Trakar
VIP Member
- Feb 28, 2011
- 1,699
- 74
- 83
I have done a partial review of the first link and so far evey study that it cites is based almost solely on computer models.
What difference does whether or not the first several alphabetically ordered by the lead researcher's last name references are computer or empircal data studies? The research paper itself is an empirical data study it isn't a review or compilation analysis of the referenced material.
And, of course, none of these studies address the very real problem that the planet is not warming as you say it is. With the impending doom of Trenberths study (upon which hundreds of peer reviewed studies are based) and the recent peer reviewed studies that show water vapor to be a NEGATIVE forcer (a few listed below for you, the blue highlighted one is particularly revealing) and the whole base assumption of AGW collapses.
LOL, none of this relates in the least to the discussion of this thread or anything stated in this thread. Additionally, until you find a way to nullify the basic physics of radiation transfer and EM interaction with matter, the base assumptions of AGW are foundationally solid.
I'll indulge you this time, but there really is little sense in me addressing Jo Nova's political blog posts and references as you simply copy and paste them onto this board.
([xvi] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35),
Completely unrelated to this thread's topic or discussion - that said:
Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333
and more specifically
Dessler, A. E., and S. M. Davis (2010), Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D19127, doi:10.1029/2010JD014192.
which addresses the problems and flaws in Paltridge et al 2009
Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness.. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263,
Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40
Seriously? you cite fairy tales from discredited pseudojournals? I would be more than happy to discuss the flaws and contradictions in these papers in an appropriate thread, though we might as well be debating the physics of a claim that a cow can jump over the moon.
Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650
As far as I can tell this paper despite numerous revisions still has not passed preliminary peer review for publication in the Journal of International Forecasting despite having been submitted three years ago. I find it curious that you are referencing a non-empirical computer modelling study given your apparent rejection of such, but again largely irrelevent and unrelated to this thread's topic. It doesn't look like the reviewer's comments are open for reading at this time, but as the last submission was made in July of 2009, and it has yet to be accepted for publication, the problems must be of a significant nature. Looks to me like a couple of economics statisticians ventured a bit far afield from their training and competencies, but if their paper clears at least initial peer-review, I'd be happy to llok at it in more detail and discuss any aspect of it you wish to discuss.
Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011
btw - you may want to notify JoNova that the above is an improper citation. It should list as:
Fu, Q., S. Manabe, and C. M. Johanson (2011), On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101.
Again, largely unrelated and irrelevent to the discussion of this thread, if you wish to discuss this paper and its findings, however, yada yada yada...
Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756
Though this paper, too, is irrelevent and unrelated to the discussion of this thread it falls in the same catefory as the others. I must admit to puzzlement, however, as to why you would include a paper that refutes and repudiates a large number of the anti-AGW propositions you seem to hold in esteem. (though perhaps I should thank Jo Nova for the assist!)
from the above paper:
...Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’.
...In summary, considerable scientific progress has been made since the first report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Karl et al., 2006). There is no longer a serious and fundamental discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates, despite DCPS07’s incorrect claim to the contrary. Progress has been achieved by the development of new TSST , TL+O, and T2LT datasets, better quantification of structural
uncertainties in satellite- and radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change, and the application of rigorous statistical comparisons of modelled and observed changes.
...The lessons learned from studying this problem can and should be applied towards the improvement of existing climate monitoring systems, so that future model evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity.
Last edited: