A Fresh Look at Climate Change – the Connolly Perspective

Written by PSI Staff

The Connolly Scientific Research Group is a family-run independent entity based in Ireland and has provided fascinating new research and analysis on the global warming controversy.  Principia Scientific International has corresponded with Dr. Ronan Connolly, an award-winning scientist, and believe the group provides valuable new analysis in the climate debate. 

ConnollyWe previously ran an introductory article about their new website, ‘Global Warming Solved’ and due to favourable feedback are again delighted to encourage our reader participation.

Below Ronan Connolly has set out the group’s complete body of work and invites full open peer review in the spirit that PSI endorses.
 
Dr Connolly reports:
 I have uploaded datasets for all of our papers to the Figshare website (http://figshare.com/authors/Ronan_Connolly/532073), and provided links to the datasets on the corresponding article pages at http://oprj.net/
 
In total, we have written eight articles on climate science/atmospheric science.
 
We believe that science thrives through openness, and so we have decided to use a fully open peer review system for the peer review process, i.e., our new Open Peer Review Journal. As a trial run for this system, we are using our own research. But, if the system is successful, we hope to expand the journal to accept submissions from other researchers.

We are also providing open access to the data for all our papers so that people can check and/or use our analysis.

We are very interested in feedback from the scientific community on our research, whether positive or negative. So, if any of your readers are interested in posting a technical comment or review on one (or more) of articles, they are more than welcome to do so. Instructions are provided on the OPRJ website: http://oprj.net/how-to-submit-a-review

I have provided brief summaries and links to our eight articles below:

In three of the articles we revisit the urbanization bias problem and argue that this has led to a substantial overestimation of “global warming” trends:

R. Connolly, and M. Connolly (2014). Urbanization bias I. Is it a negligible problem for global temperature estimates?, Open Peer Rev. J., 28 (Clim. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

R. Connolly, and M. Connolly (2014). Urbanization bias II. An assessment of the NASA GISS urbanization adjustment method, Open Peer Rev. J., 31 (Clim. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).
R. Connolly, and M. Connolly (2014). Urbanization bias III. Estimating the extent of bias in the Historical Climatology Network datasets, Open Peer Rev. J., 34 (Clim. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

In another three articles we develop a new approach for describing and explaining the temperature and energy profiles of the atmosphere. Our findings suggest to us that the physics used by the current climate models is wholly inadequate, and as a result their results are unrealistic:

M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014). The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I. Phase change associated with tropopause, Open Peer Rev. J., 19 (Atm. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014).  The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere, Open Peer Rev. J., 22 (Atm. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft). 
M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014).  The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere III. Pervective power, Open Peer Rev. J., 25 (Atm. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft). 

In another article we reviewed the various temperature proxy estimates of global temperature trends of the last 1000 years.Unlike previous reviews, technical analyses presented via internet blogs were considered as well as the conventional peer-reviewed literature.

R. Connolly, and M. Connolly (2014). Global temperature changes of the last millennium, Open Peer Rev. J., 16 (Clim. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

SI dataset: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.977937

For the eight article we revisited the poor station siting problem associated with weather station records. Using the results of Anthony Watts et al.’s Surface stations project, we find that poor station siting has introduced a substantial warming bias into U.S. temperature trends. It is likely that similar biases also occur for global temperature trends.

R. Connolly, and M. Connolly (2014). Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?, Open Peer Rev. J., 11 (Clim. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]uote name=”Pat Obar”]From my POV, the Connolly conjecture is iffy. The Miscolczi conjecture is also iffy, but likely more sound.[/quote]
    Miscolczi seems like really obvious pseudo science to me. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please explain the way of confirming, none, one, the other, or some combination of both?[/quote]
    None. Definitely none. [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Please consider that it would be currently politically incorrect for any government, or other agency to fund such a ridiculous inquiry! [/quote]
    Uh, what are you talking about?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please state your definition of conjecture? IMO it starts as a WAG (wild assed guess), a DWAG (dronk, wild assed guess), a SWAG (smart wild assed guess), the other SWAG (stupid wild assed guess). To reach the level of a scientific “conjecture” it must be your “own” (bestest wild assed guess). Only achievable by considering many opposing POVs. I always run up on the honest, “beats the shit out of me”. [/quote]

    [b]It’s just a word.[/b][/quote]

    Indeed, in your limited physical. A word or word phrase is only an arrangement of alphabetical/numeric symbols. If you discard all of your physical. Then study what is left!, the arrangement of symbols has meaning, (an attempt to communicate) What is your intended meaning, of this word “conjecture” (your definition) with intent to convey meaning?

