Peer Review

[mamooth]

Remember denialists, cherrypicking and deliberate misinterpretation of the cherrypicks is not science. But then, that's all denialists have and will ever have. They suck pretty badly at the actual science and logic, hence they must become masters of the cherrypick.

Denialists also need to lose that edge of hysteria in their voices, because it gives away the fact that, deep down, denialists know how much of a failure their poltical cult is. That would be why the whole planet is laughing at them.

 

[Abraham3]

What I find is that these papers don't say what these particular reviewers seem to be saying or implying that they say. For this first one, for instance, the reviewer gives a strong impression that "Sun Controls Climate". What we find instead is a discussion of some of the very fine details of atmospheric energy transfer. The authors seek to increase our understanding of the way things work. I see not the slightest hint of a rejection or a refutation or a replacement of AGW from Greenhouse gas emissions.

Abstract
Possible relationships between tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and atmospheric oscillations, solar and geomagnetic activity are described using correlation analysis. The dependence of correlations on season, solar activity level and phase of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is also investigated. An important finding is that the variability of the hemispheric tropospheric temperature is well connected to the Scandinavian Pattern, to the Pacific North American teleconnection and less with the North Atlantic Oscillation. There is also a possible link with the Southern Oscillation (SO) for winter. Solar UV and cosmic ray flux might influence tropospheric temperature during warm seasons, solar maximum or QBO West. Significant correlations between the Northern stratospheric temperature and the SO is observed especially during the Eastern phase of QBO and solar minimum. Signatures of geomagnetic variability are seen in the winter stratospheric temperature. The stratospheric temperature correlates with the cosmic ray flux and solar UV at annual level at solar maximum and QBO West. The UV effect at stratospheric level is less clear than expected. The existence of some correlations between tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures and internal and external parameters under certain climatic circumstances and during different solar cycle phases might help in identifying processes that transfer energy from the Sun to different atmospheric layers and in assessing their role in climate variability.


For this next one, the reviewer claims that the study shows that glaciers have been receding at their current rate since 1850 and that anthropogenic forcing has had no affect on the rate of retreat. What we find in the abstract, however, is that the authors find that the response of glacial melting is significantly delayed and that as the glaciers shrink to nothing, the rate of loss will decrease.

Feedbacks and mechanisms affecting the global sensitivity of glaciers to climate change

B. Marzeion1, A. H. Jarosch2, and J. M. Gregory3
1Center of Climate and Cryopshere, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Innsbruck, Austria
2Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
3NCAS-Climate, University of Reading, Reading, and Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

Abstract. Mass loss by glaciers has been an important contributor to sea level rise in the past, and is projected to contribute a substantial fraction of total sea level rise during the 21st century. Here, we use a model of the world's glaciers to quantify equilibrium sensitivities of global glacier mass to climate change, and to investigate the role of changes in glacier hypsometry for long-term mass changes. We find that 21st century glacier-mass loss is largely governed by the glacier's response to 20th century climate change. This limits the influence of 21st century climate change on glacier-mass loss, and explains why there are relatively small differences in glacier-mass loss under greatly different scenarios of climate change. The projected future changes in both temperature and precipitation experienced by glaciers are amplified relative to the global average. The projected increase in precipitation partly compensates for the mass loss caused by warming, but this compensation is negligible at higher temperature anomalies since an increasing fraction of precipitation at the glacier sites is liquid. Loss of low-lying glacier area, and more importantly, eventual complete disappearance of glaciers, strongly limit the projected sea level contribution from glaciers in coming centuries. The adjustment of glacier hypsometry to changes in the forcing strongly reduces the rates of global glacier-mass loss caused by changes in global mean temperature compared to rates of mass loss when hypsometric changes are neglected. This result is a second reason for the relatively weak dependence of glacier-mass loss on future climate scenario, and helps explain why glacier-mass loss in the first half of the 20th century was of the same order of magnitude as in the second half of the 20th century, even though the rate of warming was considerably smaller.


The bullet for this next paper claims that its authors found that increasing warmth leads to reduced cloud cover. This would tend to further reduce albedo and increase heating. The reviewer points out that the IPCC's AR5 states that increased warming will increase evaporation which will increase cloud cover. AR5 thus finds this process to produce a negative feedback. The author's conclusion that things will go otherwise due to dehydration of lower levels of the atmosphere leads them to conclude that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is thus significantly MORE than the 3C everyone has been working with; hardly an anti-alarmist sentiment.

Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing

Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony & Jean-Louis Dufresne
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 505, 37–42 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12829
Received 16 May 2013 Accepted 05 November 2013 Published online 01 January 2014
Article tools
Citation
Reprints
Rights & permissions
Article metrics
Abstract
Abstract• References• Author information• Extended data figures and tables
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.

 

[SSDD]

Spin like a top....The fact is that the wheels are falling off your crazy train and only the true idiots will still be riding when the inevetable crash happens. Look around you, only those who have the most to lose if AGW falls flat on its face are still harping gloom and doom....the rest of climate science is swinging towards doing actual science and trying to learn what really drives the climate since it is obvious that it is not CO2

N9re than 70 papers last year finding that the sun is the control knob for our climate and more to be published this year.

 

[Kosh]

Global Warming is a natural proses that happens with or without humans on the planet.

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

AGW is a religious farce being promoted by millionaires.

The AGW cultists will never waiver from their faith as they continue to produce that which they claim is killing the planet.

 

[Abraham3]

No response to the three mischaracterized abstracts I posted? Now THAT would be spinning. I'm the one doing the truth-telling.

 

[Abraham3]

Global Warming is a natural proses that happens with or without humans on the planet.

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

AGW is a religious farce being promoted by millionaires.

The AGW cultists will never waiver from their faith as they continue to produce that which they claim is killing the planet.

WTF is wrong with you dude? No matter WHAT gets posted, you just close your mind and roll out your little mantra. Don't you have any interest in TALKING about these points? WHAT do you think is accomplished by saying "CO2 does NOT drive climate" 113 times in a row? What variety of opinion do you think that behavior has earned you from EVERYONE here? Have you gotten a lot of 'rep' points? Do you regularly get thanked by the other posters around here? What possible satisfaction could you be getting from this? Do everyone - you included - a huge favor and either actually get involved in these discussions or find somewhere else to dribble your pablum.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD

New paper finds glaciers have been melting at the same rate since 1850, no acceleration predicted

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds global glaciers melted at the same rate in the first half of the 20th century as in the second half. This implies no man-made influence on glacier melt, since the melting began naturally at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 with "safe" CO2 levels, and continued at the same rate throughout the 20th century with no acceleration. The authors predict glacier mass loss will continue at the same rate in the 21st century and have "relatively weak dependence" on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Now that is what SSDD states the paper says. However, going to the source, one can see that the paper does not state that at all. Here is the abstract of that paper;

TC - Abstract - Feedbacks and mechanisms affecting the global sensitivity of glaciers to climate change


The Cryosphere, 8, 59-71, 2014
www.the-cryosphere.net/8/59/2014/
doi:10.5194/tc-8-59-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Article Metrics Related Articles
Feedbacks and mechanisms affecting the global sensitivity of glaciers to climate change

B. Marzeion1, A. H. Jarosch2, and J. M. Gregory3
1Center of Climate and Cryopshere, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Innsbruck, Austria
2Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
3NCAS-Climate, University of Reading, Reading, and Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

Abstract. Mass loss by glaciers has been an important contributor to sea level rise in the past, and is projected to contribute a substantial fraction of total sea level rise during the 21st century. Here, we use a model of the world's glaciers to quantify equilibrium sensitivities of global glacier mass to climate change, and to investigate the role of changes in glacier hypsometry for long-term mass changes. We find that 21st century glacier-mass loss is largely governed by the glacier's response to 20th century climate change. This limits the influence of 21st century climate change on glacier-mass loss, and explains why there are relatively small differences in glacier-mass loss under greatly different scenarios of climate change. The projected future changes in both temperature and precipitation experienced by glaciers are amplified relative to the global average. The projected increase in precipitation partly compensates for the mass loss caused by warming, but this compensation is negligible at higher temperature anomalies since an increasing fraction of precipitation at the glacier sites is liquid. Loss of low-lying glacier area, and more importantly, eventual complete disappearance of glaciers, strongly limit the projected sea level contribution from glaciers in coming centuries. The adjustment of glacier hypsometry to changes in the forcing strongly reduces the rates of global glacier-mass loss caused by changes in global mean temperature compared to rates of mass loss when hypsometric changes are neglected. This result is a second reason for the relatively weak dependence of glacier-mass loss on future climate scenario, and helps explain why glacier-mass loss in the first half of the 20th century was of the same order of magnitude as in the second half of the 20th century, even though the rate of warming was considerably smaller.

In other words, that is less alpine glacial ice to melt as the climate continues to warm. Most of the sea level rise from here on out will be from the contintental ice caps.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD

New computer model claims that global warming decreases cloudsl

A new paper published in Nature claims global warming reduces low clouds, the opposite of what has been claimed in the past. For example, the forthcoming IPCC AR5 notes climate models have predicted that in a warmer climate, increased evaporation will increase low cloud thickness, vertical, and horizontal extent, all of which increases reflection of sunlight [albedo], cools the planet, and acts as a negative feedback.

Now this is what SSDD gets out of this paper. Hard to say where he sees that.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

Abstract
Abstract• References• Author information• Extended data figures and tables
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.

