no i don't remember that stupid

I do remember a cricket bat in my dim and distant past, old boy. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.

Perhaps it concerns this article:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/02/give-joe-hockey-the-stick.html

Give Joe Hockey The Stick

Quote:


If not, please feel free to elucidate in your own words without cutting and pasting.

The effect of atmospheric CO2 on the climate is oversestimated by models. Reality does not conform to models with multiple assumptions.



"Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations."http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

(peer reviewed science journal)


Meaning?

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-o...

SO the models are unreliable. The settled science is unsettled: forcing and feedback are understood in theory but not distinguishable in practice.

As I dared to say repeatedly, the climate is far too complex and our knowledge of how it works in practice is too limited.

No, I mean this paper:

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

And this Uni of Alabama press release:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-o...



Peer reviewed. Scientific. You  knockin' it?

Soren wrote on Jul 29^th, 2011 at 9:23pm:


What I'm saying is that this Neocon Creationist and protagonist of Intelligent Design, who stated that his sworn duty was to protect the US people from over-government, and who together with Johny Christy "adjusted" the satellite temperature data to make it appear that there was no warming, (long sentence) has very little credibility with anybody.

Anything he publishes should be taken with a pinch of salt, because he is clearly agenda-driven.  

Here's another of his initiatives. It's all a matter of faith, you see. God won't let Global Warming happen according to Roy:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-glob...

Maybe you should add your name to the petition. (and pray a lot)

i think its best in these instances to wait for data to be replicated by other researchers as its never a good idea to make any strong conclusions on the basis of a single study - if the study in question has been conscientiously produced, then other scientists will have little problem finding the same or similiar results at a later time

Soren wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:



There are many obscure articles submitted to open access journals. If it's such a major finding, why doesn't he publish in one of the mainstream journals? (because he can't get it peer reviewed by somebody from UAH ?)

Here's Kevin Trenberth's take on this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...

Quote: