NASA data shows that warming models are skewed / screwed

[Babs]

Indeed. Houston's summer has been downright pleasant this year. I don't know what Ted and Babs are talking about.

I imagine you'll figure it out pretty quick when it's 103 at kickoff of BYU-Texas.

[Babs]

Yeah pretty funny. But still as if not more rigorous than the UN IPCC review process.

lol. I can see why JL opts out of these threads.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I had no idea there were journals for which the authors could select their own review. How creative.

I can do better than that. The infamous Steven Jones (formerly of BYU) published his inaugural paper on the WTC conspiracy in one of these uber-weak journals. BYU asked him to withdraw it and re-submit it to a real journal. Instead, he create a new online "peer-reviewed" journal (Journal of 9-11 Studies or something like that) and published his paper in the first edition. Shameless.

[oxcoug]

lol. I can see why JL opts out of these threads.

I can't!

No really - the IPCC review process was (a) smoke and mirrors where it existed and (b) mainly non existent.

Just like Spencer's journal, the lead authors of the IPCC report handpricked key reviewers for specific chapters. And then while they like to trumpet "4,000 scientists!" only 23 independent reviewers looked at the key Chapter 9 (the one containing the thesis on AGW) and of those only 4 specifically endorsed the central claim. Most played an innocuous editing role while rarely commenting on the actual scientific claims.

[Jacob]

Ox, you may blame alarmist computer models for getting it wrong, but I think we ought to give credit where credit is due. Warming will be slower? Thank you Barack Obama!

this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal

[Babs]

Just like Spencer's journal, the lead authors of the IPCC report handpricked key reviewers for specific chapters. And then while they like to trumpet "4,000 scientists!" only 23 independent reviewers looked at the key Chapter 9 (the one containing the thesis on AGW) and of those only 4 specifically endorsed the central claim. Most played an innocuous editing role while rarely commenting on the actual scientific claims.

You realize that it's been two decades since the original IPCC assessments were published? And that in those twenty years, warming has actually exceeded the IPCC "alarmist" projections?

[Uncle Ted]

It was 85 degrees in Houston yesterday at around 7pm. I'm now worried about global cooling....

Indeed. Houston's summer has been downright pleasant this year. I don't know what Ted and Babs are talking about.

Isn't there a hurricane or something coming y'all way? I hope so we could use the rain.

[oxcoug]

You realize that it's been two decades since the original IPCC assessments were published? And that in those twenty years, warming has actually exceeded the IPCC "alarmist" projections?

I'm talking about their 2007 assessment which, by their own account, supersedes previous assessments given that the entire field of climate science basically evolved after their first assessment and half the data that was referenced in the 1990s was irrelevant by 2007 (primarily the Vostok ice core samples which were initially thought to show that warming spiked to follow carbon spikes, when it's now known to show, if anything, the opposite).

And I'm not sure which heavily spiced (i.e. land temperature driven) data set you're referring to, but "warming" exceeding "alarmist" (not a word I use much myself, btw) projections is something I'd love to know more about. Atmospheric temperatures did not increase between 1999 and 2010. Email traffic from the East Anglia crew shows that people on the inside of Team AGW were pretty nervous about the lack of favorable climate trends in 2009 - so clearly they didn't think it had exceeded alarmist projections. So I'm always a little surprised when I find someone who thinks that.

[Babs]

Atmospheric temperatures did not increase between 1999 and 2010.

I apologize. I didn't realize the celestial termperature was our primary concern.

[Pheidippides]

Isn't there a hurricane or something coming y'all way? I hope so we could use the rain.

Minor tropical storm. I won't even bother filling up my car for that.

[oxcoug]

I apologize. I didn't realize the celestial termperature was our primary concern.

Well yes, since it's where we'll spend eternity and eternity is a lot longer than mortality....

But also, helpfully, greenhouse theory is all about the action in the atmosphere - in fact, the integrity of the the greenhouse model depends heavily on the signature effect of an increased greenhouse effect, which would be a hotspot about 10 km in the atmosphere over the tropics. It's one of the little-discussed big problems with AGW theory that despite a long, quiet and increasingly desperate search (involving thousands of radiosonde tests in the past two decades) no such hotspot has been ever been located. If it were it would be the smoking gun certifying an increased greenhouse effect and the AGW crew would be dancing on the rooftops. There are now a lot of explanations in circulation which explain its absence away, none of which change the fact that every single model built in the 90s and early 2000s posited this hotspot as a necessary proof point. Anyhow... some of us are looking forward to Nova Scotia again becoming the wine mecca it once was.

[bluegoose]

Indeed. Houston's summer has been downright pleasant this year. I don't know what Ted and Babs are talking about.

Same for us here in Redding. It has been a pretty incredible spring and summer for us. Very few 100+ degree days and more than just a few in the low to mid 80s. The roads through a couple of our mountain areas just opened up last week, which is about a month later than usual.

[Babs]

Isn't there a hurricane or something coming y'all way? I hope so we could use the rain.

Don't know about you guys, but it looks like we're going to miss out.

[SoonerCoug]

Well yes, since it's where we'll spend eternity and eternity is a lot longer than mortality....

But also, helpfully, greenhouse theory is all about the action in the atmosphere - in fact, the integrity of the the greenhouse model depends heavily on the signature effect of an increased greenhouse effect, which would be a hotspot about 10 km in the atmosphere over the tropics. It's one of the little-discussed big problems with AGW theory that despite a long, quiet and increasingly desperate search (involving thousands of radiosonde tests in the past two decades) no such hotspot has been ever been located. If it were it would be the smoking gun certifying an increased greenhouse effect and the AGW crew would be dancing on the rooftops. There are now a lot of explanations in circulation which explain its absence away, none of which change the fact that every single model built in the 90s and early 2000s posited this hotspot as a necessary proof point. Anyhow... some of us are looking forward to Nova Scotia again becoming the wine mecca it once was.

Are you a climatologist? Are you a scientist? Remind me what it is that you do for a living.

[pellegrino]

I had no idea there were journals for which the authors could select their own review. How creative.

vanity press taken to the extreme.