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
Typical extremist now making threats. I see Cohenite is also up for it. That's professional. Been attending Mott's school of diplomacy have you. Let's say the temperature goes up - perhaps we might round you up and send you to a gulag ?
Charming - so we have the millions will die bulldust - then let's paint AGW as "catastrophic- world ending" - more utter bunk - and now we're going to threaten you into submission. What an exemplary citizen you are mate.
I would imagine you will be at the front of the witch hunt Steve, pitch fork in one hand and burning torch in the other. Bugger the fine tooth comb, let's just go for a number 1 buzz! Maybe Roger can be tested first in the flames - says he doesn't work for Greenpeace, but who cares? So much innuendo, so much dodging and dealing, so much hatred and hypocrisy. Not so funny anymore.
Imagine. Let's say we have just another decade of no more global warming. The whole AGW catastrophe thing collapses. The geopolitical balance in the world shifts to China and Russia (I hope you caught the latest from the Russian Academy of Sciences on AGW BTW). The UN is discredited. Other than angry Americans gunning for Gore, Hansen et al., you can bet there will be plenty of people here in Oz keen to go through the public services with a fine tooth comb to root out the resident AGW fanatics. Make sure you have a Plan B, Luke.
Have another shiraz and consider what ponies to buy the kids next. Drink up - you've earned it.
Killing millions of the world's poor. How utterly pretentious and what utter utter bullshit. An totally dishonest attempt at debate polarisation. Fascinating that for one so smart you're infected with the stupid nuttery of half the other morons here. On SI and fluvial morphology you had some attention. Now you have none. And such concern for the starving hordes of the 3rd world but when asked to engage on pressing problems of current climate locally (a) it's not a problem really (b) hand wave on some diversionary waffle. Pathetic - really pathetic.
And all just mock outrage too.
All we have is another wealthy consultant making a nice mottsa protecting an industry well know for crap environmental practices. Yet another apologist defending for the greater good - but really read personal gain. Well I'm now really inspired - might sign up for WWF and Greenpeace today.
Roger - thanks for the appeal to civility but alas I think the format here is clearly cast.
Steve Short started out quite well here as a intelligent moderate voice but appears to afflicted with the deep hatred and loathing of environmental causes shared by most of the posters here. 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. Doesn't take much to scratch the surface and let the bile bubble up.
Steve isn't going to back down into civility - he knows he's right and is smarter than the rest of us. But quite interesting how the intense personalisation of the debate has flared after a few boozy posts. And once the inhibitory barriers are down out she comes.
Not much more to be said - it's only going to get worse.
Global temperature has risen at a natural 0.5 C/century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum, long before we could have had any influence (Akasofu, 2008).
Present global temperature is 7 C below most of the past 500 My; 5 C below all 4 recent interglacials; and up to 3 C below the Bronze Age, Roman & Mediaeval optima (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
No “runaway greenhouse” catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian era, when there was ~20 times today’s concentration in the atmosphere. Temperature was just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
There has been no statistically detectable warming since 1998. The Jan 2007 - Jan 2008 global temperature fall was the steepest on record since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH, 2008).
Even if the planet were not presently cooling, the rate of warming due to CO2 is far lower than the UN claims. There may well be no new warming until 2015, if then (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
Even if warming were harmful, humankind’s effect is minuscule. The observed changes are likely to be largely natural. (Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
Even if our effect were significant, the UN’s projected human fingerprint – tropical mid-troposphere warming at 3x the surface rate – is undetectable (Douglass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
Even if the human fingerprint were present, computer climate models cannot predict the future of a complex, chaotic climate unless we know its initial state to an unattainable precision (Lorenz, 1963; Giorgi, 2005; IPCC, 2001).
Even if the UN’s imagined high “climate sensitivity” to CO2 were right, disaster would not be likely to follow. The peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe (reviewed by Schulte, 2008).
Even if Al Gore (or Greenpeace etc) were right that harm might occur, the Armageddon scenario he/they depict is not based on any scientific view. Sea level may rise 30 cm by 2100, not 6.1 m (Burton, 2007; IPCC, 2007; Moerner, 2004).
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).
Even if massive CO2 emission reduction measures might work, the harm done to humanity by killing many of the world’s poor and destroying the economic prosperity of the West over the next century or so outweighs any climate benefit (Henderson, 2007; UNFAO, 2008).
Even if the climatic benefits of mitigation could outweigh the millions of deaths it is causing, and will cause, adaptation as and if necessary would be far more cost-effective and less harmful (all economic studies except Stern, 2006).
There is no man-made “climate crisis”. We must get the science right or we shall get the policy horribly wrong - more horribly wrong that anything humankind has ever done before, WWI and WWII included.
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?
You?
And will it then matter to the dead?
LOL! I can only hope you don't approach your science the same way you deduce information from this blog. Yes, I am from New Zealand, no I do not work for Greenpeace. Can't rely on those lurkers for reliable information.
Again I will reiterate, you posted a comment directed at all here which was grossly unfair and plain ignorant. I have every right to respond, as does anyone else. Perhaps you should stick to what are known facts, and then your credibility will remain and you will get the respect you deserve. I look forward to when you do.
Calm yourself Steve. Ranting does you no service.
"You suddenly materialise and take objection to just me throwing some insults back at someone who routinely makes a habit of it, albeit mixed in with 90% technical comment/discussion."- Steve Short.
You threw insults at everyone by writing that "The problem with you guys is that you don't actually work in science on a day by day basis, getting your hands dirty actually doing it" and "I'll bet not one of you has had a peer reviewed paper or book chapter published (I have a little over 60". You did not direct this at Luke, but everyone. Your other ad homs were directed at both Luke and Ender, but you seem to arc up when anything is directed back at you. Ender is one poster here who receives a lot of abuse and yet for the most part remains civil.
"You on the other hand seemed to have arrived just after a total hatred implant. I wouldn't know you from a bar of soap - although come to think of it, a bar of soap would do your mouth a real lot of good."-Steve Short.
Your hypocrisy seems never ending. I have commented here in the past and read this blog since it started, so in answer to your original question, yes, I have been here long. I have seen how some regular posters start out polite and wanting to contribute, only to get venom and vitriole thrown at them from self-proclaimed experts. Whilst this happens on both sides, it is more rampant from the side referred to as "sceptics". You have done worse than add to the argy bargy, you have placed yourself above and beyond and continued to throw stones from the lofty heights you have set yourself in.
"Tell me, what is the meaning of your presence here? What, pray, do you actually have to contribute scientifically that relates to the subject matter of this thread? How about having the cojones to state something of real technical substance, so we may all see what you are made of (other than mouth)."-Steve Short.
I don't have to prove myself to you. I responded to a comment on this thread that you made regarding all contributors here, which was baseless and insulting. If you make such comments, take responsibility and wear the repercussions. I had been able to sift through most of the childish remarks you throw in your posts and enjoy the nuts and bolts of your arguments, but no amount of expertise and qualifications matches a sense of humility when delivering your knowledge. You earn respect-it can't be demanded from those 'uncouth plebs' or "ignorant masses" you see on this blog.
Just in, friendly email from a kindly lurker in Enzed. Those country folk over there have an excellent nose for the hocum merchants. Identity of our new GreenSleaze duty troll is roger grace of greenpeace kiwiland. This explains the late entry - the diesel must have run out while on the 'ban fossil fuel' round-Oz voyage and the backup towers from the resident whale pod weren't being garden hosed hard enough.