Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 Next
Comments 70451 to 70500:
-
scaddenp at 15:13 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Chris - it's hard to imagine that anyone on the planet likes the idea of AGW, any more than you would like a cancer diagnosis but its terrible reason to ignore it. I would also be concerned that IPCC is being too conservative but aside from sealevel rise, there isnt evidence for that. Ruddiman's hypothesis remains interesting but badly needs more data. Peer review will always have flaws but it's the gate-keeper to prevent a flood of rubbish. Just because it's peer-reviewed doesnt make it correct but if something fails peer-review then it very likely has flaws. -
Camburn at 15:09 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
Quotes from Third Assessment: IPCC Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis Third Assessment Report: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” I will say that my memory was wrong in that I thought this quote was in AR4, it was AR3. AR4: 8 8.2 Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10).Response:[DB] It has already been pointed out how thoroughly wrong you were. Links were given documenting model uncertainties and model skill both. Your continuance in this endeavor now falls to bluster and reflects poorly on you.
Thank you for at least acknowleging your error. However it is noted that you also not only fail to withdraw the statement but attempt to continue to prosecute what now clearly amounts to agenda: discrediting climate models by whatever means necessary.
Therefore, please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
muoncounter at 14:57 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker#69: You link to 'retractions from Nature' as if it is somehow relevant. On that page, neither the words 'climate,' 'warming' nor 'AGW' appear. If you have a serious case, make it; otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time with nonsense.Response:[DB] Yes, no more on retractions. Or fraud. Both are OT.
-
cjshaker at 14:55 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
You expect the general public to have faith in the 'peer review process' without knowing what it is, how rigorous it is, etc? Yes, I do not like the idea of AGW. I would be delighted to learn that it is incorrect, or overstated, but am also afraid that the IPCC may be understating the case. Had you read the work of professors Ruddiman and Kaplan? They are saying that CO2 has had a more profound effect on our climate than the IPCC does http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6052/34.full http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/775.short?rss=1&%3bssource=mfr http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/853.short?rss=1&%3bssource=mfr I personally know Professor Kaplan. He is my flying buddy's son. He and professor Ruddiman seem to be saying that mankind has been affecting our climate since the start of agriculture, at least 8,000 years ago, with a very small human population. Chris Shaker -
AlexS at 14:52 PM on 10 November 2011CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
Actually I think Chuckbot has it right, the Y-axis represents the rate of change and not absolute concentrations of CO2. -
Stevo at 14:51 PM on 10 November 2011Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
Interestingly, the stock market would appear to be reacting positively to the legislation being locked into law. Business can now plan for the future without the uncertainty of "will there or will there not be a carbon tax?" Now for round 2. The fight to stop the legislation being repealed. (Happily, that is likely to be a mammoth tricky task for any would-be repealer.) -
scaddenp at 14:44 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
I will note that PT failed completely to imagine any data that would change his mind in that thread. It's fundamental to science (unlike politics) that opinion bows to data. -
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Well, the stakes are high. However, I am very clear on what data would change my mind. I am not sure what your point is about retractions. However, the only paper on climate science that I remember retracted would be Siddal's predictions of sealevel rise Siddal et al 2009. They were somewhat too low. The stakes also mean that scrutiny is very high - much higher than in my field. -
muoncounter at 14:41 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker #63: You've read Meet the Denominator and you are still citing PopTech? That alone will seriously damage any credibility here you'd like to establish around here. But how has a. quoting (and misquoting) politicians, b. claiming there is widespread fraud, c. casting doubt on the peer review process in general, d. playing 'here a paper, there a paper,' done anything to address the question posed by this post? A case against AGW will be made by a credible series of papers, not by a random scattershot. If you want to support the contention that there is such a case, do the following: research it, document it, evaluate the science presented and see if it stands scrutiny. -
cjshaker at 14:37 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Just proved myself wrong, found an environmental science article which is being retracted, on the retraction watch blog http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-journal/computational-statistics-data-analysis/ Chris Shaker -
renewable guy at 14:37 PM on 10 November 2011Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
Congratulations. Well deserved. Its a good feeling even though in my home of US someone is moving forward. I noticed it was passed by simple majority. If that were true in the US we would have ours also. Again congratulations on a job well done. -
cjshaker at 14:28 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Michael Sweet: I do not believe I said such fraud was widespread. Pretty sure I said it was most common in the fields of medicine, biology, and chemistry. I presume you are not familiar with the Retraction Watch blog? You can read about many, many retracted science papers on their blog http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Learned about the retractions and fraud on an National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139025763/if-science-takes-a-wrong-turn-who-rights-it Some of the authors whose papers are being retracted are having all of their papers studied for retraction. One of them has had 12 papers retracted already. Chris Shaker -
Riduna at 14:28 PM on 10 November 2011Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
I really must question the basis on which the article looks at the prospect of average global temperatures exceeding 2°C this century unless we curb human greenhouse gas emissions. The article appears to ignore the effect of rising average global temperature on slow feedbacks. Is it meaningful to do so? Over the past 50 years AGW has initiated on-going reduction of land based snow and ice causing loss of albedo, ocean warming to increasing depth and the unseen, un-monitored release of methane. The problem with slow feedbacks is that once initiated, they are uncontrollable, will accelerate and are almost certain to result in average global temperature rising by at least 4°C this century. The likely effects on polar amplification, loss of ice sheet mass, sea level and the incidence of severe climate events should concentrate the mind on the dangers which await our descendants because of our inertia. Commentary on our ability to meet our energy needs from renewable sources which do not emit CO2 is akin to debating the ability of man to land on the moon – an irrelevancy. Technology is already available to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels, rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce base load energy. Improvements on that technology will be made. Would it not be more realistic and to the point for commentary to debate the consequences of accelerating human emissions, their effect on slow feedbacks and average global temperature and our ability, as a species, to survive it? -
scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker - I would ditto Sphaerica's advice. You appear to be engaged in a desperate attempt to find reasons not to take climate change seriously. This strongly suggests that you have come to the subject with a predisposition to deny rather from a dispassionate appraisal of the published science. We can only guess what that basis is, but if its political, perhaps you would like to take the challenge here. Have you thought about what data would convince you that the science is valid? I've found the best to approach issues where I have taken a "side" is to also decide what new information, experiments and data would cause a change of mind and look for them. -
cjshaker at 14:18 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
I was wrong. Found where I saw the claim, and it wasn't Al Gore, it was supposedly from John Kerry. I read it here http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Chris Shaker -
michael sweet at 14:09 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
CJ SHaker, Please provide documentation for your extraordinary claim that fraud is widespread in Chemistry, Biology and Medicine. It has been documented that Big Pharma has gamed the peer review system to put misleading information in the reviewed literature about their drugs. I am aware of only a very few cases of individual scientists who have been accused of fraud. It seems to me that if the primary issue is industry that would condemn the Deniers, who are industry financed, while climate scientists are generally independent. I will note that at Skeptical Science they do not consider working papers from environmental organizations as peer reviewed, because those organizations are also not independent. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:08 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
61, cjshaker,Not sure where...
That's not good enough. Find it or openly retract the statement. Making stuff up "from memory" is poisonous. As far as your personal irritation at Al Gore, I really don't care. He doesn't change or impact the science, and this site is about the science. Your entire post has no relevance whatsoever, except to demonstrate that you've taken an emotional position of annoyance which is closing your eyes to actually learning facts and science. And it's too bad his "Inconvenient Truth" didn't get you to read the facts about the science rather than denial tripe and lies like "Al Gore said..." My serious advice would be to drop your emotional underpinnings which are creating a bias in what you learn and understand, and to stop worrying about what people said (deniers or otherwise) and instead concentrate on actually learning and understanding the science for yourself, so that you can make your own judgment and adopt your own confident position rather than parroting the misconceptions of others.Response:[DB] Gore is now OT on this thread. This applies to everyone, sorry.
-
Ian Forrester at 13:56 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker asked:Are these peer reviewed articles? Reputable journals or forums?
Well, I looked at the last reference you gave and have the following comments: Ecological Modelling is a peer reviewed journal. However, Loehle is using a new tactic that several AGW "skeptics" are now using. They publish a paper in a journal which really does not have a scope which includes the submitted paper. Here is the editorial scope for this journal.The journal is concerned with the use of mathematical models and systems analysis for the description of ecological processes and for the sustainable management of resources. Human activity and well-being are dependent on and integrated with the functioning of ecosystems and the services they provide. We aim to understand these basic ecosystem functions using mathematical and conceptual modelling, systems analysis, thermodynamics, computer simulations, and ecological theory. This leads to a preference for process-based models embedded in theory with explicit causative agents as opposed to strictly statistical or correlative descriptions. These modelling methods can be applied to a wide spectrum of issues ranging from basic ecology to human ecology to socio-ecological systems. The journal welcomes research articles, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, book reviews, and other communications.
A quick look at the paper and it would seem that it does not fall under this journal's scope. Thus, the reviewers are probably not up to speed on climate science. My view of the paper is that it is not backed by solid science. This is just another way the "skeptics" can claim a "peer reviewed paper disproving AGW". There are a number of other well known "skeptics" using this technique. -
cjshaker at 13:56 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
(-Snip-) Is peer review more effective in the Climate Science field? As a computer scientist, I've got a jaundiced view of the effectiveness of peer review in quality control. Chris ShakerResponse:[DB] Off-topic snipped. Your focus on fraud is drawing you unwanted attention.
-
scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Bentham Science is vanity publishing. I note a single cite - our climastrology friends Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta. The comment on Hoffman would apply I think - I would assume a comment to be reviewed? And ditto for the Ecological Modelling paper - odd place to publish though. I would assume the glossed-over physics would pass there whereas wouldnt in an climate or meteorological journal. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:44 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
52, cjshaker,...it appears that Al Gore's claims that NO peer reviewed articles cast doubt on AGW were incorrect.
(a) Why in the world do deniers care so much about Al Gore? Is he a scientist? A sitting senator? President of the U.S.A.? [That was a rhetorical question, so don't defend it. The point is that dropping his name here as if anyone cares around is a waste of everyone's time.] (b) Please provide a citation proving that Al Gore, or anyone, ever made such a ridiculous claim. If not, retract the statement or ask that the entire comment be deleted. (c) Otherwise... nice goal post shift. You will note that the whole point of this post was to list the peer reviewed articles published by skeptical scientists. That you found someone who might have said something silly is meaningless. (d) Your purported statement does not say that peer-reviewed papers which argue against AGW do not exist. It says that none succeed in casting doubt on AGW. Can you identify a single paper which has withstood scrutiny and stood up to any more than adequate rebuttal? Can you identify a single paper which does succeed in casting "doubt on AGW" (as you say)? -
Tom Curtis at 13:42 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker @53, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal is, to the best of my knowledge, a vanity press and not peer reviewed. The second two do come from peer reviewed journals. However, the first is a comment, which were excluded from the count:"I counted only primary articles; no book reviews, review articles, comments, replies to previously published papers, speeches, presentations, conference summaries, etc."
