Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  Next

Comments 70651 to 70700:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    @ Bert. Well according to the brainiacs on the Opposition Benches, CO2 is not only colourless & odourless-its now apparently *weightless* as well ;-).
  2. Pete Dunkelberg at 00:20 AM on 11 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    "Next, Dr. Everett claims to find a decline in the rate at which CO2 is building up in the atmosphere." So although we are burning more carbon he says CO2 is not building up proportionally in the air or water. Where does he think it's going? Outer space? Case closed on this guy. Spelling note: it is usually written as Svante August Arrhenius. Thanks a lot for doing this work and writing this up! We do not have another decade to waste nursing nutters. Action is essential. There is still a need for division of labor, and this website makes a large contribution.
  3. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Dale, the nay-sayers have been predicting an early election since November last year. First they said it wouldn't last til the new year, then they said it wouldn't last til mid-2011. Here we are though, more than a year later, & we have a stable (albeit minority) government that has passed far more bills in 12 months than the Howard Government did in a similar space of time. Also, there is a trend appearing in all the polls-Labor & Gillard are slowly but surely creeping back towards a winning position, whilst the public appear to be growing tired of Abbott's Dr. No routine. When the Carbon Price doesn't bring about the predicted apocalypse, I predict that the polls will go even more against the Coalition. Even if the Coalition *does* win the next election, they won't be able to force a double dissolution until around late 2014 to early 2015-& even then its believed that such an election will favor minor parties in the Senate-which could leave a Coalition Government with an even *more* hostile senate.
  4. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:11 AM on 11 November 2011
    Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    I am decidedly in favor. In my family of 4 persons worked in coal mines. None of them lived to retirement ... I have, however, one question: where the money will go to a new quasi-tax? Is there a program to use them? In Europe, a large part goes back to the fuel companies which develop and fund research into green energy, invest in it (so monopolize the energy market), but also investing in Carbon Capture Storage ...
  5. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Watch out for Denialist chest-thumpers confabulating the current Italian virus infecting the European economic zone, with the Roonation-Caused-By-The-Carbon-TaxTM. And speaking of ruination - Dale, if the Coalition forced a double dissolution in order to repeal the price on carbon, they would ultimately be consigning themselves to political history, although not before doing untold climatic and economic damage. There's a lot of ignorance in the Australian lay public, but even a cynic like me would be hard-pressed to believe that Australians are so ignorance that they'd tolerate the Coalition accelerating the country toward the New Dark Ages. More likely, Malcolm Turnbull will slip the stiletto through Abbott's kidney at the next opportune chance, and quietly leave the Labor/Green initiatives in place so that he can eventually "own" the revolution in the eyes of the ignorant voting public, if not in the eyes of objective history.
  6. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:27 PM on 10 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    For me, the most important is this conclusion to "report" Dr. John T. Everett: “Before the next IPCC assessment begins, assemble a USA review team and nominees for the IPCC writing and Chair assignments that make up a cross-section of scientific viewpoints. There are qualified scientists in agencies, industry, and among the citizenry who can contribute. Just as we shouldn’t have too many from the energy industry, the same goes for the agencies, universities, and NGOs. We all have biases, even if we think it is the other person who is the one with an agenda. We cannot afford to have homogenous authoring and review teams.” It should read the full "report" (chuckbot ignores several important fragments concerning for example historical