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    uote name=”Pat Obar”]From my POV, the Connolly conjecture is iffy. The Miscolczi conjecture is also iffy, but likely more sound.[/quote]
    Miscolczi seems like really obvious pseudo science to me. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please explain the way of confirming, none, one, the other, or some combination of both?[/quote]
    None. Definitely none. [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Please consider that it would be currently politically incorrect for any government, or other agency to fund such a ridiculous inquiry! [/quote]
    Uh, what are you talking about?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please state your definition of conjecture? IMO it starts as a WAG (wild assed guess), a DWAG (dronk, wild assed guess), a SWAG (smart wild assed guess), the other SWAG (stupid wild assed guess). To reach the level of a scientific “conjecture” it must be your “own” (bestest wild assed guess). Only achievable by considering many opposing POVs. I always run up on the honest, “beats the shit out of me”. [/quote]It’s just a word.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Isn’t Joel Shore a real hoot? Like crabgrass he always pops back up![/quote]
    He wont be back. Once warmeez realize they are outmatched they tend to float away, like so many clouds.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    Pat, you misunderstand my intentions. I consider myself the Connolly’s biggest fans. They are a refreshing break from the brain-dead group think that is typical of meteorology (and, to a lesser degree, atmospheric physics). Most theorists in this area are so afraid to say anything wrong that they end up saying nothing at all.

    As I indicated, the notion of mutimerization is not, IMO, a sound notion. But what was especially insightful about this notion was the fact that they were attempting to address an issue that the current paradigm of Meteorology fails to even acknowledge: Meteorology has failed to describe the origins of widespread low pressure that is associated with storms. [/quote]

    Jim, I accept your frustration with all of the Climate Clowns! Your latest reply was not about the the Connollys papers but only an attack on what I was trying to explain about the precise Connolly scientific method!
    From my POV, the Connolly conjecture is iffy. The Miscolczi conjecture is also iffy, but likely more sound. Please explain the way of confirming, none, one, the other, or some combination of both? Please consider that it would be currently politically incorrect for any government, or other agency to fund such a ridiculous inquiry!

    Please state your definition of conjecture?
    IMO it starts as a WAG (wild assed guess), a DWAG (dronk, wild assed guess), a
    SWAG (smart wild assed guess), the other SWAG (stupid wild assed guess).
    To reach the level of a scientific “conjecture” it must be your “own” (bestest wild assed guess). Only achievable by considering many opposing POVs. I always run up on the honest, “beats the shit out of me”.
    Isn’t Joel Shore a real hoot? Like crabgrass he always pops back up!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Thank you for the bold type of my humble expressions.[/quote]
    Pat, you misunderstand my intentions. I consider myself the Connolly’s biggest fans. They are a refreshing break from the brain-dead group think that is typical of meteorology (and, to a lesser degree, atmospheric physics). Most theorists in this area are so afraid to say anything wrong that they end up saying nothing at all.

    As I indicated, the notion of mutimerization is not, IMO, a sound notion. But what was especially insightful about this notion was the fact that they were attempting to address an issue that the current paradigm of Meteorology fails to even acknowledge: Meteorology has failed to describe the origins of widespread low pressure that is associated with storms.

    The fact that they attempted to theorize and explanation puts them puts them head and shoulders ahead of the stodgy group think that is taken for granted amongst the meteorological balloonheads. My suggestions are meant to encourage them to take the next step (testing, either literally or with thought experiments) and not become just another balloonhead.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]I see no discussion from you (Connollys) on how this notion can be tested. [/quote]

