS says he is not. Why didn’t Lindzen furnish additional evidence to alleviate PNAS’s concerns that Dr. Happer lacked sufficient expertise?

 

3. Lindzen’s objecting to possible alternative reviewers is, to be frank, political in nature. He does not object on grounds that they might not possess the technical expertise to conduct an effective review, which would be a fair counterargument. He charges that they are “well known proponents of global warming alarm.” In other words, he not only suggests that they are incapable of being objective on grounds of their accepting AGW, he essentially labels AGW “global warming alarm.” Engaging in frivolous political characterizations is not a good way to build working relationships. It is an effective way to damage them.

 

I have no experience in the field of peer review, but have a lot of experience in business that involved team work and other forms of collaboration. Often many of us held differing views in areas in which we were charged to collaborate. We did not use those differences to suggest that others were unfit for the role, others views were “libelous” in nature, others could not be objective, etc. Not surprisingly, we were able to forge effective working relationships and achieve the goals of the collaboration.

 

If these communications reflect the way Dr. Lindzen conducts himself in his working relationships with peer-reviewed journals, they highlight a risk of self-inflicted isolation from that community on account of offending the pool of reviewers. That this could make it more difficult for him to publish is a possible outcome and the tragedy of that outcome is that it could have been largely or wholly self-inflicted.

 

4. Reflecting on the third point, PNAS noted that one of the experts approved by Dr. Lindzen wanted to consult Drs. Wielicki or Hartmann to evaluate the paper’s radiation budget data. Rather than consenting, as would have been the proper course in an academic setting, Lindzen charged that “none of my suggested reviewers would have made such a recommendation.” In effect, he was accusing PNAS of lying. Again, that’s not a good way to work with others, much less ask them to fulfill what you’re looking for.

 

In the end, while not commenting on the technical merits of the Lindzen-Choi paper (I don’t have the requisite background to do so in an effective manner), I can say that I don’t believe he handled the back-and-forth with PNAS in a professional manner, much less one that could have increased the probability of publication. His subsequent statements further undermine his relationship with PNAS (and likely other journals, too).

 

Afterward, rather than looking at his own communications and trying to reflect upon PNAS’s concerns, he dismissed the outcome as demonstrating that “any attempt to resubmit a  revised paper simply leads to further delay culminating in re-rejection.”  

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Climate change has become political unfortunately. Again these are blog sites, many of which don't have much

science just politics. 

 

I believe WUWT and Icecap for instance are to the right of the argument and unreliable as realclimate and skeptical science

is to the left. 

 

 

I know way more about it than you. You come across as a lunatic greenie who wants to go back to the stone age.....

 

I am a lunatic greenie and proud of it, I'm sick of humanity thinking they can keep going around and trashing Earth like a dumpster, clogging the skies with their filth, and skip around like they aren't responsible for it. This back to the stone age is an incredible joke piece of propaganda, nobody I know who is green is anti science or anti progress. I'm for clean technology and a better life for the people, that is the opposite of a stone age mentality. Then you wonder why your ilk recieve the animosity they deserve.

[blizzard1024]

You still do not understand the concept of a positive feedback. No breaking mechanism is required to prevent runaway warming.

Then why don't YOU explain it. You have no clue about feedbacks. I did my M.S on a positive feedback

mechanism in snowstorms that eventually breaks down. Otherwise it would never stop snowing heavily.

 

A positive feedback amplifies an original forcing to an extent than it has to weaken. That is what a breaking

mechanism is. It affects a parameter to a point that tails off to a mathematical asymptote where it

has little additional affect.

 

Please enlighten me then on the CO2- H20 feedback. What prevents a runaway? Huh? How does it stop

and the positive effect is reduced. There has to be a physical reason. My question is what is this physical

reason. I know that for higher temperatures it takes much more water vapor to saturate. Maybe that is

the "breaking mechanism".  I think it is clouds. But no one ever addresses this important scientific fact.

 

[WeatherRusty]

You are NOT educating me on paleoclimatology. I know I have far more training in this area than you. That is arrogant on your part. I KNOW that positive feedbacks do not have to lead

to runaway climate. I know that feedbacks can behave asymptotically.  However, again, if CO2 is not the primary driver then why does Dr Richard Alley/Hansen and others consider it a global

thermostat??? Clouds, water vapor feedback and ocean currents are unaccounted for and not well modeled or understood. Also as I stated on another thread...how do we know the

climate system was in balance in 1850 and not warming? How do we know that all the warming we have seen is from mankind? These are important issues in the climate sensitivity arguments of which it is assumed all the warming is from CO2.

