You’re dead right. Get it published and then it might be worthy of attention.

You hopefully do understand that this is a public website and all the comments here are published.

Report this

20

Richard

Please keep encouraging JM to post his ridiculous arguments and attacks. I thoroughly enjoy reading/watching Mr. Courtney and BH destroy him bit by bit in this and other threads here at Jo’s wonderful home.

BTW thanks to Joanne for her tenacity and energetic championing of good science.

I am by no means qualified to argue any of the nity-grity points but am quite capable of following logic and recognizing evasion and redirection ploys.

To all here: Keep up the good fight and GIVEM’EL!

Richard Schaefer

Report this

20

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

My apologies.

Report this

00

Using the NCEP record, which uses radiosonde (balloon) data up until the early 1960s and the superior satellite data thereafter), there has been an overall change in Specific Humidity (SH – the correct measure to use rather than relative humidity; RH) over the entire globe from 1949 – 2009 for the pressure range from 1000 mb (i.e. near surface) up to 300 mb pressure from about 7.63 g/kg to about 7.88 g/kg, i.e. an overall INCREASE of about 0.25 g/kg.

Superimposed on that increase there has been an apparent overall decrease in SH over the entire globe over 1949 – 2009 from 700 mb (i.e. from about 4 km altitude) up to 300 mb pressure to be from about from 2.53 g/kg to about 2.49 g/kg, i.e. a decline of ONLY about 0.04 g/kg.

Thus the decrease in SH at mid to high altitude (i.e. above ~ 4km) from 1949 – 2009 was only about 0.04 g/kg imposed on top of an actual overall increase for the whole troposphere up to 300 mb pressure of about 0.29 g/kg i.e. only some 14% of the overall increase.

The supposed (see below) decrease in SH at high altitude may therefore be seen to be insignificant in the overall scheme of things because:

(1) The bulk of the tropospheric water content (~70%) is at low altitude below about 4 km anyway i.e. below about 700 mb and there the really long term trend is very clearly an increase.

(2) It is well known that most LW IR absorption occurs in the lower part of the troposphere below ~ 4km anyway.

(3) IF the basic theory (rightly or wrongly) of AGW were to be wrong with respect to water vapor amplification of rising CO2 we should expect the whole tropospheric water vapor content at all altitudes right down to the surface to remain constant or to decline. This is, for example, one of the contentions of the so-called Miskolczi Theory which posits that declining SH over the WHOLE troposphere or even more so, the LOWER troposphere, could provide a measure of homeostasis to the global climate (by reducing the water vapor amplification of the greenhouse effect).

In this context, (regrettably) I simply can’t see a meaningful claim for significance in a downward trend in water vapor content at only high altitude (above ~ 4km) which is less than one sixth of the overall long term increase at low altitude (below ~ 4 km).

It must also be noted that the apparent decline in SH at high altitude seems to occur just in the earlier period 1949 – ~1965 when the data was derived from radiosondes rather than in the later period where the data is satellite-derived.

That in fact was the very issue upon which critiques of Garth Paltridge’s well known paper were based. In all fairness it needs to be noted that Paltridge himself acknowledged that ‘upfront’ as a potential confounding issue.

In a nutshell, contrary to the misleading impression Graeme’s comments convey, there is very little of real comfort for us sceptics in the long term tropospheric water vapor record – especially over the last 50 years when the data has been satellite-derived. Over that period there is in fact no significant decline in SH over any ‘slice’ of the upper troposphere and the trend for the whole troposphere is clearly upwards.

Having said all that, IMHO there are other effects at play which serve to limit AGW – most likely arising from cloud-based effects on SW albedo.

Report this

00

Of course your comment at #153 is accurate. But I implore you not to discourage ‘JM’ from posting his/her nonsense.

The more JM posts the more ‘uncommitted’ onlookers can see the nature of ‘warmists’, their so-called “evidence” (which is complete lack of evidence), and their behaviour.

The posts of JM are far, far better demolition of the AGW case than I could ever put. So, chivvy him/her to keep posting: it is easy to do because his/her obvious lack of self worth demands that he/she keep trying to be seen to be right about something although he/she seems unlikely to be successful in the attempt.

Richard

Report this

40

Only schoolkids publish “papers” on blogs and expect to be taken seriously.

Report this

03

Such a schoolyard immature comment. Grow up JM

Report this

20

You’re dead right. Get it published and then it might be worthy of attention.

Until then, it’s nothing. And your pathetic bleats to the UK Parliament are equally worthless.

Report this

04

Ah! So you do have reading difficulties. That explains all your writings here.

My Submission to the Select Committee says:

7.
However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). This is despite the fact that there is no obvious and/or published reason for changing a datum of MGT for years that were decades ago: the temperature measurements were obtained in those years so the change can only be an effect of alterating the method(s) of calculating MGT from the measurements. But the MGT data sets often change. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.
8.
Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.
But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.
(a) I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.
(b) I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.
“We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”
(c) I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either
the paper was rejected because it assessed incorrect data
or
we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.
But I cannot prove who or what caused this.

And you say:

“Or rather that you can’t finish it and it must be the fault of those perfidious scientists who are conspiring against you.

Perhaps you should consider that either your hypothesis is wrong, or maybe you just don’t understand the data well enough to use it effectively in support of your case.”

What!
I refuse to believe that you are as gullible and stupid as you are pretending to be.

And the analysis in my paper is considered worthy by the following co-signatories who put their names to it. Authority counts for nothing, but that these people think the paper deserves publication (to the extent that they put thei names to it) should at least give you pause before saying what you do (and I quote above).

Aksberg, A H, Author of Fearless Climate

Baltutis, J S CDR, USN (RET) BA, Mathematics; MS, Operations Research (RET)

Ball, T Environmental Consultant; former Professor of Climatology, U. of Winnipeg

Boehmer-Christiansen, S Reader Dept. of Geography, U. of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Böttiger, H Independent publisher

Bijkerk, A Independent Quaternary Palaeo-Climate Researcher; Environmental Consultant; Lieut.-Colonel of the Royal Netherlands Air Force

Carter, R M Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia

Ellsaesser, H W US Air Force (RET 1963); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (RET 1997)

Ferreyra, E President of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology; Independent researcher in climatology

Hissink, L Consulting Geologist; Editor of Australian Institute of Geosciences News

Hughes, W S Geologist; since 1991has studied global temperature trend compilations; author of web pages http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Jelbring, H PhD thesis “Wind Controlled Climate”; President Inventex Aqua AB, Sweden

McLean, J Data analyst, independent climate researcher

Moura, R G Electrical engineer and meteorologist

Thoenes, D Professor (em) Chemical and Process Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology (1979-1995)

Rorsch, A Professor (em) Molecular Genetics Leiden University (1967-1997); member of the board of the Netherlands Organization of Applied Science TNO (1980-1995)

van der Lingen, G J Geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand (GRAINZ

Winterhalter, B Senior Marine Researcher (RET) Geological Survey of Finland

Richard

Report this

20

Or rather that you can’t finish it and it must be the fault of those perfidious scientists who are conspiring against you.

Perhaps you should consider that either your hypothesis is wrong, or maybe you just don’t understand the data well enough to use it effectively in support of your case.

Report this

01