The frenchies; that's funny; they were good in Monty Python [Holy Grail] and they're still being funny.

Submarine at North Pole

http://library.osu.edu/projects/under-the-north-pole/images/wilkins35_5_1.jpg

The pro-AGW folk are misery-gutses; they latch onto every bit of 'bad' climate news like Vultures; it's as though they want things to be bad just so they can be vindicated. They are weird, best to ignore them.

However I will respond to one, stevenlmeyer, who ridiculously misrepresents Feynman and enlists Gell-Mann to support his beliefs. Gell-Mann said this:

“Now imagine a similar experiment run by a sadistic psychologist who exhibits a sequence with no structure at all [Lewandowsky perhaps?]. You are likely to go on making up schemata, but this time keep failing to make good predictions, except occasionally by chance. In this case the results in the real world afford no guidance in choosing a schema, other than the one that says, “This sequence seems to have no rhyme or reason.” But human subjects find it hard to accept such a conclusion.” [ The Quark and the Jaguar, page 18]

Sums up AGW science and its supporters perfectly.

What about the Antarctic? Not the continent: the icy bits. Will it soon be a green and verdant land that all the climate change refugees can make their home?

Cheers,

Tony

While the ice at the Nth Pole shrinks the South Pole grows.It is selective fact garnering coupled with similar logic.

The world in the last 1000 yrs has been far hotter and cooler than today.The alarmists want to profit from doom.That is self evident.

GrahamY, regarding my comment over the selection of papers by Cox and Nova. If a scientist wants to review the state of knowledge in an area, they look at all the pertinent research, determine the quality of the various pieces of research, and then draw a conclusion from this exercise that leads to hypothesis formation. This is not what Cox and Nova have done. What Cox and Nova have done is selected a small group of papers, published mostly in obscure places, that support the conclusion they already had ignoring any contradictions. Cox and Nova is advocacy, not science. It is perhaps noteworthy that the papers selected by Cox and Nova are not even internally consistent with respect to their conclusions. They have only one thing in common; they can be used to cast doubt on the hypothesis that CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet. Someone else once described this as the Anything But Carbon hypothesis.

OK, now to your points.

1. Lindzen and Choi’s model still operates as if the tropics was a closed system. This is a weakness of their approach, but not damning.
2. I think you are having trouble reading the legend to Figure 9 in Lindzen and Choi. This is actually damning, because what Lindzen and Choi have done is to go backwards and forwards across the data set to find the periods where the Flux response has the highest correlation with SST. What this does is cherry-pick the intervals that fit their conclusion. This is wrong.
3. Dessler 2011 took the outputs of existing atmospheric models, where SST is an input, and plotted these as Lindzen and Choi did. Dessler obtained a similar curve to Lindzen and Choi. This means clouds cannot be driving SST.

I don’t have space to respond to cohenite’s comments, except to say that Cox and Nova link to a paper published in Energy & Environment and a poster given at a conference in 2008. Neither were peer reviewed.

Figure 9 explanation:

"Fig. 9. (a) Scatter plots and regression lines of radiative flux variation by clouds (ΔRcloud) versus ΔT from CERES and ECMWF interim data used in Dessler (2010). ΔRcloud and ΔT values are calculated by taking (black) original monthly anomaly data, and (red) the method in this study. (b) The slopes and their one-σ uncertainties of lagged linear regressions of ΔRcloud versus ΔTs; the numbers indicate lagged linear correlation coefficients [Taken from Choi et al. (2011)]."

I have referred to LC 2011's methodology for selecting and organising data above; in addition to that and the above Figure 9 explanation LC explain, plainly, from line 182 to line 203 [which should be read in its entirety], that their method takes into account the different sampling methods used by ground based and ERBE sources; they say:

"This is 197 attributed to different sampling patterns; i.e., ERBS observes all local times over a period of 72 days, while Terra observes the region only twice per day (around 10:30 AM and 10:30 PM)."

Dessler does not distinguish between the sampling methods and the inherent bias that contributes.

Agronomist also persists in misrepresenting LC's treatment of the tropics and extratropics or global data; at lines 132 to 152 LC 2011 deal with this complaint and show that they do NOT treat the tropics as a "closed system".

LC 2011 do NOT "go backwards and forwards across the data set to find the periods where the Flux response has the highest correlation with SST"; what they do is correct for the data processing and then apply a smoothing technique to remove seasonality/noise which was recommended in the critique of their 2009 paper [Murphy 2010]!

Agronomists's complaints about LC 2011 are unfounded.

As for peer review, E&E is peer reviewed and the Koutsoyiannis 2008 ‘poster’ provides alternative methods of viewing his paper, which is also peer reviewed.

The fraud backers are really out in force, commenting on this article.

A few new ones, but mainly people who have trolled before, and when asked to supply science to back the assertion that human activities have any effect on climate, dodge the question or refer us to irrelevant nonsense from Wikipedia or Skeptical Science,or to a site run by Climategate miscreants like Michael Mann.

The AGW fraud is dead:

“Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda”

This article gives an excellent summary of the shambles in which the AGW fraud backers find themselves:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7mvumju

Their difficulty is that huge amounts of money have been lost by reliance on the spurious “science” put out by the IPCC and the Climategate crooks, so the rearguard action continues.

Gore has taken the precaution of divorcing his wife of 40 years, and transferring significant assets to her. If the chickens come home to roost he will live a comfortable life as a bankrupt. Many people would like to see him locked up for his actions in this fraud.