acidification, variation of acidification: regional, caused by changes in weather, ocean currents, escape response to temperature and CO2 increases, etc.). I - a long time - I was wondering how - as short as possible - to "help" position Dr. Everett. A good proof of the accuracy of his conclusions is to follow the concentration of CO2 in the period when the continents were already present in "their place" and at least 99% of the current plant and animal species already existed (Pliocene, Pleistocene) and the so-called: Biodiversity is defined as the largest in the history of the Earth. Seki, et al., 2011. write: “Past responses to pCO2 change are important components in resolving these relationships, and the most informative palaeoclimate analogues will be in the recent geological past, when geographical configurations, ocean currents and marine and terrestrial ecosystems were similar to today. “ ... of the current CO2 in the atmosphere: “The current increase in the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, from 275 to 285 ppm in pre-industrial times to N380 ppm today, is unprecedented in recent Earth history (Solomon et al., 2007), with present levels exceeding the natural range of at least the last 800 kyr (Siegenthaler et al., 2005b; Lüthi et al., 2008).” But what - really - we know about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time (Pliocene and Pleistocene)? Not much. Range of error (for those in scale not distant geological time) is huge, for example regarding the changes: “ However, current Pliocene pCO2 estimates are inadequate to examine such fundamental issues.” and: „Pleistocene pCO2 values range from 250 to 300 ppm and, where the data overlap, they are broadly comparable to EPICA (Fig. 9).” It should be noted that these "Comparable" exists only in pCO2 maxima shown by EPICA (Fig. 9a). The lowest indication of ice cores are well below the lowest (along with standard deviation) of other proxy. Some proxy shows throughout the Pleistocene CO2 concentrations similar to those present, and earlier: “Thus, although the Pliocene warm period pCO2 was higher than pre-industrial levels, it was comparable to current levels or to a level that will be reached in the near future (next few decades).” Is the CO2 pollution was - in this period - also? Changes in the CO2 were also rapidly: “The G. ruber boron isotope record indicates that pCO2 declined substantially from high Pliocene values over a relatively short period between 3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma (Fig. 10).” In Figure 9a we see, however, that according to one of the proxy (high resolution in time) - in this period (3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma) - changes can be extremely rapidly (practically vertical lines on the graph), from circa 300 to 450 ppmv - a even (Fig. 9b) the circa 500 ppmv CO2. Currently living plant and animal species on land and sea, or their ancestors had - in the process of evolution - to adjust to the rate of change - as he writes Dr. Everett in his "report". Currently, the theory of evolution tells us that we are dealing mainly with adaptation to rapid changes in the environment rather than adapting to the environment. Dr. Everett also writes about the sinks of CO2 - that may be greater than we think. The sinks of CO2 (for a change - 3.2 Ma and 2.8 Ma), little is known (“Pliocene pCO2 decline we record, the overall trigger(s) that led to these changes in oceanic carbon storage and pCO2 remain elusive.” - Seki, et al., 2011). It is worth to note that most sources of CO2 behaves in accordance with the bell-shaped curve. The increase in temperature often changes them: the sources are the sinks - as he writes NIPCC latest report, for example (page 34): “Wan et al. conclude, ―plant photosynthetic overcompensation may partially serve as a negative feedback mechanism for [the] terrestrial biosphere to climate warming, where ―the photosynthetic overcompensation induced by nocturnal warming can ... regulate terrestrial carbon sequestration and negatively feed back to climate change.” The acidity of the oceans in ancient times - well we know little about it - notes Dr. Everett. The same is found for example Tripati et al. 2011. Calibration of some - of even the best proxy (Boron)- may since lead to huge errors - Pagani et al. 2005: “... values for the Cenozoic yield pH estimates that are relatively invariant, but unrealistically high ...”
    Response:

    [DB] See Skywatcher's response to you below.  This is yet another instance of your furnished source not saying what you imply that it does.

    For the general reader, please note that the other source Arkadiusz uses, the NIPCC, is discussed here:

    Let the Prudent Reader beware.

  7. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    @2 Stevo: Repealing would be pretty easy for the Coalition if they win the next election, even with a hostile Senate. In Australia, if the Senate blocks a law it becomes a double-dissolution trigger. The lower house Govt can then use the trigger to call on the Governor-General to dissolve both houses of Parliament and force a full double-house federal election. Coalition could do this in the hope of gaining control of both houses, which would allow them to repeal the tax unopposed. Also, the state of some of the current Independents could end with them withdrawing confidence in the current lower house. This would force a federal election (since the Labor party couldn't guarantee control of the lower house). This again could lead to a double-dissolution, but earlier than the above "normal" situation. The likelihood of this occurring is slim, but still a chance in Australia's current unstable political environment.
  8. Sceptical Wombat at 21:00 PM on 10 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    The argument that because the oceans have a ph greater than 7 they cannot be acidifying is like saying that if I travel from Boston to New Orleans then I am not going south because I remain in the Northern Hemisphere.
  9. Bert from Eltham at 19:54 PM on 10 November 2011
    Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    I have known Julia ever since she was at UNI. She is part of a cohort of rational people in our current Government that believe in rational science. The opposition has and is still scratching and biting like a wild animal. Their alternative plan is to pay for the CO2 pollution with taxpayers money! Sound familiar? Bert
  10. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Anything out of it's Natural Balance is a Pollutant Currently the CO2 levels are grossly out of their natural balance and anyone who is honest knows why that is
  11. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Susanne @ 5 Thanks. Date fixed.
  12. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    For those who would like something to back up the comment about Rupert Murdoch, this series of articles on Deltoid explains much. It's not called "The Australian's War on Science" for nothing! (for overseas readers - 'The Australian' is the only nation-wide daily newspaper in Australia, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation)
  13. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    History is made of nits: the date was Tuesday 8 November, 2011, not Wed 9th. Oz time is ahead of nearly all the world, but not that far. But who cares: the bills are passed. It's not even the end of the beginning of all that has to be done, but it's worth celebrating. And getting the date right :D
  14. Bert from Eltham at 18:45 PM on 10 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Sorry the previous post was meant to go in the relevant blog. Bert
  15. Bert from Eltham at 18:30 PM on 10 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    I have known Julia ever since she was at UNI. She is part of a cohort of rational people in our current Government that believe in rational science. The opposition has and is still scratching and biting like a wild animal. Their alternative plan is to pay for the CO2 pollution with taxpayers money! Sound familiar? Bert
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    In case someone is thinking Lindzen & Choi 2011 is an improvement, please see here
  17. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    (-Snip-). Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] I said earlier that Gore was off-topic.  If it doesn't pertain directly to the OP, don't post it.  FYI.

  18. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Muon counter: thank you for the pointer to the Blog on the Wegman retraction. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed text.

  19. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    63, cjshaker, You have misunderstood or misrepresented the quote (which isn't by John Kerry, by the way). What he said was:
    "There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero."
    What you claimed he said was:
    ...claims that NO peer reviewed articles cast doubt on AGW were incorrect.
    Anyone can see the difference. The actual quote was citing a specific study that took a snapshot in time of a portion of the available studies and found zero. You are claiming that he said that no peer-reviewed articles exist at all (with the implication that such a statement must also have future predictive power, since An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006, five years ago). More importantly, you have still not even proven that statement to be false. Can you identify a peer-reviewed paper which has withstood scrutiny and is accepted to cast doubt on AGW? By the way, as far as I can tell the quote is in fact from "An Inconvenient Truth" (that's right, he did say it, but it still doesn't at all say what your paraphrase says).
  20. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    renewable guy @ 1 Yes, Australian is fortunate in that both houses of parliament have the option to set time limits for debate. If we had to contend with the filibuster (as used in the US Senate in violation of the intentions of your founding fathers) our parliament would be in perpetual gridlock. At the moment the hope for the US is in actions taken by the states, and I congratulate the good people of California on their cap and trade scheme, which will commence 6 months ahead of the scheme in Australia. As California is the 8th largest economy in the world, hopefully other states will follow suit.
  21. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    (-Snip-) Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic, ideology and inflammatory tone snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    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.

