Dr Roy Spencer is a well known climate sceptic who has published extensively in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and earlier this year had a popular book published entitled ‘Climate Confusion’.
Yesterday, November 3, 2008, two technical papers that Dr Spencer had recently submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters were outright rejected in back-to-back emails and on the same day all 78 reviews of his book on Amazon.com were removed from that website.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer; do you have any more details? Such as, what were the papers about, what reasons for rejection, if any, were given; and why did Amazon do what it did; for instance had a certain time elapsed so it was standard practice to remove the book details, or was this exceptional?
Papers are often rejected. I am sure if he can tell us that it happened, he can tell us why.
Are you really claiming a conspiracy theory that Amazon.com and GRL and out to get Spencer? Amazing.
SJT, you cannot side-step the issue with a pathetic attempt at labelling it all as a “conspiracy theory”. The fact is, it happened. It is not a theory and the issue of conspiracy is yet to be resolved. It is sufficient to note that this is now a standard operating procedure for the climate scumnoscenti. Whether they acted in concert or individually matters little beside the intontestable fact of his censorship.
Yes, very serious and grave news Jennifer… Spencer gets two papers rejected… Very serious… And Amazon removed some reviews… That’s tragic.
Is there anything we can do to help?
I offer my services, and my wallet. How can we help?
NT,
Can you please find out why all 78 reviews of his book were removed from the Amazon’s website.
Regarding the two papers:
The first compared five years of satellite data to all five year periods from 18 climate models and found none that had the negative feedback the satellite data showed. The paper had 2 reviewers. One said publish after changes, the other was hostile to the criticism of the climate models.
The second paper, showed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) can explain most of the warming during the 20th Century. It had only one reviewer who, according to Dr Spencer, appeared to not understand how radiative forcing causes temperature changes.
Jennifer; two crucial issues; Dr Spencer needs to look for a publisher elsewhere; in the mean time, how about a preview on your site?
On the Amazon.com site Climate Confusion has no customer reviews. This book is listed as hardback March 2008. Customer reviews help sales, so deleting customer reviews looks strange for a book seller. Time line is not the explantation, as many other books published prior to 2008 have customer reviews still available on Amazon.com.
I have noticed that Vivac Klaus’ Green Planet in Blue Shackles (2007) is not available from the Amazon.com main site, though the reviews are still there. It is available, as single copies, from two sub sellers listed on that site. So if I want it, instead of being able to buy a number of books together to save freight, as I prefer to do with Amazon, I have to pay separate packaging for this one, and the mail system is much slower. Another tactic to discourage sales of certain books?
Amazon should explain itself. If it fails to do so, it effectively gives customers permission to think the worst.
SJT “Are you really claiming a conspiracy theory that Amazon.com and GRL and out to get Spencer? Amazing”.
SJT…you are about one of the most naive people I have ever encountered, but you fit right in with the rest of your ilk at RC and Deltoid.
Tripe – scientists have papers rejected all the time. Means nothing.
Might be a surprise for bullies like Mott to understand that you don’t just rock up to any old journal and demand publication.
Seriously this is weak as water.
You also start a conspiracy that maybe his papers were totally flawed.
Do we know what the reviewers problems were?
As for Amazon – separate issue – ask them. Have they “banned” all sceptic books?
These sceptic books are still there
# The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark
# Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by S. Fred Singer
# Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels
Sounds like glass jaw stuff to me.
But of course there’s always Energy and Environment … LOL
Here, again, is a quote from Nobelist Hannes Alfven for all you trolls from RC and Deltoid:
“The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo.”
Of course, it will be well over your heads.
Jennifer…
Umm no.
Why don’t you email them?
Jennifer,
I find it hard to believe that their could be any connection between the Amazon reviews the GRL rejections. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the missing reviews on Amazon are the result of anything other than a computer glitch or a regularily enforced policy on the part of Amazon. In fact, a significant number of those 78 reviews were some troll accusing Dr. Spencer of being a shill for big oil and probably should have been removed awhile ago.
