Roger Pielke Sr has highlighted three research findings that are in the peer reviewed literature, but have been completely ignored by the IPCC and CCSP climate assessment communities, nor have they been refuted in the literature. These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science.
Observations of the spatial distribution of aerosols in the atmosphere in the lower latitudes, shows that the aerosol effect on atmospheric circulations, as a result of their alteration in the heating of regions of the atmosphere, is 60 times greater than due to the heating effect of the human addition of well-mixed greenhouse gases [from Matsui and Pielke, 2006];
A conservative estimate of the warm bias in the construction of a global average surface temperature trend resulting from measuring the air temperature near the ground is around 0.21°C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14°C per decade; still a warming, but not as large as indicated [based on Lin et al 2007];
The radiative temperature of the Earth is used by the IPCC and CCSP to represent the portion of the radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere which originates at the Earth’s surface. However, the outgoing long wave radiation is proportional to the fourth power of T [T4], from Stefan-Boltzman’s Law, not temperature by itself. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of long wave emission than a 1C increase in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, but this important distinction has been ignored. A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface changes would be to evaluate the change of the global average of T4 with time. [Pielke et al 2007].
Until, and unless the climate science community returns to the proper scientific method of examining the climate system, policymakers will continue to be fed erroneous information. Only poor policy decisions can result due to this failure.
Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An Illustration Of A Broken Scientific Method
Well hello Ian,
I didn't think Steve required a minder, he appeared to be doing a pretty good job hurling insults around with little help from someone who can't do anything but. It's always interesting how you resort to double standards, and I have a warm fuzzy glow reading your silly remarks to me again.
Nowhere in my comments did I include ad-homs. I responded to something Steve had written regarding contributors in general here. I can't be held responsible for your problems with comprehension. I think Steve is a big enough lad to respond if he so chooses, and as he didn't, you are probably not doing his credibility any favours in doing it for him.
Regarding Ann's blog, I have to trust you have visited it to know that Travis, Roger Grace and I have been contributors there. Given there have been ample unfounded assumptions made here already that have made people look pretty foolish and unflatteringly predatory, I remain unsurprised that you wish to continue the trend.
Well, surprise, surprise. Look the other way for a moment and the Greensleaze rent-a-crowd (Libby, Travis, Grace, Luke and Ender) does a gang-up of ad-homs on the one person providing substantive and informative material to this thread.
Libby Travis and Grace must have found it a bit booring listening to themselves over at Anne's new (supposedly non-greenpeace) blog so they are back here hunting for carion. Sorry folks, the scam, and your part in it, have been exposed as just another bit of sleazy GP white anting.
But the readers are not fooled. They recognise the tag-team MO to muddy the water in any thread that you are shown to be lacking in, ie, most.
"Obviously "phone a friend" from the NZ sceptic mates has helped him with quick check of who's who and the "GreenSleaze duty troll" quip reveals where the sentiment is at." / "And speaking of packs - I see phone a friend worked pretty well for you with Roger Grace"- Luke.
No worries Luke. I think it is highly amusing that he had to resort to checking up on me, boasted his "find" with ample hatred towards Greenpeace (and I'm the one with a "total hatred implant"??), but was totally wrong, again! Stick with what you know, not who!
"We in the First world have happily ignored the starving millions in the Third world before climate change ever got around."- Ender.
Spot on Ender. First mock outrage, now mock compassion.
Steve Short - "Scientifically-unsound trends are even now starving millions as biofuels production pre-empts agricultural land, destroys valuable forests and doubles staple cereal prices in one year alone. (UNFAO, 2008)."
Now you are really pulling out all the denier garbage. No-one in the climate change camp supports biofuels. This is a get rich scheme from unscrupulous idiots wanting farm subsidies. It does nothing for climate change or peak oil and no environmentalist, without shares in biofuel, supports it.
"Who will be able or prepared to be held to account in 10, 20, 30 or more years for the hundreds of millions or more of the poor killed by draconian measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2 - an injury to humanity likely to make the Holocaust look like a pinprick?"
What a crock!! We in the First world have happily ignored the starving millions in the Third world before climate change ever got around. The only reason we can have the lifestyle we do is if they starve and have no fossil fuels - there is not enough to go around so they miss out. In fact one of the reasons we are running short of oil is one or two of them are getting enough of our money to start demanding our lifestyle and guess what we do not have enough for 1 billion Chinese and 800 million Indians.
Even if AGW is a crock then we will go on happily ignoring them and using their share of the world's resources. Just to add insult to injury we make their food dearer by attempting to run the status quo with biofuels and then use their oil as well. How much oil does the average Nigerian use compared to the average Australian even though Nigeria and the West of Africa is the brave new world of oil.
>Just love the way too y'all tend to come flocking in for the kill when there's only lil ol' me left
Perhaps that says something about the company you keep?! Can't count on 'em. They've moved on to the next fresh kill and left you here. Tsk.
But what if it all goes belly up for you guys too ?
Mate we've been in the climate impacts trenches for years while you've been stuffing your pockets. Do you think people have no issues with climate already. That there might be a history of not coping with it.
No coz dark hearted sceptics love to think about extinctions and days of yore. We've seen it all before. Well you haven't. You've only sensed it. Read the signs. Seen the footprints. And you've always had the option of flying or driving out. Never stuck around to deal with it personally.
And speaking of packs - I see phone a friend worked pretty well for you with Roger Grace.
Yep it is the Serengiti - the great herds are anxious and restless - and you lot are the hyenas. Cackling jackals that like sniffing around and seeing what they can get away with when nobody else is looking. There's plenty of hyenas out there and you've just joined them.
Of course your AGW alarmist lobby has never done any threatening of anything or anyone at all from day one.....LOL
If it does all go belly-up for you guys I'm sure you will all figure out some way of weaseling out it smelling of roses - that type of skill rather goes with the job in the PS classes n'est pas?
Just love the way too y'all tend to come flocking in for the kill when there's only lil ol' me left - sorta reminds one of the Serengeti Plain etc., get it, nudge, nudge...