You need to read the third and give us a reason to think it contradicts the consensus. It does not automatically follow from the fact that the author is Craig Loehle that it does. @ 54, science journals do withdraw papers, but only for fraud, not for lack of quality, error, or incorrect theories. They do publish corrigendums to correct significant errors in data or method in original papers. Beyond that, once a paper is into the market place of ideas, it is not the Journal's part to try and rewrite history by retracting a paper. Rather, it is up to the scientific community to judge the paper's merits, and either agree, refute or, (for the worst papers) simply ignore them. -
Tom Curtis at 13:31 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker @54, it is fairly clear from their output that E&E is not currently peer reviewed, whatever their former status. To put the list above into context, I am currently reviewing the supporting literature in the IPCC Assessment Report 4, Working Group 1. I have not yet eliminated all duplicated references so I cannot give you an exact number, but the number of references after duplications are removed will be greater than 5000. Nearly all of those would be suportive of AGW. Ignoring the fact that many of the articles listed above have multiple authors, and hence are duplicated, there are 100 anti-AGW peer reviewed papers listed, or just 2% of the total number referenced by WG1. Al Gore was probably basing his claim on a study of peer reviewed papers on climate change by Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes found no peer reviewed papers that rejected the consensus view of AGW. As such, he was warranted in his opinion, even though with fuller data it turns out to be a slight exaggeration. -
cjshaker at 13:30 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Reading the post about The Denominator now. Where would be an appropriate place to ask why Climate Science Journals appear to have no retractions at all? Or, have there actually been article retractions which I have not been able to find. Been reading the Retraction Watch blog. Most journal retractions appear to be in the areas of medicine, biology, and in chemistry. I haven't found any in Climate Science yet. Why is that? Thank you, Chris Shaker -
cjshaker at 13:17 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Went to Google Scholar, found tons of articles by Craig Loehle. This one seems applicable. Is it peer reviewed? Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.pdf This article about historical CO2 records may be applicable? The estimation of historical CO2 trajectories is indeterminate: Comment on “A new look at atmospheric carbon dioxide” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010001561 Another article that looks interesting Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380003003600 Are these peer reviewed articles? Reputable journals or forums? Chris Shaker -
Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 10 November 2011CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
Excellent article. Small nitpick though, in your third graph the units of the y axis should be ppmv, not ppm/yr. -
cjshaker at 13:02 PM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
For others who had not heard of the web of science, Wikipedia has an entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_Science Regarding Craig Loehle, I found a site claiming this is one of his peer reviewed papers: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/ The site that pointed me at it was http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Appears that previous comments under this question denigrate that journal, Energy and Environment. The Wikipedia entry claims that it is peer reviewed, but also includes some negative comments about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment In any case, after reading your list of peer reviewed articles that argue against the CO2 primacy, it appears that Al Gore's claims that NO peer reviewed articles cast doubt on AGW were incorrect. Chris ShakerResponse:[DB] Chris, an FYI:
- Energy & Environment is not considered a peer-reviewed publication (by far the vast majority of climate scientists would never allow a paper to be published in it)
- The vast majority of PopTech's list is not peer-reviewed nor are many indeed papers as is traditionally defined in science. See this post for more info: Meet The Denominator
-
cjshaker at 12:40 PM on 10 November 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
Dikran: Thank you very much for the link! Works like a champ for me. Chris Shaker -
cjshaker at 11:47 AM on 10 November 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
Dikran: I would appreciate very much knowing how I can look at my own posting history. So far, I do not see any way to access my own posting history to see what questions I have posted under. It does not appear that Google is allowed to index the comments under the questions on this website? Thank you, Chris Shaker Dikran Marsupial said at 21:33 PM on 23 October, 2011 CBDunkerson I have just looked into cjshaker's posting history, and it appears that he asks many questions, but rarely replies to the answers.Response:[DB] I'm not sure if you can access this link, but your posting history can be found here.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 10 November 20119 Months After McLean
sylas, you are quite correct. Thankyou for the correction. -
cjshaker at 11:32 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
First off, you are correct that I did not catch which section those papers were under. I did not notice that they were under 'Popular Papers'. Sorry about that. Chris Shaker -
sylas at 11:32 AM on 10 November 20119 Months After McLean
Tom, you say "Tamino has dissected similar nonsense from Bob Tisdale"; but the link goes a dissection of similar nonsense from Bob Carter. -
John Hartz at 11:05 AM on 10 November 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
2011 is further proof that a new era of extreme weather is dawning -- and it's about to get much, much worse. Source: “Stop pretending it’s not climate change.” Heidi Cullen, Salon, Nov 9, 2011 To access this article, click here. Note: This article includes a slide show and links to relevant material. -
Tom Curtis at 11:01 AM on 10 November 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples @48 indulges in some serious misrepresentation of the temperature record which requires a serious response. He begins by characterizing "all available data" as showing "a steady rise from the little ice age, peaking in the forties". The best available data set for that period is the HadCRUT3v temperature index which commences in 1850. (BEST is land only, while GIStemp starts in 1880, making neither suitable.) The plot of HadCRUT3v below (from woodfortres.org)shows the trends from 1850 to 1910, 1910 to 1940, 1940 to 1975, and 1975 to 2010. Trends where plotted to encompass known inflection points, and to ensure that they were at least 30 years long to ensure statistical significance:
Fred correctly describes the period from 1940 to 1975 (actually '79) as a slow fall. Given that, his description of the period between 1850 and 1910 as part of "a steady rise" is not only false, but shows clear bias in interpretation of the data.
