Recent Comments

Prev  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  Next

Comments 95551 to 95600:

95551. RickG at 03:16 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech 557, No, I am drawing attention to that specific paper because you specifically pointed that paper out as an argument against AGW. Now, seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW.
95552. RickG at 03:03 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech: Incorrect, it matters if their is a claim that AGW is the cause. So are you claiming AGW will not cause an increase in Hurricane damage? Are you saying the paper argues that hurricanes don't increase intensity due to more heat?
95553. michael sweet at 03:01 AM on 18 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Peter: I am sorry, I thought you said "Assume any melt acceleration you like." I chose the conservative 10 year doubling time. The data shows a doubling time of six years which results in much higher sea level rise. You assume no acceleration, which is certainly not correct. You claim that we do not need to worry until the last ice cube is gone, which will be several hundred years. At that time sea level will be 75 meters higher than now and billions of people will have no homes. That is too much of a disaster for me to contemplate, even several hundred years from now. Please tell me what you consider a disaster so that we can only measure the time until that happens. For me 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100 is a disaster. That is the course we are currently on with BAU.
95554. Dennis at 02:33 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech @550: I was referring to the science, specifically that Beck based his results on CO2 concentrations that were not well-mixed. I'm not a scientist, but it is easy to understand how this fact invalidates Beck's results. Can you offer a scientific reason why this is not true?
95555. RickG at 02:29 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech: Why can I not use a paper that argues against Hurricane damage getting worse due to AGW against those who claim it is? How is that paper not supporting skepticism against alarmist claims relating to AGW causing increases in Hurricane damage? Because increased hurricane intensity is linked to increased temperature. It doesn't matter whether that temperature is due to natural or AGW causes. The paper would be arguing against the reason hurricanes intensify, not AGW. How does a paper argue against AGW that doesn't address the causes of AGW?
95556. Utahn at 02:29 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech: "Incorrect, using words like 'strong' and 'weak' are subjective judgments. Word like 'less' and 'more' are not. Saying 1000 is more than 850 is objective." That helps, thanks! So your *subjective* opinion is that finding 850 papers is "strong" evidence to support the skeptical position. I was laboring under the misapprehension that you thought the fact there were 850 papers was *objectively* strong evidence. Now I see that you’re just saying 850 is more than 849, is more than 848 etc…In other words, 850 papers are “one stronger” than 849. I concur that 850 papers are “one stronger” evidence than 849. But isn't it better to base our actions on the most objective evidence possible? One way for you to make the list more objective would be to assign a denominator, which would add some perspective. Another way would be to only include truly peer-reviewed articles as has been noted previously. Letters to the editor or editorials are not themselves peer-reviewed, even if they are submitted to "peer-reviewed journals".
95557. harryb987 at 02:02 AM on 18 February 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       In my opinion, the evidence is just not there and more data is needed. For example, scientists have always led us to believe that tree rings are a sign of global warming as they represent temperature changes over the years. Yet there is simply no evidence to support this! It is caused by Lunar Cycles and Solar Flares (of which there is to be the largest one on Monday night). For anyone else who is interested in this kind of thing, I would suggest this website: http://blindedbyscience.co.uk It's an informative read for skeptics and anyone, like me, who questions what we are told about climate change and global warming.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO² is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. If you still have questions, post them on the most appropriate thread & someone will attempt to help you. Please adhere to the Comments Policy when composing your comments and remember to use the Preview function before submitting. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level.
