Dr Roy Spencer is a well known climate sceptic who has published extensively in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and earlier this year had a popular book published entitled ‘Climate Confusion’.
Yesterday, November 3, 2008, two technical papers that Dr Spencer had recently submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters were outright rejected in back-to-back emails and on the same day all 78 reviews of his book on Amazon.com were removed from that website.
The title says 'censor', the copy says 'rejection'. Which is it? If it's 'censor', where's the evidence?
I prefer the following take on the (non-) issue: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/skeptic-scientist-is-censored-or-not/
[...] Geophysical Research Letters. Marohasy has the basic non-story with a sensationalistic title “How To Censor a Climate Sceptic” and no mention of censorship in the actual post. No such problem in the rest of the [...]
Cohenite that's a purty string of words, but Chilingar ASSIGNS the lapse rate to convection.
Its censorship alright. But not your capital C censorship which can only apply to direct government action. Papers get rejected. But good papers usually only get rejected for anti-scientific reasons.
Look a numb nuts arts student like yourself doesn't know he's been censored. Rejection of papers is VERY common. Perhaps the paper is flawed. Do you know? Have you analysed it - the said paper - if you have some analysis put your critique here.
Too simple for unelectable and unrepresentative swill to comprehend? So in the meantime STFU.
You will note my little ornithological ninny that the Amazon story here ended up being pure bullsheeetttt !
"Or just perhaps too weird? We all rationalise disappointment to protect our egos."
RRrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhhhtt. Dr Evil says Rrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhttt.
Jeepers Creepers you are an idiot Luke. Of course he's censored. It would be bad for ones career even to so much as put a good word in for him in those circles.
Mulligan; I get it, and ROTFLMAO I still don't want; just looking further at Chilingar and lapse rates; if we assume Chilingar's large parcels of convectively moved air are subject to the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR), then the parcel works as it rises and the DALR temperature gradient is established on the basis of the internal temperature decline of the parcel; on p5 Chilingar utilises the standard model of atmospheric temperature gradient of 6.5K/km, so again I'm not sure where you get your few %. The moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) depends on the moisture level of the air; as noted Chilingar estimates that 25% of the vertical movement is with moisture laden air; generally the MALR ranges from 3K/km - 9.78K/km; given the controversy about the atmospheric level of SH I don't think it would be fair for Chilingar to be more precise about MALR; any way his paper is not about atmospheric moisture. Feel free to be condescending; that's how I learn.
ROTFLMAO; oh great, so now eli and luke are related; well, whatever that means, I'm trying to be serious; Chilingar p1;
"Yet, in the dense Earth's troposhere with the pressure Pa > 0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth's surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth's surface to troposphere."
So 33% is a few %; eli, do you want to buy a bridge?
Luke says "Too Weird"
Hey Sky, sigh, I think your JH gravatar is too weird. He/you look/s like a fossilised mummy.
Is that your correct image?