.

This is where I differ from you. I don't believe the climate is as sensitive as the mainstream does and for me this is based on the observations so far. I have an open mind and if data begins to show an amplifying  GH effect. I will believe. But there is nothing that shows this unless you invoke models. Your sensitivity analysis for the climate over the last 1000 years assumes a stable climate and that all the warming comes from CO2 forcing and not an imbalance that could be present. 1% change in low cloud cover can negate all the manmade warming! We don't know how clouds vary. We don't know how convection varies. Two huge sources of climate regulation.  

 

Basically, you insulted me so I gave it back to you. I am tired of people on this forum and their arrogance and especially insults.  If I am a conspiracy theorist than you are a greenie left wing

who wants to take humanity back to the stone age to save the earth. That was my point. You are wrong about me, like my comment likely is wrong about you. 

 

The thermostat issue is very simple. In addition to what skier mentioned, CO2 represents the scaffolding of the greenhouse effect just because of it's long atmospheric resident time. Remove CO2 and most of the greenhouse effect would collapse immediately.

 

With regard to runaway feedback in the case of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas, since the radiative forcing curve is related to the logarithm of the concentration, the returns on temperature increase are self limiting. No negative cloud feedback is required to slow the warming as a greenhouse gas linearly increases.

[Mallow]

Then why don't YOU explain it. You have no clue about feedbacks. I did my M.S on a positive feedback

mechanism in snowstorms that eventually breaks down. Otherwise it would never stop snowing heavily.

 

A positive feedback amplifies an original forcing to an extent than it has to weaken. That is what a breaking

mechanism is. It affects a parameter to a point that tails off to a mathematical asymptote where it

has little additional affect.

 

Please enlighten me then on the CO2- H20 feedback. What prevents a runaway? Huh? How does it stop

and the positive effect is reduced. There has to be a physical reason. My question is what is this physical

reason. I know that for higher temperatures it takes much more water vapor to saturate. Maybe that is

the "breaking mechanism".  I think it is clouds. But no one ever addresses this important scientific fact.

 

 

Ugh, this has been explained to you so many times already.

 

Say the H2O feedback adds 20% to the original "heating". Say you "heat" by 1°C. The first iteration of the H2O feedback loop will add 0.2°C. The second iteration will add 0.2°C*20% = 0.04°C. The third will add 0.008°C. Etc ad infinitum. This is a convergent series (specifically, in this case, it converges to 1.25°C). No braking mechanism is required to prevent a runaway feedback loop. Indeed, the only way the feedback loop WILL grow indefinitely is if the feedback adds 100% or more to the original "heating".

[Mallow]

Your sensitivity analysis for the climate over the last 1000 years assumes a stable climate and that all the warming comes from CO2 forcing and not an imbalance that could be present. 1% change in low cloud cover can negate all the manmade warming! We don't know how clouds vary. We don't know how convection varies. Two huge sources of climate regulation.  

 

1. The sensitivity analyses does NOT assume that "all the warming comes from CO2 forcing". Indeed, for the most part, it treats CO2 as a FEEDBACK historically, since it lags the temperature record.

2. If clouds and convection regulate the climate to the extent you're suggesting, how has climate changed in the past? You're arguing that it's possible that clouds and convection could be enough of a negative feedback to "negate all the manmade warming". But why would clouds distinguish between "manmade" and "natural" warming? Clouds don't know what CAUSED the warming, just that it's warmer. So if it has warmed in the past, in spite of clouds, why can it not warm in the future, in spite of clouds?

[Snow_Miser]

2. If clouds and convection regulate the climate to the extent you're suggesting, how has climate changed in the past? You're arguing that it's possible that clouds and convection could be enough of a negative feedback to "negate all the manmade warming". But why would clouds distinguish between "manmade" and "natural" warming? Clouds don't know what CAUSED the warming, just that it's warmer. So if it has warmed in the past, in spite of clouds, why can it not warm in the future, in spite of clouds?

 

 

What he's saying is that with a 1% change in clouds (not a feedback, but being forced externally, such as from Cosmic Rays and Solar Variability) could be comparable to the IPCC's anthropogenic forcing since 1750 of 1.6 w/m^2. The net Cloud Forcing has been estimated to be -28 w/m^2. That means that if all Clouds were to be removed, an extra 28 w/m^2 would be forced upon Earth's climate. If Low Clouds were to have been reduced by 1-2%, this would have even more of a warming impact than net Clouds decreasing 1-2%.