95558. Dikran Marsupial at 00:42 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech@547 wrote >>"So do you reject all arguments that CO2 was ever a primary >>climate driver in the past?" It depends on exactly what you mean by "primary climate driver". There are examples in paleoclimate where CO2 was very probably the driver of substantial climate change (e.g. the PETM event or the escape from the "snowball Earth" period) in the sense that CO2 had initiated the change as well as being the cause of much of the warming/cooling. However, for most of paleoclimate, the sun has been the dominant driver in the sense of initiating change (e.g. Milankovic cycles, solar brightening), however the carbon cycle has been a key element controlling the temperature of the Earth, mostly acting as a negative feedback on very long time scales (weathering thermostat), and amplifying over shorter timescales (exchange of carbon between oceans and atmosphere). In short, in paleoclimate, to a first approximation, it is generally changes in solar forcing that have initiated changes in climate, and carbon dioxide has generally acted as a feedback. However, as we now have anthropogenic emissions, there is now a new possibility for carbon dioxide to initiate climate change, rather than acting as a feedback. So just because climate change was generally initated by solar activity in the past, that is no cause for skepticism that it is due to CO2 now. >> Why can I not use a paper that argues against Hurricane damage >> getting worse due to AGW against those who claim it is? I didn't critisize your inclusion of a paper arguing against hurricane damage getting worse. I criticised you inclusion of a paper that showed that past climate change has caused the colapse of civilisations, which does not support skepticism of AGW "alarm" as just becuase climate change was initiated by solar forcing in paleoclimate, that doesn't mean it is initated by solar forcing now. >>"Very few papers are ever utterly wrong." > >Exactly. The criteria for the list is that they are peer-reviewed, >published in a peer-reviewed journal and support skepticism of AGW >Alarm. That is it. The list is a resource that does not >discriminate past this criteria. And that is why it is worse than useless as a resource for skeptics. I chose the example of the paper by Essenhigh becuase where it is correct it supplies no support for skepticism and where it does provide grounds for skepticism it is (rather obviously) completely wrong. Any skeptic who uses Essenhigh's paper to support skepticism demonstrates that they have not bothered to look at the data or attempt to understand the science of which they are skeptical. In short, they will look foolish. >> I understand your concerns but this is not going to change. Yes, but that isn't a very skeptical attitude is it? The fact that you are not willing to change your list regardless of what criticisms are made is unscientific and makes you look bad. I don't want that and am trying to help, but you can lead a horse to water... >>"I notice you didn't apologise for your misrepresentation of my >>position there. for examples, try: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref >>/2009/2009GL038082.shtml Which looks O.K. from the abstract. If I >>notice papers I agree with being criticised, then I am happy to >>defend them." > >I will accept your one paper as not believing "all" the papers to >be a "dud". Might be a good idea to appologise for misrepresenting me then, or perhaps to stop complaining that others have misrepresented you. > Roughly how many do you believe not to be "duds"? I don't know, mostly because my expertise only covers a subset of papers in the list and I know better than to make strong statements about topics that lie outside my expertise. I can point out the duds where I see them - that is pretty much how peer review works. All I have done is suggest you weed out the duds that don't support skepticism of AGW "alarm" to make it a better resource. As a resource against AGW alarmism, the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report is way better than your list, at least until you weed out the duds.
95559. mclamb6 at 00:40 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       You prove my point when from upthread re: all authors "disagreeing" with predominant theories regarding global warming when you run rough shod over the author's opinion of their own work (not even of their supposed personal evaluation of the evidence surrounding climate change). Unless Pielke, Jr. stated "Oh, I didn't realize the purpose of the list, in that case....", then the fact that he used the word "Assuming" is of no import--it's just you ignoring the primary source. You also stated that it is objective to say 1000 is more than 850. Ok, I'll stipulate to that. What does that mean? What can be derived from that information? Without being able to have reasonably agreed upon value judgements in relation to the data, the data is worthless. Again, we have to cater to everyone's opinion, no matter how far in the minority--which brings us back to the heart of your position: scientific nihilism. Nothing means anything and everything is left to the eye of the beholder.
95560. Dennis at 00:32 AM on 18 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Phillipe @539 wrote: "You've given every indication that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if your life depended on it. The Beck paper used measurements of CO2 taken in the middle of highly concentrated active sources of CO2 and used it as if it were well mixed. If you don't see the logical fallacy in that, there is no hope for you. That the paper was peer-reviewed at E&E says everything one needs to know on the standards of that journal. There is nothing subjective about it. Beck used to try to bamboozle people with a graph that had a truncated x axis so that it would simulate periodicity where there was none. Oops, sorry, that's not a logical fallacy, that's deception." Poptech, I'd like to read your response to this.
95561. guinganbresil at 23:30 PM on 17 February 2011
       PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
       Rob Painting: I think I understand why I have such trouble with muoncounter's graph from Key above. By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surface, and therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem. Here are some facts: Anthropogenic carbon has a slightly different isotopic ratio, but in all significant ways behaves identically to natural carbon. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. In fact, the Key graphs above are really just showing the propagation of recent carbon through the cycle. If one were to prepare a similar graph showing the non-anthropogenic carbon distribution in the oceans since the beginning of the industrial revolution the graphs would be very similar - the scales would shift due to the different rates of emission and the edges might be a bit more distinct since the non-anthropogenic carbon emission isn't ramping up over time. Fundamentally carbon is carbon, and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic carbon will move through the system identically. The Key graphs above are insidious in that they induce a Fallacy of Composition(1) in people who have not been exposed to details of ocean composition or who do not exercise critical thinking. Here is the truth: The surface of the oceans are alkali due to biological activity. The deep oceans have significantly lower pH and higher CO2 than the surface. A result of this Fallacy of Composition(2) is the idea that a drop in pH in the ocean surface can only be due to increasing anthropogenic CO2. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more... It is a lot more complicated than just anthropogenic CO2. Another result of this Fallacy of Composition(3) is to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time. I am not saying that anthropogenic CO2 is not affecting the environment - I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts.
95562. Bern at 23:11 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       ^^^ what he said! I think you explained it much better than I did, Daniel - and thanks for the link to that video - amazing stuff!
95563. XPLAlN at 23:06 PM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       I've not the least mystified by the culling of this 'schematic' from subsequent reports. However, I'm mildly perplexed by the inclusion of such a crap diagram in the first place, particularly as it is tagged "global" when it is actually the central bit of a small country. Talk about the IPCC giving denialists an open goal. They'll still be banging on about this when the Himalayan glaciers are lapping round their ankles in 2035. Doh!
95564. Eric (skeptic) at 22:49 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Marcus, your arguments are generally good except when you get personal. Please try to remember that people like Poptech may try to use ad hom arguments as evidence that they are correct (unfortunately that is also a personal argument, but hopefully useful)
       Moderator Response: Concur.
95565. kdkd at 21:31 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech #542 I must say I am finding your attempt to maintain your argument somewhat amusing, although the amusement is at your expense. "So if they have a degree other than these they are not considered climate scientists?" This is a perfect example of a ridiculous straw man argument that is a case in point. Without a good quality science degree there will be an awful lot more self-learning required than for an appropriately degree qualified practicing scientist than would be required in any case.
95566. RSVP at 20:45 PM on 17 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       K T, 14 Your statement about growth makes sense to me, although it presupposes that one's wealth necessarily equates with one's carbon (or some other pollution) footprint. Another distinction has to do with local or territorial vs. global pollution. If a pollutant stays in someone's own backyard, I suppose its their problem and right. However, the Earth's atmosphere is shared by the entire plant, so no one should have any more right to pollute it than anyone else. And those that believe CO2, for instance, is a pollutant, are likely to assume their carbon footprint should be no greater than the global average per capita. A corollary being that if the "capita" were smaller, than the footprint could be bigger for everyone. However, in past posts, I have met resistance to the idea, so I must assume theie are big projects in the works (out there) that will make this possible regardless of population.
95567. Marcus at 20:35 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "I need to know exactly what degrees count and which do not." I've already told you which degrees would count-you're just selectively blind. Given this blindness, how much *real* faith can we place in your claims to have *properly* read through the papers on your list-to confirm that they really do support your claim. "There is nothing objective about what you stated as it requires subjective judgment." What, that's complete & total bunkum. Either a person is working in the relevant field-or was until recently-or they aren't. Can't get more objective than that. Why do you keep falsely claiming that something is subjective, when its *clearly* not? "Do you accept an older skeptic to be more qualified than a younger alarmist? If not then your seniority criteria makes no sense. Do you believe that once someone retires they lose their expertise or credibility?" Like I said, total strawman argument-& pretty typical of the denialist cult. The majority of seasoned scientists are a lot less dogmatic than you seem to believe. They don't go around with signs over their head indicating their leanings &-given the preponderance of non-skeptic climate papers being published in respected journals-I'd argue that any experienced scientists/reviewers who do hold skeptic views are not letting that skepticism sway their objective judgment of whether a paper is *good science*. As I've already said, though, given that most of the original papers warning of climate change were from the 1950's to 1970's, I'd say that this suggests that the majority of experienced climate scientists are *not* skeptics/deniers. As I've also said, my personal experience with my older colleagues suggests very little skepticism of global warming amongst them. "Actually I have been repeatedly told that most of the skeptics are all older and therefore not experts anymore. This is a common argument I have run across. Maybe you are new to the debate?" No, I'm not new to the debate-as I've heard these kinds of denialist "anecdotes" many times before. I've never heard such claims made by non-skeptics, & my own personal experience doesn't back that viewpoint-as I said above. "I thought how peer-review works was well known here?" I do understand how it works-clearly better than you given the ongoing ignorant claims you keep making. "They sometimes publish in these journals to provide a review of the science for the journal's audience. Iron & Steel Technology is a perfect example of this." Total rubbish-for 4 key reasons: (1) The kinds of people who are usually called on to review papers are in great demand-as well as having their own full time jobs to attend to. It is extremely unlikely that said reviewers would have the time to spare to review for every obscure journal out there. (2) Having personally seen the difficulty involved in writing & submitting a paper for publication, I