450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Originally posted by atlasastro
Yet Again, I might add. You got schooled on that other thread by Mel too huh!, On exactly the same topic!
Tsk Tsk.
Not a quick learner are we.
God Bless 'em.

That's denial!

Very lulzworthy was trying to pose JoNova as some sort of expert. She has a BSc in microbiology or something, and an MSc in communication, then worked for Shell, lol. She's now just part of the denial machine, associating herself with the likes of the Heartland institute and other denial think-tanks.

I assume that Nathan will be having his spleen fixed by the local grocer. Although, I think it was actually the remnants of his shredded credibility he was spewing up.

ABE: I asked my son to make a pretty picture for Nathan. I know he likes picture-book climatology.



A forcing is a forcing is a forcing. It produces a warming bias and will result in a water vapour feedback.

The changes in lapse rate simply alters the vertical profile of the warming. In the first we have no changes in lapse rate and no changes in vertical profile (and no lapse rate feedback). In the second we have a bias to warming at the surface which produces a positive feedback (enhances forcing). In the last we have bias to warming high in the troposphere, which produces a negative feedback (decreases forcing).

If we don't have the third, then we have the first or second. The argument is that the hot-spot (the third) is not occurring, thus there is no bias towards warming high in the tropics. The surface temperature data shows warming in the tropics of around 0.15'C per decade (GISS, Hadley, NOAA etc).

If it's not faster in higher levels of the troposphere (=hotspot + negative feedback), then it will be either equal rate (= no feedback) or slower (= positive feedback)

In either case, climate sensitivity is higher than the models suggest and we would predict more warming in future. Even more than the current best predictions of 3'C for a doubling of CO2.

Nathan predicts even more warming than the consensus, so he seems to be an 'alarmist', lol.

reply to post by melatonin


mel, I've got another one to add to our ever-growing climate denier mental problem scrapbook: Stockholm Syndrome.

In this case our intrepid science hero is being held intellectually hostage by his abusive girlfriend Joanne Nova. She keeps hurting him by deliberately sending him off into battle armed with nothing but the emperor's new clothes. Yet he continues to sport them proudly because without her he feels he has nothing. Whaddya think - does that make the cut?*

*note it does nothing to change the fact said science hero is still quite the naive april fool to begin with, as well as perhaps an intellectual masochist.

reply to post by PuterMan


I don't know where in my post you're getting the idea that I'm blurring the line between someone believing in natural climate change versus the man made version.

The debate, as always, is over man made warming - so that much should be obvious whether it's explicitly stated or not. Nevertheless, looking back at my last post I see I clearly wrote the word 'anthropogenic' in there anyway so...I don't get it?...seems like just another attempt to bog this discussion down in more off-topic rhetoric to me.

And as for the denier label, I already posted my thoughts on that earlier in this thread and stand by what I said. In the meantime Nathan has once again been doing a fantastic job of backing me up and demonstrating exactly how this works. I should take him on tour with me.

But again - it doesn't even have anything to do with what people believe, or who they disagree with. Heck, it doesn't even have anything to do with climate change really. Because we could be talking about who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman, for all I care.

Being a climate denier has everything to do with the way someone disseminates the information put before them. Deniers are deniers because they constantly cherry-pick and distort the evidence to fit their stance. They misrepresent the science and spew out myth after climate myth that has obviously been spoonfed to them by some disingenuous source. Meanwhile when they get debunked on these things, they quickly move the goal posts or go into clinical denial and hide behind some delusional facade that they are being unfairly persecuted by all us big bad meanie warmists who can't handle their opposing viewpoints. But really all that's happening is they are being held to the same standard of scrutiny they expect us to be held to, except obviously they can't handle the shoe being on the other foot.

So that's what's horse ####.

Because the problem here has much less to do with some subjective dispute over the details than it does with ego. Deniers tend to all be so sucked in by this narcissistic fantasy that they're way more clued-in on climate change issues than everybody else just because their stance goes against the supposed "mainstream". Then, when that mainstream fires back and exposes how much their own revolutionary beliefs are built around lies and wishy washy charlatans selling them bad science, their heads just proceed to automatically explode. I've seen it happen here so many times now, I could set my watch to it.

So I'll call them skeptics when they start actually acting like them.

That means scrutinizing all sides of the evidence with genuine critical thinking, not just blindly subscribing to anything simply because it supports some superficial, tainted, idea of climate change skepticism - and then desperately hiding behind it when they get a taste of what real skepticism actually looks like.