This fall in temperature from 1850 to the early twentieth century is a feature of almost all temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years:
Indeed, most also show a rise in temperature from the end of the Little Ice Age to a peak around 1790 which is as hot as, or hotter than 1850, before a sharp fall for the Dalton Minimum and Mount Tamora Eruption, before a further rise to 1850 (actually closer to 1865 on HadCRUT3v). The temperature record is anything but a gentle rise from the LIA to 1940. Rather, it staggers around like a drunken miner under the influence of known changes in forcings - while post 1975 it rises sharply under the influence of other known changes in forcings, primarily due to changes in Green House Gas concentrations.
Fred's characterization of the period from the LIA to 1940 as "a steady rise" is, of course, an attempt to feed into the fake "skeptic" meme of a "recovery" from the LIA. That idea is nonsense as an explanation, and contradicted by the data.
Turning to more recent times, Fred immediately changes his data source. If you look at my first figure, you will see why. Desperate to avoid clear evidence, Fred Cherry Picks the UAH data set, which he characterizes is containing to flat intervals separated by "step change". In other words, having cherry picked his data set, he also needs to cherry pick his intervals. He tries to go down the up elevator.
Tamino has dissected similar nonsense from Bob Tisdale:
(Note, Tamino's second trend is from 1999, whereas Fred cherry picks 2002 as the start date for his second trend. That does not prevent the trend from being towards increased warmth, but it does reduce it.)
Given the extent of Fred's cherry picking, the obvious thing to do is to check alternative sources of data to see whether the low trend from 1979 to 1997 is just a result of short term variations. Fortunately radiosondes have taken temperature series from approximately the same altitude that is measured by the TLT "satellite" channel:
Clearly the rise in temperatures around 1981-3 is just a short term fluctuation, and the long term trend from the mid 1970's to 1997 is rising. In addition to his explicit cherry picking, Fred is highly dependent on the truncated nature of the satellite record to make his case.
Finally, we are frequently told that posting here is a privilege, not a right. Abusing data as Fred does shows his clear intent to abuse that privilege.
Response:[DB] Fixed html hash tag.
-
Doug Mackie at 10:42 AM on 10 November 2011CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
That reminds me. I have not chased up getting our rebuttals of the "not acidic" claim posted. 1-line, beginner, intermediate, and advanced rebuttals are posted at the link posted in the "basic rebuttal thread" http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2659&r=4 Can who ever does the wrangling of such things please post them in the appropriate places. -
Jim Powell at 09:51 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
We have posted Part 2--the “takeaways”--and I am working on Part 3, an analysis of these papers by argument and by year. Stay tuned. -
Jim Powell at 09:47 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Just a reminder: we do have the total number of cites in the database, underneath the title of the paper. -
Jim Powell at 09:43 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Humlum has no papers in the WoS under Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences, the criterion that I used. -
Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
Eric (skeptic) @29, your claimed "relevant point" is false. The multi-run mean is not the only prediction made by climate models. A second prediction is in fact the standard deviations of the variability between each individual run. That standard deviation predicts the variability from year to year due to natural variations in the climate system. Consequently, any prediction of future temperatures (for a given future forcing scenario) by a model is properly given as the multi-run mean plus the standard deviation of all runs. The reason models must give future predictions in this form is because some aspects of climate are chaotic. We cannot reasonably hope to predict this far in advance whether 2050 will be an El Nino year, or a La Nina. But we can predict a range of temperatures such that, if it is an El Nino the temperature will be at the top of that range, while if it is a La Nina it will be near the bottom. Clearly Eschenbach's method cuts the second part of the prediction out of the equation. Having excluded the model predicted natural variability from his discussion, he then complains that the models make no prediction about natural variability. -
skywatcher at 08:34 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Chris Shaker, Ole Humlum's been publishing for a great many years, often not specifically on climate, or specifically skeptical of it. If the article is not explicitly negative or doubtful of human-caused global warming, it's not icluded, so nearly all Humlum's papers don't count for this purpose. Recently he's become prominent in Norway as a skeptic, and regrettably he seems to have dropped his previously excellent science standards along the way. Humlum's most recent paper probably does count for the list; sadly it's a tragic case of regional curve-fitting climastrology that has little basis in science. That fits nicely with the list above. -
muoncounter at 08:30 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
43 cjshaker: "He has 86 of them" Papers about 'rock glaciers' and terminal moraines have nothing to do with climate change, let alone CO2. Perhaps you can translate "Klima og CO2 - Uenighedens kerne"? His website isn't peer-reviewed and he's been debunked elsewhere. Use Search to find the correct thread. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
cjshaker, No one is questioning what he thinks. The question is "has he published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic?"Response:[DB] This is a good time for Chris to demonstrate that he can uphold his end of a discussion rather than his wont of posting drive-by comments.