doubt very much that a serious scientist would waste their time trying to get their paper into a journal that wasn't for either (a) general consumption (like Nature or Science) or that will be seen by their peers. (3) I've read papers in many different journals relating to my own field of expertise-& I have *yet* to see anyone trying to publish papers unrelated to my field in those journals-yet so-called "skeptics" seem to be doing it more & more often. (4) If I was trying to find information pertaining to my own field of expertise, I doubt I'd have *any* interest in reading a paper totally unrelated to my field-& I doubt those who read "Iron & Steel Technology" feel any differently. "Beck's paper was peer-reviewed. Your judgment that it does not meet basic standards is an opinion, Beck has argued otherwise. All of your assertions to their peer-review process and all sorts of other allegations are unfounded" Funny how all your unfounded opinions are "facts", but everyone else's well founded facts are just "unfounded opinion. You claim Beck's paper was peer-reviewed-by who? Can you name one chemist, physicist or atmospheric scientist prepared to admit to having peer reviewed this paper? Every scientist I've ever spoken to about it derides it loudly as not even meeting the basic criteria for good scientific method. Beck's sampling methods were downright awful, with error bars significantly larger than his averages-yet still he had the audacity to claim that his results were better than those obtained from the most pristine atmospheric samples available, & measured using the most sensitive measuring equipment currently available. That's not *opinion*, that is *fact*-something you & your denialist mates seem to know nothing about. "Your actions demonstrate that the list is not useless but very problematic for you. " Hardly. I find your list-& the time you waste defending it-absolutely chuckle worthy. I've really enjoyed exposing you as the fraud you are, & equally enjoyed watching you frequently shoot yourself in the foot, by exposing your pseudo-religious approach to so-called skepticism. Plus, I get huge amounts of enjoyment out of baiting you & watching you froth at the mouth. That said, even my enjoyment has run dry. I believe I've already done my bit in exposing you & your denialist mates for the cultists you are, & I think I've done my bit in tearing your precious list to shreds. I will leave it to the others to keep up the pressure on your sham list. I will watch with interest though, just from the sidelines.
95568. scaddenp at 19:51 PM on 17 February 2011
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       All the of the global temperature metrics, GISS, UAH, HadCrut etc say that temperature rises are NOT being balanced out, and overall temperatures are rising. As to whether current sea-level rises matches the current level of ice loss, the water budget seems to be closed quite well. eg Willis
95569. Philippe Chantreau at 19:46 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Talking about logical fallacy, I ignored this question of yours, since it was logically at odds with the rest of your argument: "So a scientist who publishes one breakthrough paper and wins a Nobel Prize would not be considered an expert while someone who published 300 mediocre papers would be?" According to yourself, there is no objective determination of what a mediocre paper is, so I was not sure what the question meant. Plus, it seems to be a rather inane question and it is, in fact, addressed by my relativity example as far as I can tell. It's hard to tell sometimes. You have slipped quite a bit on coherence. It was fun. As these remaining British players of spoof say: Thank you, gentlemen, for the game...
95570. Philippe Chantreau at 19:32 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "You failed to answer any of my questions" Nonsense. I've answered all of them. That you failed to understand the answers is not a big concern of mine. However, it seems to indicate that your reading comprehension may be impaired. Perhaps that's the problem on your side of the debate. That would explain also why you thought that the Mavromichalaki paper in any way supported your "skepticism." Or maybe you did not even read the abstract and just posted it on your list because it said cosmic rays somewhere. Which is it? As far as how to examine a researcher's record of publication, the fact that you are asking how to do it, while not long ago you were lecturing others on Google Scholar, is downright comical. And you talk about beating chests. That is really funny. You've given every indication that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if your life depended on it. The Beck paper used measurements of CO2 taken in the middle of highly concentrated active sources of CO2 and used it as if it were well mixed. If you don't see the logical fallacy in that, there is no hope for you. That the paper was peer-reviewed at E&E says everything one needs to know on the standards of that journal. There is nothing subjective about it. Beck used to try to bamboozle people with a graph that had a truncated x axis so that it would simulate periodicity where there was none. Oops, sorry, that's not a logical fallacy, that's deception. Now you may not be satisfied with my answers to your questions but I did make some effort to answer them. You, on the other hand have not even attempted to answer mine. Where in the Mavromichalaki paper is there anything said by the authors that support your AGW alarm skepticism? How are conference proceedings peer-reviewed?
95571. Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       poptech@502 >"You did not check very well, # 398" > >>"just because solar forcing has been the dominant driver of >>paleoclimate does not mean that the current warming is >>non-anthropogenic." > >It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current >climate. " Sorry that is just restating your assertion and ignoring the point being made, that it is a logical error to suppose that solar forcing being dominant in paleoclimate means it is dominant now. We have observations of solar activity and it is too weak and in the wrong direction to be the cause of the observed warming. Hence if you think that paper supports skepticism you are unaware of what the data actually say. >>"If you don't have the scientific background to judge the >>difference then you ought not to compile a list and should leave >>it to someone who does, for the reasons I gave." > >The authors of the papers in question have the scientific >background and disagree. I am talking about your ability to determine whether the papers support skepticism and hence belong in the list. Not all of the papers explicitly state that the authors consider the paper to support skepticism, so you can't use their judgment by proxy. Especially since a couple of authors have told you that they don't think their papers belong in the list. >>"That is a non-sensical requirement. Journals generally only >>retract papers becuase of plagiarism or scientific fraud etc. I >>don't recall ever seeing a paper retracted simply because it was >>wrong. If that was general practice it would be very common." > >I will also remove papers if the author admits the whole paper (not >part of it) was wrong. Again that is a non-sensical criterion. Very few papers are ever utterly wrong. For instance Essenhigh's computes the residence time correctly in his paper, it is only the conclusion (that a short residence time means the rise in CO2 is non-anthropogenic) that is completely wrong. >>"Not all the papers on your list are dud," > >Then please point out a paper from the list that you agree with and >defend it when it is criticized here. I notice you didn't apologise for your misrepresentation of my position there. for examples, try: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038082.shtml Which looks O.K. from the abstract. If I notice papers I agree with being criticised, then I am happy to defend them. However given that you appear impervious to attempts to help you improve your list, there isn't much point any of us discussing it with you is there?
95572. Dikran Marsupial at 18:53 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       poptech@536 Quality is indeed subjective, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. It is a shame that you can't take advice from those, such as myself, that are generally in favour of a well curated list of papers supporting a skeptical stance.
95573. scaddenp at 17:50 PM on 17 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Acorn1 - perhaps look at: CO2 is plant food and Its not bad. I don't know of any science that supposes humans as a species is going to die out. However, climate change that is too fast will be seriously bad for many individuals of the species. Its about the rate of change not about what's an optimal temperature. Have a look at the scenarios of what 2100 could look like and think about whether this seems to good thing, but its best to do so on the appropriate thread rather than throwing a bunch of skeptic talking points into a single post.
95574. Utahn at 17:22 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PT: "Since it is subjective I can choose whether I consider it "strong evidence" or not." And yet you choose based not on the quality of the papers, but on the number of them, as you stated above you would consider 850 2nd hand smoke articles "strong evidence" sight unseen. The point of this post is that it's unwise to use numbers to decide the strength of evidence, when the numbers have no context(i.e. the denominator). If someone precisely identified 1000 peer reviewed articles to be in the world literature on global warming, your 850 would seem like strong support of the skeptical position, if someone precisely identified 1 million peer reviewed articles on global warming your 850 would seem very weak evidence against the consensus, yet you judge the 850 to be strong evidence without any notion or attempt to understand which denominator is closer to true...
95575. Marcus at 17:05 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Philippe Chantreau, "Here is an example for you..." You failed to answer any of my questions." Wrong again PT-you're getting good at this. Philippe actually *did* answer your questions. Just because you didn't get the reply you were hoping for, doesn't mean the answer wasn't provided. Indeed, both of us have shown you how the peer review process is *very* objective. Not perfect, perhaps, but its worked perfectly well for decades-especially in the more respected journals. As a scientist, I also know that there are journals that have lower standards of peer review than others-as I've seen many people get their papers knocked back by Science or Nature, only to have them published in some obscure journal desperate for papers to publish. Of course, as you're completely ignorant of how science works, I wouldn't expect you to know that!