And as for your suggestion that people should start listening to each other, I totally agree. But I've tried to initiate this middle of the road conversation numerous times on here only to be met by crickets and tumbleweed. Here - have a look at my latest attempt and see how much constructive dialogue that generated:
Fighting Global Warming Without Carbon Taxes

It seems to me when the self-declared "skeptics" don't have anything to polemically rant about or make fun of, they really don't have much to say.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by melatonin

 

mel, I've got another one to add to our ever-growing climate denier mental problem scrapbook: Stockholm Syndrome.

I would argue it's more an ideological hostage-taker, but I'll buy it...



"Fly my pretties, fly!"

reply to post by melatonin

If it's not faster in higher levels of the troposphere (=hotspot + negative feedback), then it will be either equal rate (= no feedback) or slower (= positive feedback)

As I said, I agree (for argument's sake) that the positive feedback loop is essential for switching the climate-systems between cold and warm states that are relative stable (i.e. ice-ages and interglacials). However, the positive feedback loop predominates only during the transition between states. Within each relatively stable state negative feedback must predominate or else stability would not be maintained. And today we find ourselves in just such a stable, negative feedback-dominated state in which climatic stability and equilibrium are maintained dynamically by the system's intrinsic negative feedback mechanism. In this state any global warming that occurs will be arrested automatically by the dominant negative feedback mechanism so that the default equilibrium temperature of the system is maintained within relatively narrow bounds. I think this by itself explains why no-one can find the tropospheric hotspot, regardless of any problems over our techniques of scientific measurement and the probity of scientists.

Nathan predicts even more warming than the consensus, so he seems to be an 'alarmist', lol.

Did you forget to take your medication this morning?

If we don't have the third, then we have the first or second. The argument is that the hot-spot (the third) is not occurring, thus there is no bias towards warming high in the tropics. The surface temperature data shows warming in the tropics of around 0.15'C per decade (GISS, Hadley, NOAA etc).

Sure, but the warming must be occurring twice as fast as the surface and it isn't happening.

In the second we have a bias to warming at the surface which produces a positive feedback (enhances forcing). In the last we have bias to warming high in the troposphere, which produces a negative feedback (decreases forcing).

And the negative feedback in the models is weaker than the positive. I haven't got the time or inclination to re-explain this to you. After all you don't even understand 'cause and effect', so I'll just link you to an article explaining it in simple language. The idea that a strongly signalled hotspot is a sign of negative feedback is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time and if that is the case then it would seem that Sherwood and Santer and the rest of the entire duplicitous brotherhood of the CAGW-cabal have inadvertently falsified the CAGW-hypothesis.

The IPCC used the CO2 forcing of 3.71 W/m2. They multiply this by a feedback factor of 3.08, which boosts the total forcing due to CO2 to 11.4 W/m2. Monckton’s summary shows that 76% of this feedback factor is due to clouds and water vapour (with lapse rate change).

But both of these feedbacks are the wrong sign! Roy Spencer shows that clouds cause a negative feedback, not positive, based on satellite data. He shows that modeller have interpreted cloud changes as a feedback, instead of a cause of temperature change. This reversal of cause and effect makes cloud seem like a positive feedback, when they actually cause a negative feedback. But more importantly, the IPCC assumes that water vapour causes the largest positive feedback, but the Hartcode simulation runs using the NOAA water humidity data shows that water vapour causes a large negative feedback. You have seen my graph of relative humidity before which is linked here.

All climate models assume that relative humidity remains approximately constant with global warming. So if CO2 initially causes a small warming, this causes an increase in water content in the models, resulting is a large positive feedback But the data shows a 21% drop of relative humidity at about 9 km altitude, just where the predicted hot spot is missing, directly contradicting the models.

The Hartcode simulation makes no assumptions of how the greenhouse effect works, or how much temperatures changes with optical depth changes. (Optical depth is related the surface radiation flux Su by Su = OLR(1+tau +exp(-tau))/2, where tau = optical depth). Here is a graph showing the optical depth changes over the last 60 years (water vapour and CO2), and the change due to CO2 only.

Look at the pink curve, CO2 only. This is with water vapour held constant and CO2 only changing. The trend (orange line) shows an increase of 1.152 10-4 X 60 years = +0.0069, or about +0.37% in 60 years, confirming our belief the CO2 has a tiny direct effect on temperature.