As for the GRL rejections, I suspect Dr. Spencer knew they would be rejected which is why he published them on blogs first. It is possible this advance publicity was used as the reason for the rejection because some journals have rules prohibiting that. If GRL has such a policy then it the claim by Dr. Spencer that he submitted the papers to GRL was a setup because he would have known that publishing the results in advance woudl have ensured their rejection no matter what the technical merits.
Here is GRL’s policy on pre-publication:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/dualpub_policy.html
It does not cover blog postings directly but it does imply that making the information available to a wide audiance does constitute ‘publication’. I realize that the wording does allow ‘conference proceeding’ exception but the implication is the ‘conference proceeding’ woud be available to a limited audience. I am sure people can provide their own interpretation but it is clear to me that the policy gives the GRL editors all the excuses they need to reject Dr. Spencer’s papers without further review. So it should come as a surprise to no one that they were rejected.
Helen,
Klaus’ book can be got from Ray Evans, Lavoisier Group.
Gordon,
SJT is, as Lenin remarked some time ago, one of the useful idiots.
I have just bought book from Amazon seemingly no problem. Years ago I had a beef with Amazon over explicit sexual material included with an expensive book I had bought as a present. I found there is no avenue to complain so I expect no resolution will be had.
“But of course there’s always Energy and Environment ”
I wonder if they use “peer” reviewers who don’t understand the material they are reviewing.
Raven:
You would some evidence to support your post apart, I would think.
Raven,
Thanks for the reference to the GRL’s publication policy. It confirms yet again that peer review in climate science is NOT about substance and relevance, but about how an elitist few can protect a position whilst they collectively plunder the public purse.
Shonkademia doing what it does best. Playing games.
Malcolm,
The publication game is definitely rigged, however, it is a game and there are rules. Dr. Spencer did not appear to play by the rules in this case and got burned. I suspect it was a calculated risk on his part because the GRL editors could sit on his submissions for months in order to prevent him from making the results public during a critical period in the US political cycle (he said as much in a post on Anthony’s blog).
That said, I do believe correct science will triumph in the end and if the data continues to support Dr. Spencer’s low sensitivity thesis then he will be vindicated. In the short term I don’t think it really makes a difference whether it got published in the GRL because the alarmists ignore everything that contradicts their claims even if it is published in the literature.
Looks like a set-up on Roy Spencer’s part, but if Hansen can claim to have been censored, why wouldn’t his opposition do the same thing? Start a war and it’s bound to escalate. Plus now everyone will want to read his papers.
Pure sour grapes – the papers were not up to scratch – the end.
And it’s not as if GRL is the only journal in the world.
The conspiracy theory simply suits your agenda.
Luke,
A peer review system that accepts papers like MBH98, WA 2006, Mann 2008 and Santer 2008 cannot be really used a measure of scientific worth.
Obviously there are other journals but that is part of the alarmist game. Reject papers based on irrelevant matters of process and then later claim the the paper has no merit because it did not appear in the ‘correct’ journal.
Raven, Graham and others …
It is my understanding that the papers were not rejected on the basis that the content of one had already been discussed on some websites and blogs – indeed CSIRO usually announces the findings of their research in the media long before the paper is even written.
Rather, it is my understanding the papers were rejected because:
“Regarding the two papers, the one where we compared five years of satellite data to ALL five year periods from 18 climate models and found none that had the negative feedback the satellite data showed…that paper had 2 reviewers. One said publish after changes, the other was more hostile in response to us saying anything bad about climate models.
