It’s a scam Poirot; it’s a scam because it is chock full of ulterior motives: ideology, money, power; and the science is sacrificed for those motives; that’s why it’s a scam.

Anthony hasn’t got a degree even though the AMS recognised his experience and right to call himself a meteorologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Despite this he has done real well, hasn’t he? Better than most of those hifalutin climate scientists!

Poirot says:

“My understanding is that the "leaker" did a triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick - lifting a sentence without consulting the entirety of the paragraph:”

Well, that’s a rubbish conclusion to be expected when you read rubbish sources. The full detail of the solar garfuffle is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/

I’ve spoken before about Sherwood and I’ll repeat in the context of Poirot’s question about why such climate scientists are held in such scorn. Sherwood is responsible, IMO, for a number of the worst papers ever published; for instance:

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/PNAS-2010-Sherwood-0913352107.pdf

Now this paper is wrong in scientific principle.

The scientific principles which are incorrect are enthalpy and condensation. In respect of enthalpy if heat evaporated water had its latent energy combined with the heat used to evaporate that water then the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would be contradicted, but this is what Sherwood does; evaporated water at high levels already exists on Earth at the equator in the wet tropics where temperature is lower than at equivalent latitudes in dry areas because in the wet areas the extra energy is carried as enthalpy and not reflected in temperature.

In addition at high temperatures evaporated water condenses and falls as rain, removing the latent energy from the atmosphere. As much of the latest research is showing water acts to moderate temperature not increase it as Sherwood asserts.

Sherwood, who figures prominently in the climate emails, must know this but has still written a highly alarming paper which he predicts a global temperature increase of 12C, equal to what occurred during the PETM.

This is why the ‘climate scientists’ deserve, IMO, scorn.

cohenite
RH may be flat at the surface [but declining at all other atmospheric levels] BUT SH is also flat and not increasing either:
________________________________________________________________________

Climate4you is a bit keen on the cherries, but if you go back to the same source (NOAA) he uses and instead of looking at the humidity only for Jnauary try the figures for the whole year.

If you do the maths you will see that specific humidity has in fact on average increased by about 350 ml of water per cubic meter of air from the surface up to 33,000 feet.

Not sure if this link will work
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.138.217.75.131.1.22.52.48.png

If not go to here
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

input
Variable specific humidity up 300 Mb leave non variable on 1000Mb
Latitude 90N to 90S
months Jan to Dec
check plot data

warmair, on 31/12, demonstrated that he hadn't the faintest idea what positive feedbacks were. By 2/1 he's telling me that he's known about them for 40yrs. I suspect a 30 minute wikipedia investigation of the issue. warmair or hot air? Of coarse, 40 yrs ago no one was talking about positive feedbacks because all the talk was about the coming ice age.

On the scam issue...I haven't and don't use the term as regards warmist scientists. I do think there are a few shysters who are playing it for all its worth..eg the wind industry. But not many scientists.

Its more about human nature. Imagine you're a struggling climate scientists stuck looking at an undistinguished career crunching numbers and publishingpapers that maybe 100 people will read. Then you stumble on a statistical device that generates a hockey stick curve and removes the MWP from the record. You know that has been an aim of the top people in the warming fraternity. So you publish and suddenly you're the toast of the town. Its made your career. Its made your fortune. Then people start looking a bit closer and find that the devices you used are invalid and that the graph that made your career is false. If you seek to defend your work to the 'n'th degree, are you a scammer or just being human.

Equally, if you're a marine biologist and you see colleagues getting grants by just inserting the words "global warming" in the applications, does it make you a scammer when you do likewise?

There was a film made a little while back called "Not Evil, Just Wrong". Pretty close to the mark.

warmair;

NOAA data for 300mb Pressure Level [30,000ft]:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=180&lon2=-180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

That is not declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

Even the AR5 notes indicate that all SH is non trending:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mims_ipcc_ar5_sod_review.pdf

Give it up, you're flogging a dead horse.

cohenite,

"AGW is an elitist ideology, a plaything of the chattering classes and other general parasites and loons..."

(Yep - cue device of "elitism" [again!]. Refer to first post on this thread)

"You asked why climate scientists are not given their due respect and are insulted; as usual, you miss the point; being insulted is the respect they are due..."

You attempt to fill the vacuum (where the science should be) with general derision and insult...what a brilliant strategy!

As for Anthony Watts having "..done real well..." I suppose if running a site renowned for junk science is doing "real well", then yes.

So it all comes down to you performing on a bunch of blogs (run by non-scientists) where your adoring audience consists of non-scientists - and when all is said and done the entirety of your argument is reduced to your labeling those with the relevant scientific qualifications and knowledge as "parasites and loons".

Is that really all there is?

How embarrassing....

Poirot

I trust you have corrected your misunderstanding about the leaker's "triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick", after reading Cohenite's reference.

The leaker, Alec Rawls , explained why he leaked :
"In the sea of IPCC dishonesty there is a glimmer of honesty, but it doesn’t go very far. TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is still the only solar effect that is included in the “consensus” computer models and the IPCC still uses this garbage-in claim to arrive at their garbage-out conclusion that observed warming must be almost entirely due to the human release of CO2.

One of the reasons I decided to release the SOD (Second Order Draft of AR5) was because I knew that once the Steven Sherwoods at the IPCC realized how the added sentence undercut the whole report they would yank it back out, and my submitted comments insured that they would indeed realize how the added sentence undercut the whole report. Now sure enough, as soon as I make the added sentence public Steven Sherwood publicly reverts to the FOD (First Order Draft of AR5) position, trying to pretend that his argument against one proposed mechanism of solar amplification means that we can safely ignore the overwhelming evidence that some such mechanism is at work.

We’ll find out in a year or so whether his co-authors are willing to go along with this definitional anti-science. Evidently there is at least some division. With Sherwood speaking up for the FOD position, any co-authors who prefer the new position should feel free to speak up as well. Come on real scientists, throw this blowhard under the bus!"

Given your very selective reading on the subject, you may not be aware that the IPCC is renown for dishonesty in its reports, e.g. the 'discernible human influence' claim that struck out the approved draft Second Assessment Report key statement "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" , and the 'hockey stick' scandal introduced in the Third Assessment Report.