    Jim McGinn,
    “I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy”
    By your own postings you are critical of anyone that disagrees with you myopic belief
    That H2O molecules (monomers) cannot exist in the atmosphere as a true gas at the temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere.[/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    This article is about the correct scientific method, the Connollys used to develop their “conjecture”. [/quote]What an idiotic statement. There is no scientific method for making a conjecture.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]That method is “with measurements of others, balloon soundings, What learning can we gain from that effort”. [/quote]That’s a measurement.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Even if that data were maliciously modified for some reason. The publication of the figures and data sets further indicates the correctness of the method used. Others may verify if they wish![/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    The conjecture, by chemists, of multimers of whatever, at low temperatures and very low pressures in a gravitational field, can be expected by anyone,[/quote]”Expected.” What in the world are you babbling about?[quote name=”Pat Obar”] that has seriously scratched head over “what is” or “why it is”.
    A conjecture need not be demonstrably falsifiable! A conjecture need only be confirmed or objected to by others. [/quote]LOL. Typical post-modern excuse for not doing science. There is never a good reason not to test any conjecture that is testable.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    This has been done, previously! F. Miscolczi, using similar balloon soundings of others, provided a different conjecture, for how the atmosphere operates. The Miscolczi conjecture is based on the “virial theorem” of Clausius, which shows the relationship of Newtonian kinetic energy of many masses in a gravitational field and the total gravitational potential of all masses. His conjecture was that at a pressure of approx 10 kiloPascals, atmospheric gasses undergo a transition of constraints on degrees of freedom of each gas molecule.[/quote]Speculative nonsense. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    About this Earth, within this atmosphere in the troposphere the molecules have 5.2 constraints on DOF, they are in a gravitational bottle with higher pressure at the bottom. Well into the stratosphere the same molecules have 1 constraint on DOF (gravity) Each molecule, or group of similar molecules, is in an elliptical orbit about the center of mass of this Earth. The mean free path before collision may be the diameter of the earth!
    The Miscolczi conjecture has not, and does not need, any reference to temperature. It can and does exist in any universe, with or without the dimension of “temperature” ! :-)[/quote]Who cares. Your reasoning is absurd. That some conjectures are untestable doesn’t mean that everybodies’ brain farts are science.[/quote]
    Thank you for the bold type of my humble expressions. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]I see no discussion from you (Connollys) on how this notion can be tested. [/quote]

    Jim McGinn,
    “I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy”
    By your own postings you are critical of anyone that disagrees with you myopic belief
    That H2O molecules (monomers) cannot exist in the atmosphere as a true gas at the temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere.[/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    This article is about the correct scientific method, the Connollys used to develop their “conjecture”. [/quote]What an idiotic statement. There is no scientific method for making a conjecture.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]That method is “with measurements of others, balloon soundings, What learning can we gain from that effort”. [/quote]That’s a measurement.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Even if that data were maliciously modified for some reason. The publication of the figures and data sets further indicates the correctness of the method used. Others may verify if they wish![/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    The conjecture, by chemists, of multimers of whatever, at low temperatures and very low pressures in a gravitational field, can be expected by anyone,[/quote]”Expected.” What in the world are you babbling about?[quote name=”Pat Obar”] that has seriously scratched head over “what is” or “why it is”.
    A conjecture need not be demonstrably falsifiable! A conjecture need only be confirmed or objected to by others. [/quote]LOL. Typical post-modern excuse for not doing science. There is never a good reason not to test any conjecture that is testable.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    This has been done, previously! F. Miscolczi, using similar balloon soundings of others, provided a different conjecture, for how the atmosphere operates. The Miscolczi conjecture is based on the “virial theorem” of Clausius, which shows the relationship of Newtonian kinetic energy of many masses in a gravitational field and the total gravitational potential of all masses. His conjecture was that at a pressure of approx 10 kiloPascals, atmospheric gasses undergo a transition of constraints on degrees of freedom of each gas molecule.[/quote]Speculative nonsense. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    About this Earth, within this atmosphere in the troposphere the molecules have 5.2 constraints on DOF, they are in a gravitational bottle with higher pressure at the bottom. Well into the stratosphere the same molecules have 1 constraint on DOF (gravity) Each molecule, or group of similar molecules, is in an elliptical orbit about the center of mass of this Earth. The mean free path before collision may be the diameter of the earth!
    The Miscolczi conjecture has not, and does not need, any reference to temperature. It can and does exist in any universe, with or without the dimension of “temperature” ! :-)[/quote]Who cares. Your reasoning is absurd. That some conjectures are untestable doesn’t mean that everybodies’ brain farts are science.[/quote]
    Go away idiot! 🙂

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]I see no discussion from you (Connollys) on how this notion can be tested. [/quote]