The second paper, which showed that the PDO can explain most of the warming during the 20th Century, had only one reviewer, and was turned around in record time. The reviewer obviously just skimmed the paper, since half of his questions would have been answered if he had read more carefully. Also, he claimed that the PDO history should be highly correlated with the temperature history for the PDO to have caused the temperatures. This is a gross misunderstanding of how radiative forcing causes temperature changes (radiative forcing is proportional to the change in temperature with time, not the temperature itself, which causes them to always be out of phase), which should have disqualified him as a reviewer to begin with.
I am convinced that if these two papers showed new evidence in support of the models and manmade global warming, they would have sailed through the peer review process.”
as per discussions with Roy Spencer.
PS Luke, can you please fix your image! 🙂
“Pure sour grapes – the papers were not up to scratch – the end.
And it’s not as if GRL is the only journal in the world.
The conspiracy theory simply suits your agenda.”
so you don’t want to know what some one MORE in the know, knows?
for you the science is settled is it?
Typical!!!
I think I have found one problem.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/PDO-and-20th-Century-warming-Fig01.jpg
Is he serious that you can project from a five year period for a century? I think he is. The models simulate the physical processes of the climate in their projections. Spencer is taking a rule from a selected five year period and drawing a line for the next century. Amazing that he thinks this is science.
Jennifer, I wasn’t speculating on the reasons for the papers being refused, just the claim to have been censored. He can go to any number of other journals.
SJT:
You sure have found a problem – called quoting out of context – the graph you refer to is not linked to any text but you associate it with Spencer.
“In fact, I find it hard to believe that the missing reviews on Amazon are the result of anything other than a computer glitch or a regularily enforced policy on the part of Amazon.”
There was a relatively recent podcast (sorry I cannot think of which one, as I listen to dozens) on sceptical topics (not climate related) that was discussing how the Amazon review process would not tolerate any negative comments on the Scientology scripture ‘Dianetics.’ Not sure if that is still the case, but it’s hardly surprising that an environmental activist might delete positive reviews on a sceptical subject, such as a sceptic in some other field might want to do the same.
Raven,
You are so right as to the ethics of this game. But what worries me is the enormous size of money stakes involved, and the impact it will have on our economy.
Talk about the inefficient use of capital, then Rudds ETS will be a nightmare.
It is pure fantasy to contemplate that—the output from shonky GCMs is fed into equally suspect econometric models, to produce a result of such certainty, that Wenny Pong and Rudd ( and Henry the ACF) stand up with their bare faced lies, (calling it carbon pollution of all things), and say we have do something that will make NO difference whatsoever- but spends our wealth on something we dont need, cant use, and adds no value.
Amazing that Luke maintains his boorish sniping at Energy & Environment. It’s not to the point that E&E has published some papers that are below standard because, as Raven’s post reminds us, the same is true of papers that have been published in leading journals. I’ve made an across-the-board comparison of the standard of E&E papers with those of another UK-based journal publishing mainly in the social sciences (‘Global Environmental Change’) and in my opinion E&E is way in front.
E&E has published papers on both sides of some key controversies, whereas GEC only considers papers that are acceptable to the IPCC milieu. The journal was edited for years by Professor Martin Parry, who was apparently unable to see any conflict of interest between this role and his co-chairmanship of the IPCC’s Working Group II. For several issues after Dr Pachauri was elected IPCC Chair, the cover page of GEC proclaimed that Professor Parry held that position (The previous Chair, Robert Watson, maintained his claim to the post on his home page at the World Bank, but he realised that he was no longer the Chair after about four years).
One of the more obvious demonstrations of the IPCC’s extreme bias is their readiness to cite papers published in E&E, and the authors of these papers happily list these as ‘peer-reviewed papers’ in their CVs. But the IPCC doesn’t so much as mention the replies that were also published in E&E – the criterion for inclusion in an IPCC literature review is ideological acceptability, not scholarly quality.
I should have made clear that I was referring to IPCC Working Groups II and III _ I’m not equipped to comment on IPCC Working Group I.
