Comments on: A Window Into the IPCC Process

By: Orson

Orson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:52:44 +0000

This 16 page paper on falsifying the AGW hypothesis through ocean heat content deserves your attention. The skeptic community as well as the open-minded could well use your expert skills in simplifying the argument and evidence – much as you already have on the missing tropical hotspot.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/changes_in_the_ocean.html

“Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?”
by William DiPuccio, Thursday, 16 July 2009.

“

By: Alan D. McIntire

Alan D. McIntire — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:03:51 +0000

Here’s a link to the actual paper:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/6/8/pdf/i1520-0442-6-8-1587.pdf

Obviously weather is based 100% on water in its various forms, solid, liquid and gas. Until climatologist have accurate models predicting water vapor levels, changes in temperature lapse rate, and cloud cover, they’ll be practicing astrolology, not climatology- A. McIntire

By: Rob J Mitchell

Rob J Mitchell — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:46:36 +0000

Of course they didn’t look at clouds. If they did they would have noticed the obvious cause of the global warming, the 5% reduction in low cloud cover. I’ts responsible for 0.35 deg C warming between 1980-2000, which includes strong negative feedback due to the accompanying reduction in the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor.

Of course climate models based on the maths of a perpetual motion machine (system dominated by positive feedback) are bound to be accurate!

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:20:51 +0000

When there is no accountability, and the process is opaque, it is difficult to keep prejudice and self-interest out of any enterprise, no matter how lofty it may claim to be.

By: Thomas J. Arnold.

Thomas J. Arnold. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:27:22 +0000

It is the ‘new scientific way’ make the science fit the hypothesis and if the science doesn’t fit, then change the wording! Feed back is the bane of the IPCC, they cannot or won’t or don’t want to admit that it is a major factor (or one of them, the oceans are another) in the amelioration of the planet’s atmosphere.

How can models be precision fine-tuned to climate when we don’t know what drives the whole process. Other than to say, “it is the sun and some other things”!…… Maybe a little simplistic but a kernal of truth.