http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1...
in which he says:
"... Normally, the negative reviewer comments would not lead to final acceptance and publication of a manuscript in ACP. After extensive deliberation however, the editor concluded that the revised manuscript still should be published – despite the strong criticism from the esteemed reviewers – to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory. This is not an endorsement or confirmation of the theory, but rather a call for further development of the arguments presented in the paper that shall lead to conclusive disproof or validation by the scientific community. ..."
The complete set of reviews and responses from the authors can be found here:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1...
Pay particular attention to the comment from Nick Stokes, which Judy Curry uses in her review. The comments from Lackman are also relevant, that this is not a new effect and people have studied it before (and come to the conclusion it is not especially important).
The bottom line is this paper likely is "much ado about a small effect" but is blown way out of proportion by climate skeptics. Furthermore, even if this is the dominant role on how wind forms, it says nothing about the global radiative balance of the planet, upon which anthropogenic CO2 has a huge impact.
Edit: Ok, I didn't go back far enough and failed to notice this paper was discussed three years ago. The reason it is popping back up was it was accepted recently and is now making the round again in the skeptic blogosphere. Here is, I think, the definitive comment made in 2010 by Kerry Emmanuel:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10...
where he states, the effect is know, he looked at it, and found it wasn't significant, but should be included.
edit: Also, calling this "new" is not really correct. The authors proposed this back in 2008, earlier if you count the papers in the hydrological journals. Here is the discussion of an earlier version of this paper in ACP, that was rejected:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8...
Pay particular attention to the exchange between the authors and Referee #1. Note how the authors change their position amid the discussion. This is not a good sign.
Hi Mike Why should the electronics industry be allowed to use the atmosphere as part of their infrastructure? If they had to use wires or fibre optics the acceleration in electronic gadgets would have taken a lot longer to hit the streets. How much do you think the electronics industry has made over the last 10 years ? How many mobiles and laptops you gone through over this time ? I don't know if you ever had one of those mobiles that were the size of a brick and as heavy as one to. Look at the power and size of your current phone and the old bricks of the 70's. In 40 years science has the technology with solid state and Nano-tech to impact all our lives, one is the use of the electrical grid that emit greenhouse gases the other is the interaction of the electrical energy emitted by our wireless communications and remote sensing and atmospheric heating, I think it's a good thing to look at the magnetic processes and how positive and negative energy interact. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_centur... Cheers
I have to laugh at this. The Global Warming Policy Foundation takes a paper that has nothing to do with global warming, and in no way shape or form contradicts our present understanding of, it and states that “If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.”
For a start, it most definitely won’t overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom, even an idiot can see that. What it would do (if correct) is to further enhance our understanding of atmospheric dynamics and help shed light on one of the many processes by which winds are formed and influenced.
Neither will it undermine every climate model. The author seems to think climate models factor in wind and wind alone. There’s a whole multitude of variables that are incorporated into these models, all of the others will be unaffected. If correct, it means that a small part from one of many variables could be affected. Statistically you could be talking about 10% of 2%, i.e. 0.2% of the sum components that produce the model output.
It is worth noting that this is the opinion of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A think tank formed by Lord Lawson – the former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a philosopher, economist and politician and by Dr Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. The Advisory Council of the GWPF consists mainly of economists and journalists. There are several scientists on the Council, most of which are… do I really need to say this… Exxon benefactors. It would be quite hard to come up with a less reliable bunch of people if you tried.
There are actually some very good reasons to question the credibility of climate models – this isn’t one of them. I guess the fact that assessing climate model validity involves real science is why the GWPF seem blissfully unaware of the inherent uncertainties and instead resorts to irrational fabrication.
I think it's impossible that it could do anything to "blow climate science wide open." After all, we KNOW that atmospheric models work well--weather forecasting using the models has drastically improved over the past 20 years. If anything, I would expect that this would turn out to be a different way of looking at things, but basically the same physics.
The fact that Isaac Held, one of the giants in the field, recommended that the paper not be published says a lot. I'm fine with publication, though. I would always recommend publication when there is any doubt--it's better to let the community as a whole be the judges.
This is silly.
Maybe this hypothesis may prove out, maybe not. In any case, the models are constantly improving and this could add to that. Advancing science is an improvement, it is an addition. In 20 years, all scientific models will be more sophisticated than now; that's hardly news.
The study authors do not say they have blown climate science open. Only somebody who is grasping at straws would make such a claim.
The authors conclude only "that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics". They are saying to other climate scientists "hey guys, we should look at this."
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Even James Hansen admits that the climate models do not work.
John Barnes,a climate scientist bemoans this very fact : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Interesting. But as you were right to point out, even though it could mean that models are wrong, they basic physics of global warming is still correct. If their research is confirmed, it could be used to improve the models. They may narrow the possible values of climate sensitivity.
This doesn't blow climate science wide open, it just blows. It isn't even a peer reviewed paper and noe of the contributors are climatologists. it is simply a theory and hasn't been proven or it wouldn't be a single paper. I really wish you would come up with some real climate science, Oh I forget, you cant because there is no climatologist who can support DA deniers lame views. Sorry
No. Why would it? What it will do is generate hundreds of new analyses to both verify what the authors propose and, if their concept has merit, to include those variables in model predictions.
The only thing that it should blow wide open - but won't because of the recalcitrance of Deniers - is the notion that the scientific community actively suppresses new, innovative, and even controversial ideas.
=====
gcnp58 --
Excellent. Thanks.
So what. A paper full of false research and wrong conclusions means nothing
This is sure to be controversial. A paper on what drives global wind patterns which was finally published after two years of wrangling has the following notes from the editors:
"In an accompanying statement the journal editorial board said: “The paper is highly controversial, proposing a fundamentally new view that seems to be in contradiction to common textbook knowledge. The majority of reviewers and experts in the field seem to disagree, whereas some colleagues provide support, and the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.
“The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.”"
"Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong."
http://www.thegwpf.org/research-blows-climate-science-wide-open/
Here is the paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf
And do you agree with the calculations in "3.2 Moist adiabatic temperature pro?le"?????
Climate models leave out many things clouds how to predict ? Ocean currents ?
Angle of the Earth and time of day or year .
That makes them faulty +or- 1000 factors.