Richard Tol, then a Professor at the Hamburg, Vrije and Carnegie Mellon Universities, told the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords in February 2005: ‘I am not involved in the [IPCC’s] current assessment report because I have not been nominated by my government … Essentially in Germany, for working groups 2 and 3 – only people with close connections to the Green Party have been nominated to the IPCC. It’s remarkable that no governments were concernede about this.
Well, don’t buy anything from Amazon again. On a lighter note, Spencer’s Journal of Climate paper is now published:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/11/new-paper-demonstrates-positive-feedback-bias-in-climate-models/
Maybe he should send his latest papers to the Journal of Climate too.
The peer-review sysstem has been corrupt from day one, or at least since Oreskes put forward her potboiler; the history of AGW is littered with censorship in the msm, to the journals, think Miskolczi, to public spectacles, think the Bali Kyoto debacle where a petition from a list of some of the world’s top scientists, including our Louis, was rejected. One only has to think of how Dr Spencer was treated when he presented before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22/7/08 to realise that certain persons are not interested in a transparent and open debate.
Will; your graph is about confidence levels, which are about end and starting points; lucia has done several good analysis’s of this point in relation to how the hole the IPCC is in is getter deeper with every day which passes which is below the average temp or is part of a downward trend; this is because the longer the temp trends down the greater the upward trend has to be over the remaining period covered by the IPCC’s predictions to achieve what the temp is predicted to be at a certain time. If the temp has trended down for 10 years then Spencer is correct in that the IPCC’s confidence levels are shot to pieces because the forcing from GH, EGH and super-dooper GH will have to exceed IPCC’s estimations for forcing for the shortfall to be made up.
Jen – unless Spencer shares the reasons his papers were rejected it doesn’t matter whether you “like” his arguments or not. If we don’t know the reason for rejection you can speculate till the cows come home.
As for E&E – after the Archibald issue need we go on?
Anyway let’s not have peer review Cohers – let’s just let anyone write anything they like. As for bilge like Miskolczi – well of course it should be rejected – it’s crap – like E&E is utter crap – http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html
Just like your interminable 10 worse lists are utter dog shit. Do you fancy yourself as some sort of referee?
Cohers wants to have a free for all orgy where every second rate denier can sprout any drivel they want and expect it be published in serious journals. Well LMAO !
“Re gravatar changing – clear your browser cache and you’ll find it has changed. The cache is the issue.”
luke; I’ve been concerned recently that you have lost your sense of humour, but linking to BPL is very droll; good work.
Cohenite,
The peer review system does work in those areas of science in which we can do in situ experiment – but some disciplines, such as AGW (Climate Science as practised by Christy, Spencer, Pielke, Lindzen etc does not fall into this category), astronomy, archaeology and geology have peer review issues because in such sciences in situ measurements are replaced by persuasion or well reasoned and logical arguments based, unfortunately, not on axioms developed from direct observations, but from a consensus.
Peer review is necessary to stop plagiarising and all the the sins academics can fall into, and John Brignell has written an excellent summary on his Numberwatch site on this matter.
But when a science becomes dominated by the deductive method disconnected from empiricism, then peer review can become a powerful tool to maintain group think and to counter criticism – this has happened in astronomy, in geology where a new publishing outlet, NCGT Newsletter was formed, and now climate science where contradictory papers are rejected not from the sense of inadequate scholarship, but from severe cognitive dissonance. Sciences that find themselves in the cul-de-sacs of deductionism tend to also become belief driven – numerous examples can be found on Jennifer’s blog.
The interesting aspect to this issue of peer review and getting something published falls into my bailiwick as Editor of AIG News (Aust Inst Geosc) where, contrarian opinions are published, within the scope of the publication. Some years back two academics expressed concern that my editorial policy was slanted to the sceptical position and demanded AIG Committee that I shoudl be sacked. They lost.
Recently the NCGT Newsletter, in an editorial, noted that a particular paper/article would be published despite its rejection by peer review.
