csteele

Despite the author's difficulty in understanding the difference between climate modeling and economic modeling, the following article/post and subsequent exchange (of more temperate minds) should explain where the OLO 'wannabe' is coming from:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/01/01/21-temperature-trends-msu-vs-an-atmospheric-model/

You will note that Qiang Fu and John Christy (2 of the pretender's poster boys) engage in respectful dialogue with Isaac Held, an eminent scientist from, wait for it ... NOAA no less.

Does Isaac Held (the author) call the commenter/s idiots? Nope.

Btw, this is the same NOAA that the 'wannabe' vehemently rubbishes (along with the many other research institutions and organisations that our pretender doesn't even want to acknowledge) ... unlike the real scientists he wants to emulate.

Pigs lined up on the tarmac and ready for take-off :)

Anyway, keep trying. I admire your tenacity and find the ideologue's adherence to his beliefs quite fascinating, albeit warped.

Here is a link to the "key" Fu et al paper our OLO 'wannabe' says refutes (wholly/in part) AGW.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf

Um, er, nah ... it doesn't.

csteele says:

“No way gentlemen. You can't concede an upward warming trend on the surface then then say the lack of a definitive signature of that surface warming, i.e. a tropical hotspot, invalidates the science saying why the surface warmed in the first place. From my reading the Tropical hotspot (TH) effect is almost entirely one of the physics of a warmer surface and far less concerned about the Green House effect or CO2 concentrations.”

Parallel universe time; the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate [you may care to indicate that you understand that point csteele]; in any event the warming surface is less than predicted, and the issue is the fact the tropical troposphere is NOT warming faster than the slower than predicted warming surface, as predicted by AGW; a double failure as it were; see Figure 9.1 from AR4:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html

Global warming theory says the THS should happen because more water will have been evaporated to this part of the atmosphere and would have caused warming at a much more rapid rate than the surface; McKitrick and the other papers, including Fu et al, show this has not happened; this should be plain to even someone of bonmot’s vast intelligence which leads me to suspect his usual snide disavowal of this fact is disingenuous.

I will concede something; at last bonmot has produced a link which is worth reading with some of the main players, Fu, Christie and Thorne, but not McKitrick or Santer commenting at his link.

But bonmot confirms he has no clue with this link; why? Because the discussion confirms my point that the AGW prediction of a greater rate of warming in the troposphere compared with the surface, the THS, is NOT happening. And Fu DOES confirm this.

Dear cohenite,

Quick reply.

“the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate”

Really?

Higher surface temps, leading to increased evaporation, leading to more latent energy in the form of water vapour being transported into the troposphere, leading to increasing temperatures in that part of the atmosphere especially in those latitudes.

Different language same thing.

I know I neither have the tools, nor the training, nor the experience to properly dissect the nitty gritty of most of these papers.

Neither do you.

The best I can hope for is to be able to determine if the claims being made for a particular paper have substance. Often this is pretty self evident as it was here but sometimes not.

Which brings us to your three. To some the idea that man could have a global impact on a world designed by god for the express use of us humans is just unfathomable. The notion that we should temper our use of the abundancy of energy sources he has provided is an anathema.

Take Roy Spencer who you mentioned earlier. He says “as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years”..."I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Are you really asking me to ignore the fact that after 'intense' study of the issue for two years this PhD scientist ended up concluding creationism “had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution"? That would not be rational.

Of course it informs our perception of him being able to deliver impartial science, doesn't it yours?

Csteele says:

“the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate”

Really?

Higher surface temps, leading to increased evaporation, leading to more latent energy in the form of water vapour being transported into the troposphere, leading to increasing temperatures in that part of the atmosphere especially in those latitudes.

Different language same thing.”

AND IT ISN’T HAPPENING; in any language: the moist lapse rate is NOT decreasing; according to AGW it should be and there should be a THS; there isn’t; seriously, are you unable to understand that basic flaw in AGW theory?

I can’t say it any better than I said before; your preoccupation with the religiosity of these scientists is not germane.

Dear cohenite,

I'm a little lost to know to best explain this to you.

You really need to understand and accept that the so called tropical hotspot is almost purely the result of the physics of a warming surface. A cooling stratosphere may well be a signature of the green house effect but the hotspot is largely independent of that. Leaving out the stratospheric cooling, the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming.

The only way you can sustain an anti-AGW case here is to say because you believe the data doesn't show a tropical hotspot then it shows that the global temperature is not increasing. Yet this paper which you so fulsomely supported states, I repeat;

“In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process.”

You either have to disown the paper or disown the physics. What is it to be?

You said;

“the religiosity of these scientists is not germane”

How on earth do you sustain that argument? We are talking about a scientist who intensely applied, for two long years, all his training in the application of the scientific method to the question of evolution and came up with Creationism.

You have only three options open to you. You can either believe as he does in Creationism, or question his scientific training, or finally you question his ability to keep his belief system from impacting on his science.

I do not think it is a coincidence that strong US style Christian belief features so disproportionately in those who are vigorous and vociferous opponents to the science or the dangers of AGW.

I understand that you personally have a lot invested in this so ignoring such an obvious fact is perhaps understandable but you really should not be expecting others on this side to do the same.

Shall we move to the next paper?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you.

I'll reply to csteele in 2 parts:

csteele says:

"You really need to understand and accept that the so called tropical hotspot is almost purely the result of the physics of a warming surface. A cooling stratosphere may well be a signature of the green house effect but the hotspot is largely independent of that. Leaving out the stratospheric cooling, the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming."

You may well leave the Stratosphere out of it since I have not raised it.

You continue to, willingly or otherwise, confuse a rate of warming on the surface and in the immediate atmosphere, the Troposphere, with a THS.

A THS is a rate of warming in the Troposphere which is greater than the rate of the surface warming. Is this happening: yes or no, csteele; no more obfuscation and 1/2 baked attempts to explain the physical processes; is a THS occuring?

This is parroted nonsense:

"the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming."

They are not equivalent. Increases in CO2 have any forcing effect constrained by Beers Law which produces a logarithmic decline so that there are diminishing returns in respect of extra heating for all additional CO2; solar forcing has not such decline!

The comparison becomes even more stupid when we look at solar main sequence increases in output; the sun over history increases its average energy output 4% every BILLION years; so what the comparison is suggesting is that 2XCO2 is equal to 500 million years of solar main sequence evolution!