    Jim McGinn,
    “I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy”
    By your own postings you are critical of anyone that disagrees with you myopic belief
    That H2O molecules (monomers) cannot exist in the atmosphere as a true gas at the temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere.[/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    This article is about the correct scientific method, the Connollys used to develop their “conjecture”. [/quote]What an idiotic statement. There is no scientific method for making a conjecture.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]That method is “with measurements of others, balloon soundings, What learning can we gain from that effort”. [/quote]That’s a measurement.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Even if that data were maliciously modified for some reason. The publication of the figures and data sets further indicates the correctness of the method used. Others may verify if they wish![/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    The conjecture, by chemists, of multimers of whatever, at low temperatures and very low pressures in a gravitational field, can be expected by anyone,[/quote]”Expected.” What in the world are you babbling about?[quote name=”Pat Obar”] that has seriously scratched head over “what is” or “why it is”.
    A conjecture need not be demonstrably falsifiable! A conjecture need only be confirmed or objected to by others. [/quote]LOL. Typical post-modern excuse for not doing science. There is never a good reason not to test any conjecture that is testable.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    This has been done, previously! F. Miscolczi, using similar balloon soundings of others, provided a different conjecture, for how the atmosphere operates. The Miscolczi conjecture is based on the “virial theorem” of Clausius, which shows the relationship of Newtonian kinetic energy of many masses in a gravitational field and the total gravitational potential of all masses. His conjecture was that at a pressure of approx 10 kiloPascals, atmospheric gasses undergo a transition of constraints on degrees of freedom of each gas molecule.[/quote]Speculative nonsense. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    About this Earth, within this atmosphere in the troposphere the molecules have 5.2 constraints on DOF, they are in a gravitational bottle with higher pressure at the bottom. Well into the stratosphere the same molecules have 1 constraint on DOF (gravity) Each molecule, or group of similar molecules, is in an elliptical orbit about the center of mass of this Earth. The mean free path before collision may be the diameter of the earth!
    The Miscolczi conjecture has not, and does not need, any reference to temperature. It can and does exist in any universe, with or without the dimension of “temperature” ! :-)[/quote]Who cares. Your reasoning is absurd. That some conjectures are untestable doesn’t mean that everybodies’ brain farts are science.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014). The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere, Open Peer Rev. J., 22 (Atm. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

    I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy because often new discoveries sound crazy at first. Nobody that is educated on the atmosphere is going to read your notion of multimers (of N2 and/or O2) and not immediately think that is a crazy idea.

    But, I see no discussion from you (Connollys) on how this notion can be tested. And it seems like this notion would be highly testable/refutable.[/quote]

    Jim McGinn,
    “I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy”
    By your own postings you are critical of anyone that disagrees with you myopic belief
    That H2O molecules (monomers) cannot exist in the atmosphere as a true gas at the temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere.

    This article is about the correct scientific method, the Connollys used to develop their “conjecture”. That method is “with measurements of others, balloon soundings, What learning can we gain from that effort”. Even if that data were maliciously modified for some reason. The publication of the figures and data sets further indicates the correctness of the method used. Others may verify if they wish!

    The conjecture, by chemists, of multimers of whatever, at low temperatures and very low pressures in a gravitational field, can be expected by anyone, that has seriously scratched head over “what is” or “why it is”.
    A conjecture need not be demonstrably falsifiable! A conjecture need only be confirmed or objected to by others.
    This has been done, previously! F. Miscolczi, using similar balloon soundings of others, provided a different conjecture, for how the atmosphere operates. The Miscolczi conjecture is based on the “virial theorem” of Clausius, which shows the relationship of Newtonian kinetic energy of many masses in a gravitational field and the total gravitational potential of all masses. His conjecture was that at a pressure of approx 10 kiloPascals, atmospheric gasses undergo a transition of constraints on degrees of freedom of each gas molecule.
    About this Earth, within this atmosphere in the troposphere the molecules have 5.2 constraints on DOF, they are in a gravitational bottle with higher pressure at the bottom. Well into the stratosphere the same molecules have 1 constraint on DOF (gravity) Each molecule, or group of similar molecules, is in an elliptical orbit about the center of mass of this Earth. The mean free path before collision may be the diameter of the earth!
    The Miscolczi conjecture has not, and does not need, any reference to temperature. It can and does exist in any universe, with or without the dimension of “temperature” ! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    M. Connolly, and R. Connolly (2014). The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere, Open Peer Rev. J., 22 (Atm. Sci.), ver. 0.1 (non peer reviewed draft).

    I am not critical of new theoretical thinking that sounds crazy because often new discoveries sound crazy at first. Nobody that is educated on the atmosphere is going to read your notion of multimers (of N2 and/or O2) and not immediately think that is a crazy idea.

    But, I see no discussion from you (Connollys) on how this notion can be tested. And it seems like this notion would be highly testable/refutable.

Comments are closed