Peer review becomes problematical when politics intrudes – and the problem with climate science, and geology during Lyell’s time, is that the politically motivated have taken control of it, as Lyell did geology ~ 1832. Geology is, despite what you read, in for another paradigm shift based on solid empirical data (which you won’t read in the standard journals but might in the IEEE one day) but given the power of Lyellian rhetorism over geology, I do hope it does not take us that long to disentangle climate science from the latter day Whigs, AKA as the social democrats.
Cohenite
“The peer-review sysstem has been corrupt from day one”
Is this slander?
Not very rational anymore Cohers… Just this conspiracy reverbertaing between you ears these days…
NT:”Cohenite
“The peer-review sysstem has been corrupt from day one”
Is this slander?”
Only individuals can be slandered.
Another illthought outburst from one of Lenin’s useful idiots
So, for anyone who has not been through it (as a giver or receiver) the peer review system goes like this. You get about four types of review: (i) a considered, detailed and articulate review – rare, (ii) an honest attempt but hurried – often, (iii) I can barely articulate anything about this and barely understand it but will give a score – common, and (iv) I’m an idiot with political views – often. Spencer seems to have scored a (ii) and (iv), but I don’t know cos haven’t seen the reviews. The important decision is then the editorial one. It’s surprising to outright reject on the basis of 1 out of 2 reviews, but then again the intense political pressure the GRL editors must be under from the warmers was likely a factor – these are very unpleasant political extremists who will threaten anything. Rejection on the basis of one review happens – lazy, but many have experienced it.
As of 11.35 GMT 4th November 2008, there are 4 reviews of Dr Spencer’s book on amazon.co.uk. Three of these are highly supportive of the work, one is highly critical.
David_Ws
Up there somewhere, Jen said
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225807031&sr=8-1
82 customer reviews!
Clearly this is a case of Amazon supporting the AGW lunatics by attempting to silence public opinion on a well known AGW skeptic book, only to the missing reviews magically reappear at a later date in an obvious attempt to discredit the growing masses of righteous skeptics at the Energy and Environment blog.
Congratulations go to Jen for noticing this straight away – and in doing so forcing such a huge company to replace the missing reviews post haste. The campaign against Dr Spencer as infered in the post is as clear as daylight, and the connection between the missing reviews and the rejection of manuscripts at GRL is painstakingly obvious to all highly intelligent readers of this blog – I for one will never read another issue of Geophysical Research Letters or shop at Amazon again. I sincerely hope that this blog posting will act as an similarly critical turning point in overturning the editors decision (as has just happened with the AGW secret police at amazon.com) so that we can reveal to the AGW folk the true nature and magnitude of the lies of the AGW propaganda machine that is so clear to us all.
Eli is not quite sure what everyone is babbling about there are 82 reviews for Spencer’s book at amazon. Sure you were not looking at amazin.com?
Ah, the trolls can hardly contain their glee. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Indeed, the book reviews are now restored and increased to 82.
Maybe GRL no longer believes in radiative forcing either.
Jennifer-
I just visited Amazon.com, and there are 82 reviews of Dr. Spencer’s book currently listed; this seems to have been a false alarm:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1594032106/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
However, it is very discouraging news that his recent, ground-breaking research is being obstructed; I hope that is published elsewhere soon.
Jeff
I just laughed and laughed. Look at all the deniers paid to write positive reviews on Amazon. What a con.
This stuff is priceless – check out our wacky string Physicist denier lauding Spencer on Amazon. Sickening.
“achievements that have been rewarded by various awards and that may be giving us the most accurate data about the global mean temperature that is available” – woo hoo – that was found to be utter crap and until corrected for drift was showing the wrong trends. A data set that doesn’t include the Arctic…
“He is clearly no biased partisan.” – hahahaha –
barf !!