95576. Marcus at 17:01 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Ok then give me the objective procedure to determine if someone is "qualified". What am I looking for? What specific degrees?" Oh dear, do I *really* have to walk you through this? Are you really that thick PT....oops, I already know the answer to this. Of course they have to have degrees relevant to the specific field-you can't ask someone with a medical degree to review a paper on horticulture. In climate science, a degree in atmospheric physics, geology, geography or biology is a good start-multiple degrees certainly help. "So the minute someone retires they lose all previous knowledge and cease being an expert?" Nope, that's not what I said-stop misusing people's words, given how much you claim to hate other people misrepresenting you. I meant that someone should have been working in the relevant field-not necessarily at that given moment. Obviously, though, the longer a person is out of a relevant field, the less likely they are to be qualified to review a paper that might contain new knowledge or procedures. Again, very objective. "So the older skeptics are more qualified than the younger alarmists?" Oh, your ignorance is bordering on life-threatening PT. Some of the best papers predicting anthropogenic warming actually come from 30-50 years ago, from people who'd now be retired. The fact is that there is *no* correlation between age & skepticism-so your argument is a total strawman. Obviously though, age also means *nothing* unless backed up by relevant experience-as I've already stated. "But that is not how peer-review works. Regardless of the journal the reviewers would be from the appropriate field." So you claim, but can you *prove* it? If what you claim is true, then why would scientists be publishing in journals utterly unrelated to their field or-in some cases-totally non-science based journals? Hardly the best way to get recognized or cited by other authors. No, the only answer that makes sense is that they publish in obscure journals to avoid proper scrutiny of their work. "This is utterly false as both adhere to scholarly peer-review standards." Incorrect-the existence of papers like those by Beck is *proof* that basic standards are not important to these journals, only telling its readership what they want to hear. Of course, I'd be willing to entertain *proof* to the contrary-but all we have from you so far are utterly unfounded assertions as to the "high quality" of their peer review process. So, once again PT you've displayed your unfailing ability to epically *fail*. I do notice, though, that your defense is getting weaker & weaker with each repetition. Don't you get *bored* of putting so much effort into misleading others PT? Don't you have better things to do with your life than create useless lists?
95577. Marcus at 16:12 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Incorrect, you have simply provided more subjective criteria." Wow, you really have no *clue*, do you Poptech? Its hardly subjective criteria. For starters, the person in question most be *qualified* in the field they're reviewing-nothing subjective about that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise. Secondly, they most be currently working in an appropriate field-again, nothing subjective about that. Thirdly, their is seniority-another objective criteria-the longer a person has worked in a relevant field, the more likely they are to be qualified to review papers in said field. Fourth is track record-slightly subjective but, as this usually ties strongly into the first 3 criteria, it usually ends up being highly objective-namely that a person who has worked a long time in the relevant field will almost *always* have a good track record-as determined by publications &/or the respect of other scientists in that field. This is why we take issue with such a large number of the papers you use to pad your list-many of them are published in obscure journals utterly unrelated to climate science-& so reviewers from said journal are unlikely to properly understand the subject they're reviewing. With E&E & Cato, it's simply a question of the fact that they don't *care* whether the paper meets the basic standards of the Scientific Method-just as long as its pushing their ideology forward. So you see that, as with everything else you've claimed on this site, you're completely wrong about this too-& have simply reiterated your complete ignorance of how science works. However, as you're a card-carrying member of the Denialist Cult, a knowledge of scientific procedure would be viewed more as a negative than as a positive.
95578. Philippe Chantreau at 16:12 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Did you find any excerpt in the Mavromichalaki paper that supports AGW alarm skepticism? How are conference proceedings peer-reviewed exactly?
95579. SoundOff at 16:07 PM on 17 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
       Alex, just correct to 0.8 deg C per W/m^2 of forcing and I think you will have it about right.
95580. Philippe Chantreau at 16:01 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       I understand that solid reasoning abilities could appear to you as subjective. It would explain a lot. Here is an example for you. As a flight instructor I used to test the reasoning abilities of my students by asking them to describe why the maneuvering speed (Va) of an airplane increases when the total weight of the airplane increases, which is counterintuitive. I could judge very objectively their reasoning ability as it pertained to principles of flight by their answer. Why do you think that it's so difficult? Anyone who knows their stuff can do the same. If you don't know how to examine a researcher's track record of publications, perhaps you should hold back on the Google Scholar pontification. Important publications are widely cited and give rise to numerous other papers (they're called seminal papers for a reason). Seminal papers advance knowledge any way you look at it. You're a stickler for words with everybody but yourself. I did not say that Einstein would not be considered worthy of reviewing papers. I said he wouldn't have been the top choice on Quantum. He certainly would have been on Relativity.