The blue curve shows the optical depth including CO2 and water vapour. Note that water vapour varies much more that CO2. But instead of causing a huge positive feedback, water caused a strong negative feedback, and reduced the optical depth trend (green line) to 2.58 10-5 X 60 years = + 0.0015, or about 0.083% in 60 years. This means that water vapour has offset 78% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 change over the last 60 years. This is very significant! Note also that there has been a dramatic drop in water vapour at all altitudes in 2008, which is not included in the above calculations. I do recognize that the early NOAA data might be less accurate than more recent data, but this is what the data shows.

This data supports Miskowski’s theory of the greenhouse effect. Miskolcki shows the standard theory uses inappropriate boundary conditions. When real boundary conditions are used, he shows that the atmosphere maintains a saturated greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. I encourage you to review this article, based on a draft by Dr. Noor van Andel. In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models fail: 1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive feedback, 2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback. See PDF here.

Link.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

sjdennis.wordpress.com...
this guy actually measures things as opposed to using math models that are proven frauds ir politics which are proven frauds and as opposed to using the papers of a student dealing with summer melt as GLOBAL WARMING

the fact is
shame about yer luck ( captain ignorance indeed)
you can babble all yu want..the rest of us will go with the facts...
sjdennis.wordpress.com...

I don't have to call you deluded or a lier or a shill.....or insult you in any way
reality is doing that just fine

have a nice day atlasastro

Yes, of course, Nathan. Water vapour feedback is a negative feedback although the observations actually show it to be a clear positive feedback.

Keep squirming.

I'll reduce it down to an even simpler argument.

The surface is warming in the tropics (at around 0.15'C/decade), and we can observe the water vapour feedback and it is pretty consistent with other estimates at around 2Wm^2 (e.g., Dessler et al., 2008). At higher levels of the troposphere it can either warm faster, slower, or at the same rate.

Depending on which depends the lapse rate feedback. You say the observations show it is not faster than the surface in the tropics, and is around abouts the same:

The hotspot is meant to compare atmospheric temperature trends with surface trends (changes in the lapse rate). As far as my limited capacities are able to judge the hotspot in the models (anthropogenically produced or not) is meant to appear due to evaporation increasing and dumping more latent heat into the atmosphere. By suggesting that there is no hotspot I am suggesting that there has been no considerable change in the lapse rate since the surface and temperature trends have remained more or less same.

Therefore we would not have the negative lapse rate feedback in the tropics, which tempers the water vapour feedback as you clearly imply here:

Check out the IPCC graph. Which feedback has the greatest hypothetical influence? Would that be water vapour on its own, or water vapour pegged back by the lapse rate negative feedback?

The water vapour feedback still exists, lol. And overall climate sensitivity will have increased. Negating the hot-spot does not negate the water vapour feedback - it, in fact, allows it to be stronger.

Nothing else to be said, Nathan, and any other replies will be ignored. You are now just attempting to scrabble to rebuild your ego in the face of the cognitive dissonance your ignorance and contradictory arguments readily produce.

Cheers.

to add to my post above...the math won't work because it is based on flawd research flawed models and flawed motives

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

There is a lot of aid money to be had in claiming your country is at risk of a natural disaster:

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

sjdennis.wordpress.com...

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.

www.climatechangefacts.info...

same old same old
the real inconvenient truth.

here is a little coffin nail for you WARMISTS
www.abovetopsecret.com...
heh heh heh



I can't resist....
here is a lil hint
Occidental Al (cia dud) Gore's swan song looks like.....

reply to post by atlasastro


You know I really can't be bothered with you. All you can do is trot out the same rubbish and really it is just so pathetic that it is not worth wasting time on it, or you.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by PuterMan




You got toasted.
I answered your post.


What kind an ignorant puppet actually has to ask if the price of Oil is artificially lowered? I mean really.
That would be you! BTW.

Do you have a poster of Tim Ball in your bedroom?
I bet you do.
Go on, admit it.
You are amongst friends here.

reply to post by Danbones


Yeah, its a scam.
The sea levels are not rising. Here is the proof you need right here. Quick, go tell everyone.


No really. You are right.
None of that matters.

reply to post by atlasastro


lol dont bother.. The Deniers will claim that the video is done using CGI. Or they will find some other lame excuse like its not us humans its the penguins fault for farting.....