Look. The alarmists are mindless sheeple and lunatics. So while it could well be a conspiracy it doesn’t have to be and it doesn’t matter. Go through your books on logic and try and find the argument where it is held that sarcastically saying that “its a conspiracy” is some sort of trumping argument.
YOU WON’T FIND IT.
Conspiracies happen all the time. Its just standard leftist tactical moves. Conspirational behaviour was extremely big when communism was a live international force. Communist party members were there to carry out Soviet policy and they were subject to manipulation and always were involving themselves in conspiracies. Well we know this. And we have jihadist conspiracies going on daily. Every terrorist attack that ever happens is on account of a conspiracy. There is no getting away from that.
But alarmists are so sheeplike, mindless and loathsome, that they don’t need to be working in collusion to pull off such an apparent conspiracy. It could have been co-ordinated and it ought to surprise no-one if it was. And on the other hand it didn’t need to be co-ordinated since this sort of environmentalism is an evil movement at its core, and the proponents act in a tribal, if not an insectlike fashion.
ARE THEY EVIL OR ARE THEY STUPID?
When we see this behaviour and we are witness to alarmist idiots or leftists in other areas of life, normal human beings often start debating amongst themselves whether their opponents are evil or are they merely stupid. Whether they are engaged in a conspiracy, or are they just herdlike and mindless insect-drones.
These are healthy arguments.
Bitter disputes can break out over these arguments. But still I would recommend that conservatives spend as much of their extra-time arguing (as to whether its a conspiracy, or whether its group-idiocy) as they can afford.
But on another level it doesn’t matter.
Whether its an organic movement of stupid people, or whether its a conspiracy, in the end………. IT DOESN’T MATTER.
What matters is that we defeat this movement, and that we get on with the business of nuclear energy, and coal liquification using nuclear energy.
eli; really; you are referring to the Chilingar paper, which you have been banging away at for some time; Chilingar et al don’t say radiative forcing is non-existent but limited and contained; the Chilingar paper is about heat transfer mechanisms, particularly convection; Chilingar acknowledge a greenhouse effect (p1-2) but that effect is boundary limited and dominated by convetion and water vapor heat transfer processes;
“In the Earth’s troposphere, the convective component of heat transfer dominates.When the infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases, the energy of radiation is transformed into oscillations of gas molecules (ie, heating of exposed volume of gas mixture). As a result, the heated gas expands, becomes lighter and rises rapidly to the upper layers of troposphere, where heat is emitted into space by radiation. As the gas cools down, it descends to the Earth’s surface, where the previous (or even lower) surface temperatures are restored. Analogous situation is observed with heating of air due to the condensation of water vapor.” (p2)
It is obvious that Chilingar doesn’t dismiss radiative forcing. Miskolczi’s theory also notes the heat transfer in the atmosphere is by convection, evaporation, cloud formation etc so that what is important for climate and warming and restorative cooling is not radiation trapping but convective ‘hindering’. Both Chilingar and Miskolczi note the CEL, consistent with Douglass and Christy’s paper (Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth) where convectively uplifted air can more easily have its heat emitted to space; what C and M don’t posit is the infinite boundaries between the surface and the CEL that the Weart semi-infinite model does; and the empirical evidence seems to agree with C and M; we’ll just have to see what Dessler comes up with to counter this.
Chillingar and friends say radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere is negligible. They are also clueless about the lapse rate. A line by line calculation such as Miskolczi does, does not include convection.
Amazon.com often has multiple pages for different editions of the same book. Thus, here is a page for “Climate Confusion” which currently lists no reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/CLIMATE-CONFUSION-WARMING-HYSTERIA-SCIENCE/dp/B0017OARKG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225853206&sr=1-3
HARTCODE shows the atmosphere profile has the major absorption of CO2 at around 650cm; this was confirmed by Rob van Dorland’s recent Cabauw measurements; in Miskolczi terms this means no net IR heat/radiation flux reaches the atmosphere from the ground; upward IR, SU, either escapes through the IR window at the CEL, or is compensated for by ED, downward IR from the atmosphere; M’s assumption c (p3) has the Earth in LTE, but this is regionalised by ED=SU.[1-TA] with TA being the local LTE; at each local LTE the atmosphere regulates temperature by virtue of the disparity between the temperature lapse rate becoming greater than the dry adiabatic lapse rate, at which time convective uplift takes the surface air to the CLE where OLR occurs. Given this I really can’t see how Miskolczi and Chilingar are poles apart.