95581. Daniel Bailey at 15:27 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Re: Ice sheets and floating This is probably a good time to add some clarity to the mechanisms behind what happens at the transition between a "stable" grounded ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice. The reality is that ice is a viscous fluid and "flows" from higher to lower altitudes. James describes ice shelves and sea ice in the post at top. When a "grounded" ice sheet meets the sea it will either unground and become an ice tongue/ice shelf, or it will calve. Ice tongues/shelves act as buttresses, slowing the advance of the ice sheet towards the sea. When an ice sheet no longer has this protective formation, gravity (because gravity is a you-know-what) is able to exert its full effects and the speed of flow nearest the sea increases. This downhill delta/vector is then propagated "upglacier" until a new dynamic equilibrium (in terms of rate of loss) is reached. The ice edge at the sea:ice junction calves, sometimes steadily, sometimes catastrophically (see video at bottom of this comment). The faster the ice sheet moves downhill, the faster the calving rate. This is the Jakobshavn Effect. Enough basal lubrication (the Zwally Effect) can increase this rate of downhill flow somewhat, but the primary mechanism of transport is the Jacobshavn Effect. At this point it's the sheer scale of the ice sheet that makes it difficult to understand why, if the basal melt causes an ungrounding of the ice sheet leading edge, why the whole sucker doesn't just pop up like a cork? Unlike a floating iceberg, where 90% of the berg is below the water line, on the ice sheets the majority of the ice is above sea level, especially at the 20th Century terminus points. If the calving front retreats landward enough, the basal edge is in much deeper water. So eventually you might see big bergs bobbing up, but in the interim (at least the next 20 years or so, even for the WAIS) thinning & outlet transport will rule the day. This doesn't mean that existing & future calving events are not and will not be spectacular, because they are. Check this out (pay special attention to the 12:45-13:05, 15:20-16:00 and 16:05-17:00 segments): Hope this is more clear than mud, The Yooper
95582. Philippe Chantreau at 15:08 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       It is actually that simple. How is a reviewer determined to be qualified? by having demonstrated the ability to advance knowledge in the field under study. That is done through intimate familiarity with the technical aspects, solid reasoning abilities, etc, all demonstrated by their track record of publications. How is it determined they publish regularly? They have a track record of publications. Why is someone who publishes in the field irregularly not considered an expert? Because if they do not publish regularly, they're less likely to have kept up some of the qualities mentioned above. Although Eisntein did understand Quantum theory, he was not an expert in it. The go-to guys were Bohr or Von Neuman. It does not change that Einstein understood it well. He also published in it but not so regularly. Nothing wrong with that. But he wouldn't have been the top choice as a reviewer of Quantum Theory papers. How is someone's reputation determined? By their track record of publications. By the relative importance of their publications, or how much they advance knowledge in their field. Breakthroughs are a good reputation builder. For instance, even if Einstein had published only the Special and General Relativity papers, he would have got quite a reputation.
95583. Philippe Chantreau at 14:49 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       You don't understand neither the cosmic ray theory nor the Mavromichalaki paper. This is the subject of the Mavromichalaki paper, summarized in the last sentence of the abstract: "This interpretation is explained in terms of different contributions of convection, diffusion and drift mechanisms to the whole modulation process influencing cosmic-ray transport in the heliosphere." Convection, diffusion and drift all apply to solar processes. The paper treats of how variations in the Sun's magnetic field influence the cosmic ray flux. The interrelation between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known and not in dispute. This paper studies it from the point of view of magnetic activity (Hale cycle). It has absolutely nothing to do with any hypothesis on the effect of cosmic rays on Earth' weather. Nothing. Find one quote in that paper that can support skepticism of AGW alarm and I'll be glad to acknowledge it. If you can't you should take the paper out of the list. Hint: it has to be something that is actually said in the paper, by the authors. You know, just like the conclusion of a paper should be supported by the data and anaysis presented. The hypothesis of cosmic ray induced cloud formation is discussed elsewhere and further mention should be brought to the appropriate thread. Nonetheless, this hypothesis (callig it a theory is a stretch since it has no plausible physical mechanism) relies on dubious correlation. Everyone who has examined that correlation closely enough has seen it behave in quantum ways: when you look too close, it disppears. No physical mechanism for growing the ionized particles to CCN size has yet been postulated. The CERN CLOUD experiment has yielded nothing truly substantial, except revelations on the shortcomings of the experimental design.