So what we are getting is more warming than expected according to this model.

 

[Abraham3]

You think that matter is inherently different than energy?

You've been quite the disappointment here son. How much net* matter->energy or energy->matter conversion do you see taking place around here? Is that a big climate factor in your expert opinion?

* - ie, aside from virtual particle pairs

Pull your pants up. Your complete ignorance is showing.

Then you should have no problem showing us where matter energy conversions on Earth have some significant effect on out climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD

New paper finds globe was warmer, sea levels rose faster and higher during the last interglacial

A paper published today in the Journal of Quaternary Science notes that during the last interglacial, "global temperatures were 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise [greater than 5.6mm/year], leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 meters [22 to 31 feet] higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated."

Thus, during the last interglacial, the globe was naturally 2 °C warmer, sea levels rose 5 times faster than at the present, sea levels were up to 31 feet higher than the present, and Antarctic sea ice was much less than the present, all with "safe" levels of CO2. There is no evidence that climate change within the present interglacial is any different, unprecedented, unnatural, unusual, or due to man-made CO2.

The conclusions in the latter paragraph are entirely those of SSDD and are not in the paper at all.

Testing the sensitivity of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet to Southern Ocean dynamics: past changes and future implications - FOGWILL - 2013 - Journal of Quaternary Science - Wiley Online Library

Keywords:
East Antarctic Ice Sheet;Last Interglacial;Southern Annual Mode;Southern Hemisphere Westerlies;Southern Ocean
ABSTRACT
The stability of Antarctic ice sheets and their potential contribution to sea level under projected future warming remains highly uncertain. The Last Interglacial (135 000–116 000 years ago) provides a potential analogue, with global temperatures 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise >5.6 m ka−1, leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 m higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated. Here we report a series of independent model simulations exploring the effects of migrating Southern Hemisphere Westerlies (SHWs) on Southern Ocean circulation and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. We suggest that southerly shifts in winds may have significantly impacted the sub-polar gyres, inducing pervasive warming (0.2–0.8 °C in the upper 1200 m) adjacent to sectors of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS), which due to their geometries and connectivity to the Southern Ocean are highly sensitive to ocean forcing. We conclude that the EAIS potentially made a substantial, hitherto unsuspected, contribution to interglacial sea levels, and given 21st-century projections in the Southern Annular Mode and associated SHW migration, we highlight how pervasive circum-Antarctic warming may threaten EAIS stability

What they are stating is that the present warming has the potential to raise the sea level even further than that of the past.

What we are seeing here is a constant and willful misinterpretation of what these papers are stating.

 

[SwimExpert]

You've been quite the disappointment here son. How much net* matter->energy or energy->matter conversion do you see taking place around here? Is that a big climate factor in your expert opinion?

* - ie, aside from virtual particle pairs

Pull your pants up. Your complete ignorance is showing.

Then you should have no problem showing us where matter energy conversions on Earth have some significant effect on out climate.

I'll do you one better. I give you some matter-matter conversion.

2C + 02 = CO2

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD

New paper finds globe was warmer, sea levels rose faster and higher during the last interglacial

A paper published today in the Journal of Quaternary Science notes that during the last interglacial, "global temperatures were 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise [greater than 5.6mm/year], leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 meters [22 to 31 feet] higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated."

Thus, during the last interglacial, the globe was naturally 2 °C warmer, sea levels rose 5 times faster than at the present, sea levels were up to 31 feet higher than the present, and Antarctic sea ice was much less than the present, all with "safe" levels of CO2. There is no evidence that climate change within the present interglacial is any different, unprecedented, unnatural, unusual, or due to man-made CO2.

The conclusions in the latter paragraph are entirely those of SSDD and are not in the paper at all.

Testing the sensitivity of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet to Southern Ocean dynamics: past changes and future implications - FOGWILL - 2013 - Journal of Quaternary Science - Wiley Online Library

Keywords:
East Antarctic Ice Sheet;Last Interglacial;Southern Annual Mode;Southern Hemisphere Westerlies;Southern Ocean
ABSTRACT
The stability of Antarctic ice sheets and their potential contribution to sea level under projected future warming remains highly uncertain. The Last Interglacial (135 000–116 000 years ago) provides a potential analogue, with global temperatures 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise >5.6 m ka−1, leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 m higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated. Here we report a series of independent model simulations exploring the effects of migrating Southern Hemisphere Westerlies (SHWs) on Southern Ocean circulation and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. We suggest that southerly shifts in winds may have significantly impacted the sub-polar gyres, inducing pervasive warming (0.2–0.8 °C in the upper 1200 m) adjacent to sectors of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS), which due to their geometries and connectivity to the Southern Ocean are highly sensitive to ocean forcing. We conclude that the EAIS potentially made a substantial, hitherto unsuspected, contribution to interglacial sea levels, and given 21st-century projections in the Southern Annular Mode and associated SHW migration, we highlight how pervasive circum-Antarctic warming may threaten EAIS stability

What they are stating is that the present warming has the potential to raise the sea level even further than that of the past.