As to Chilingar being clueless about the lapse rate; by this I presume you mean the wet lapse rate; according to AGW theory the wet lapse rate is increasing because of the increase in SH; this is of course the subject of the dispute between Dessler, Soden on the one hand, who are asserting that SH is increasing, and NOAA which is showing it isn’t, with the Gifford paper on decreasing pan evaporation showing that there is no land source for the increased SH relied upon by AGW; if the wet lapse rate is not increasing then Chilingar is correct; the temperature profile/gradient of the atmosphere does not have to increase because with the adiabatic convective process Chilingar describes the ascending hot parcel of air is replaced by a descending cool parcel.
Another Sceptic censored
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
“The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme. “
Or just perhaps too weird? We all rationalise disappointment to protect our egos.
ROTFLMAO, cohenite saying
is about like being amazed that the sun came up this morning. That’s where CO2 in the lab, on mars and in your backyard absorbs.
and no cohenite, Chillingar does not include ANY lapse rate, but rather assigns all but a few percent of the difference in temperature with altitude to convection. Wanna mulligan?
Luke says “Too Weird”
Hey Sky, sigh, I think your JH gravatar is too weird. He/you look/s like a fossilised mummy.
Is that your correct image?
ROTFLMAO; oh great, so now eli and luke are related; well, whatever that means, I’m trying to be serious; Chilingar p1;
“Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposhere with the pressure Pa > 0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere.”
So 33% is a few %; eli, do you want to buy a bridge?
Mulligan; I get it, and ROTFLMAO I still don’t want; just looking further at Chilingar and lapse rates; if we assume Chilingar’s large parcels of convectively moved air are subject to the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR), then the parcel works as it rises and the DALR temperature gradient is established on the basis of the internal temperature decline of the parcel; on p5 Chilingar utilises the standard model of atmospheric temperature gradient of 6.5K/km, so again I’m not sure where you get your few %. The moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) depends on the moisture level of the air; as noted Chilingar estimates that 25% of the vertical movement is with moisture laden air; generally the MALR ranges from 3K/km – 9.78K/km; given the controversy about the atmospheric level of SH I don’t think it would be fair for Chilingar to be more precise about MALR; any way his paper is not about atmospheric moisture. Feel free to be condescending; that’s how I learn.
“Or just perhaps too weird? We all rationalise disappointment to protect our egos.”
RRrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhhhtt. Dr Evil says Rrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhttt.
Jeepers Creepers you are an idiot Luke. Of course he’s censored. It would be bad for ones career even to so much as put a good word in for him in those circles.
Look a numb nuts arts student like yourself doesn’t know he’s been censored. Rejection of papers is VERY common. Perhaps the paper is flawed. Do you know? Have you analysed it – the said paper – if you have some analysis put your critique here.
Too simple for unelectable and unrepresentative swill to comprehend? So in the meantime STFU.
You will note my little ornithological ninny that the Amazon story here ended up being pure bullsheeetttt !
Its censorship alright. But not your capital C censorship which can only apply to direct government action. Papers get rejected. But good papers usually only get rejected for anti-scientific reasons.
Cohenite that’s a purty string of words, but Chilingar ASSIGNS the lapse rate to convection.
The title says ‘censor’, the copy says ‘rejection’. Which is it? If it’s ‘censor’, where’s the evidence?
I prefer the following take on the (non-) issue: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/skeptic-scientist-is-censored-or-not/