In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in
a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you
don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether
anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks
being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants, oscillations
and dampening characteristics all of which are self evident and
measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and fruitcake.
You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully more
publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be
peer reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
with scare tactics.

Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?

Isaac