What we are seeing here is a constant and willful misinterpretation of what these papers are stating.

MALARKEY... What we have is comprehensive statement of WHAT WAS during the previous interglacial period with a little biblical invocation at the end of it warning WHAT COULD BE if the failed AGW predictions were to happen..

The IMPORTANT BITS were the facts of WHAT WAS.... THATs what the study MEASURED AND QUANTIFIED... Meanwhile --- the Southern Ocean "ON AVERAGE" has been cooling for a considerably recent period..

Denial roles reversed... End of message..

 

[flacaltenn]

No response to the three mischaracterized abstracts I posted? Now THAT would be spinning. I'm the one doing the truth-telling.

Nawww.. You just didn't UNDERSTAND the importance of these claims.. For instance, you completely stated the problem for the cloud study but TOTALLY MISSED THE IRONICAL points of it..

Go back, read YOUR OWN analysis of that one and see if you can tell why a SKEPTIC would like this recent paper.. No hints Bullwinkle --- smoke your brain finding the skeptic value in that study....

 

[mamooth]

The conclusions in the latter paragraph are entirely those of SSDD and are not in the paper at all.

They're not SSDD's conclusions. SSDD is cribbing links from The Hockey Schtick, a denialist blog. Go there, you'll find all of SSDD's "discoveries", down to the same headlines.

 

[SSDD]

No response to the three mischaracterized abstracts I posted? Now THAT would be spinning. I'm the one doing the truth-telling.

Nawww.. You just didn't UNDERSTAND the importance of these claims.. For instance, you completely stated the problem for the cloud study but TOTALLY MISSED THE IRONICAL points of it..

Go back, read YOUR OWN analysis of that one and see if you can tell why a SKEPTIC would like this recent paper.. No hints Bullwinkle --- smoke your brain finding the skeptic value in that study....

I wasn't going to even bother pointing out to them how wrong they were regarding the papers. Their faith is strong. Pointing out there error to them would be like pointing out contradictions in the Bible to Jimmy Swaggart. Pointless because they are blind to everyting but CAGW dogma. If it doesn't fit with their beliefs, they either call names, ignore, or completely mischaracterize.

 

[SSDD]

The conclusions in the latter paragraph are entirely those of SSDD and are not in the paper at all.

They're not SSDD's conclusions. SSDD is cribbing links from The Hockey Schtick, a denialist blog. Go there, you'll find all of SSDD's "discoveries", down to the same headlines.

I never claimed them as my own you tight assed ignorant POS. And the hockey schtick is a science site...most of what he reports is peer reviewed...someone needs to point out the sheer quantity of peer reviewed science that runs contrary to the cult dogma.

 

[Vox]

Pull your pants up. Your complete ignorance is showing.

Then you should have no problem showing us where matter energy conversions on Earth have some significant effect on out climate.

I'll do you one better. I give you some matter-matter conversion.

2C + 02 = CO2

are you sure? isn't it C + 2O2 = CO2?

 

[SwimExpert]

Then you should have no problem showing us where matter energy conversions on Earth have some significant effect on out climate.

I'll do you one better. I give you some matter-matter conversion.

2C + 02 = CO2

are you sure? isn't it C + 2O2 = CO2?

No, that would be for an open system. Something has to add the second oxygen molecule.

 

[Abraham3]

How about C + O2 -> CO2. Carbon is not diatomic.

But what does this have to do with microscopic amount of matter being added to the Earth's mass? What effect do you believe meteors have on climate?

Let me guess. Were you going to suggest that meteors are providing carbon that is combining with terrestrial O2 to form CO2? Only trouble is that humans produce 725,000 times more CO2 by fossil fuel combustion than the total mass of incoming meteors.

Here's a website that discusses the chemical composition of meteorites. No mention of carbon whatsoever.http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/

And you still owe us an explanation as to what terrestrial energy<->matter conversions you believe are involved anywhere in this process.

 

[Abraham3]

No response to the three mischaracterized abstracts I posted? Now THAT would be spinning. I'm the one doing the truth-telling.

Nawww.. You just didn't UNDERSTAND the importance of these claims.. For instance, you completely stated the problem for the cloud study but TOTALLY MISSED THE IRONICAL points of it..

Go back, read YOUR OWN analysis of that one and see if you can tell why a SKEPTIC would like this recent paper.. No hints Bullwinkle --- smoke your brain finding the skeptic value in that study....

A denier is happy that a study finds the IPCC has UNDERestimated climate sensitivity? Do you call that rational thought?