  22. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Some progress at last. Kudos to prime minister Julia Gillard!
  23. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    DB@ 71: Aww, just one more. cjshaker#66: "found an environmental science article which is being retracted" Yes, this was the Wegman 2008 paper noted here; it's critical of climate science. It is being retracted because of plagiarism. Please stop these link-bombs. Or at least look at the link before you post it to see if it even supports your case. This one didn't.
  24. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Interested readers can find the text of AR3 here, and look at the section presented by Camburn by following the links to section 14.2.2.2. Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles.
  25. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    31, Camburn, Your summation of what AR four said:
    They do not have preditive ability.
    is no where near the same as what you found in AR three:
    ...that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    But more importantly, you have taken that statement grossly out of context. Specifically, the section is discussing the fact that computing needs as models become more intricate (i.e. finer and finer grid layouts with more detailed simulation of physical processes) were in danger of outstripping available computing power:
    These considerations must also recognise that the potential predictive capability will be unavoidably statistical, and hence it must be produced with statistically relevant information. This implies that a variety of integrations (and models) must be used to produce an ensemble of climate states. Climate states are defined in terms of averages and statistical quantities applying over a period typically of decades (see Chapter 7, Section 7.1.3 and Chapter 9, Section 9.2.2).
    This also reflects a basic aspect of climate modeling, which is that there are multiple future paths and no one is necessarily correct. The solution is to use ensembles... multiple runs which will produce an average prediction of climate change, with error bars.
    Ensemble integrations yield estimates of the variability of the response for a given model.
    Then comes your quote:
    In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
    Which is followed by:
    The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.
    Which, when coupled with your statement, shows that it doesn't at all say what you want people to infer that it means. This is a simple description of the fact that multiple iterations are needed to produce a range of predictions rather than one specific, perfect prediction. By way of analogy, imagine that I write a program that attempts to predict heads and tails in 1000 coin tosses. By your logic, I am unable to write such a program because I could never possibly, with any degree of certainty, predict the exact sequence of heads and tails that will actually come to pass. I can, however, run such a simulation multiple times and give good estimates, with ranges, of the likelihood of a certain number of heads and tails by the end of the run -- a prediction "defined in terms of averages and statistical quantities." You, sir, are quoting statements out of context and playing games with words. I would put forth that you have failed to prove your case, and are still required to openly and publicly retract your statement.
  26. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Regarding the much touted (in some circles at least) Energy and Environment (E&E). This claim was made above: "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" It is not clear whether or not all the papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed. There is another major concern with E&E, because its chief editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, is on record saying this: "The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” No, pushing one's political agenda is certainly not the right of the editor of a real science journal. The editor is denigrating her own journal by stating that. And as if it did not need more strikes against it, the co-editor of E&E is Benny Peiser, who is the director of the ideologically driven lobby group GWPF. I looked up the E&E's impact factor. I went to SCImago Journal and Country Rank, its impact factor for 2010 is 0.19. Compare that with Journal of Climate at 3.93. In 2010 the impact factor for Science was 28, and for Nature was 32. So E&E is clearly not a journal driven by science, but one driven by a political agenda and ideology, with a dubious review process to boot. Additionally, E&E is not a reputable, trustworthy or respected journal. I would not publish in it for all the tea in China.
  27. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    @AlexS Tom Curtis referred to the "third graph" (titled Various CO2 Projections, with an x-axis scale of 1900-2100). It should, indeed, have its y-axis units as ppmv, not ppm/yr.
  28. Is 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.
  29. Is 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.

  30. Is 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.

  31. Is 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
  32. CO2 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.
  33. Australia 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.)
  34. Is 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.
  35. Is 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.
  36. Is 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.
  37. Is 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
  38. Australia 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.
  39. Is 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
  40. Sober 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?
  41. Is 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.
  42. Is 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
  43. Is 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.
  44. Is 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.

  45. Is 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.
  46. Is 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 Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic snipped.  Your focus on fraud is drawing you unwanted attention.

  47. Is 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.
  48. Is 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)?
  49. Is 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.
  50. Is 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.

Prev  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us