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
43, cjshaker, But not in any of the peer-reviewed papers. On the link you provided CO2 appears only in the section "Popular Papers" (whatever that means), "Interviews on TV and Radio" and "Lectures." Do you have some specific peer-reviewed papers that you feel should be looked at more closely? -
cjshaker at 08:15 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
How sure are you that this list is accurate? Just looking at Dr. Ole Humlum. He is listed as having 0 peer reviewed papers which cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis. Found a list of his peer reviewed papers. He has 86 of them, according to this reference: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf I find something that looks like 'CO2 hypothesis' in several of them. Chris Shaker -
John Hartz at 08:12 AM on 10 November 2011CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
@Chuckbot: Please add a source citation for each graphic in your article. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:09 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
Dave123, on your #1, yes it is off topic except for how to define what models "predict". On #2, I agree with the explanation by Kevin C that the complexities of a model can be simplified to a linear function as lots of model runs are averaged. The relevant point to this thread is that models predict the climate response to natural and manmade forcings when multiple runs of the model are averaged. They don't "predict" natural variations, but can demonstrate various possible natural variations from run to run. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:25 AM on 10 November 20119 Months After McLean
48, Fred, Go back to the G&T thread where I have replied to you, with a link to someone who has explicitly and very clearly, step by step, taken your failed model one step further, added the missing elements and corrected the misconceptions, and arrived at the correct theoretical earth mean global surface temperature -- and he explains very clearly how he does so. After you absorb that, you can then admit that you jumped the gun, that you have failed to disprove GHG theory, and that the remainder of your discussion and points therefore require more thought and consideration, and will take you in an entirely different direction than the flawed and indefensible path that you are currently following. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:00 AM on 10 November 2011CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
I don't think it is fair to say "And he’s doing it in the face of a clear upward trend at longer timescales!", the growth rate is so noisy that even over longer timescales the trend is not statistically significant (indeed isn't that Knorr's key finding?). However Everett's error of trying to say that a short term non-significant trend means something is far worse. -
Kevin C at 04:09 AM on 10 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
Eric: Let's look at the structure of Eschenbach's argument. It has the following form:Premise 1: The ensemble average response of climate models to forcings is linear. (Evidence: multiple pages of blog postings, graphs, and excel spreadsheets). Premise 2: Climate is non-linear. (Evidence: "Me, I find the idea ... a risible fantasy). Conclusion: Climate models are unrealistic.
I think Eschenbach has unintentionally committed a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, by his preoccupation with his first premise. His mistake in his second is a variant of the confusion of weather and climate. Just because the internal variations of the system are chaotic and non-linear, doesn't mean that the response of the equilibrium state to external forcing must also be so. With a little more research, he could have saved himself all of the calculation. Climate scientists have know about this for years, and have written about it extensively. See Held's Simplicity of the forced response, the IPCC TAR which used a more sophisticated version of this approach for its centennial projections, and this recent paper. -
John Hartz at 04:05 AM on 10 November 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
CNN is posting a running commentary on the Alaskan storm. Click here.
Prev 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 Next