95584. Acorn1 at 14:47 PM on 17 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Sir: Homo s. has had his brain cage increase from 500cc to 1700cc over the short period of 3million years. He will be able to endure just about anything nature throws at him at the year 2100. Why link temperature and atmos CO2 and end there? We know plants and animals can cope better at "high" temperatures, and we know higher CO2 is supportive of more plants. (World food sources have increased, relative to all else,in the last 60 years) Homo S. died down to (near extinction?) about a mear 2000 during the last ice age. So why not get this discussion around to what's the best of both? Instead of they're both bad...which seems to be the thread. acorn1
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're relatively new here, so let me take a moment to welcome you & to give you a quick tour and idea of how things work best here. We encourage you to read the Newcomers-Start-Here post, followed by the Big-Picture post, so you can get a synopsis of what's going on. I also recommend you watch this video on why CO₂ is the Control Knob of temperatures. When you have questions, use the Search function in the upper left corner of every page to find out if there's an answer ready-made for you in the form of a blog post investigating that (chances are there is). Questions are to be posed on those threaded posts. If you still have questions, find the most appropriate post & ask it there. Someone will get back to you. Lastly, keep the Comments Policy in mind when formulating your questions (remember to use the Preview function to ensure readability). Thanks!
95585. muoncounter at 14:39 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech "these support the galactic and cosmic ray theories of climate change," So the proof: You really either don't read the papers, don't know what it is you read or simply don't care. The first two papers deal only with change on the scale of millions of years due to solar system motion through the galaxy. That is NOT any known form of 'skepticism' of recent anthropogenic climate change. "If you understood the cosmic ray theory," You're the away team on that turf (perhaps you don't know what muons are and why they are counted). Fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field and the resultant modulation of earth surface CR flux are well-researched. However, this paper does not link this with clouds or climate in any way, nor does it support any skeptical argument regarding such unproven hypotheses. So Poptech admits his hypocrisy: game, set and match. We're done here (except I just found a few more on the list that don't do what you say).
       Moderator Response: [DB] He don't know you very well, do he?
95586. Marcus at 14:38 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "f you understood the cosmic ray theory, it is that the fluctuating of suns magnetic field relates to the fluctuation in cosmic ray intensity that controls cloud cover on earth. This paper supports his theory." Yep, we've done Cosmic Rays to death here PT, & the suggestion is that-if anything-current interactions between solar activity & Cosmic Rays should be causing a cooling trend right now-i.e. increasing cloud cover due to increasing exposure to cosmic rays. As has already been pointed out, a paper that shows factors *other* than CO2 have caused climate change in the deep dark past do *not* strengthen the case for CO2 not playing a role in current climate change. That's the worst, weakest kind of circumstantial evidence imaginable &-were to to present that in a court of law-would see your case summarily thrown out. Once again, PT, you prove that *science* is not your strong suit- ( -Snip- ).
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please, keep it civil.
95587. kdkd at 14:17 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech #518 Woah dude - those are some tenuous lines of evidence you've got going there. Certainly not enough to falsify the large coherent body of knowledge that's amassed showing the important role of CO2 in anthropogenic climate change. In fact I would imagine that the authors of these publications would be horrified to see that you're misusing their work in this way. In your own mind this material may support your view. From a more objective position, and with more scientific training than you appear to have they certainly do not.
95588. Riduna at 13:52 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Bern @ 42 ... We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating That is exactly the point I make at 39. It seems to me that the real threat to sea level is the potential for WAIS to loose its footing on the seabed.
95589. Marcus at 13:43 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science." I think we've established that fact multiple times over Phillipe. Indeed, his pseudo-religious approach to science makes me think that he's not overly qualified to work in IT either. I mean, does he think the quality of computer code can be "subjective"-tell that to the guy whose software crashes because he put a colon where a comma should have been!
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Poptech's qualifications in his day job are not to be considered as "fair game" for discussion and are off-topic.
95590. Bern at 13:40 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       I think also a few people have tried to point out that we don't have to melt all the ice before we see significant sea level rise. We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating, where it's presently sitting on the seabed. It can do this by dynamically thinning to the point where it starts floating, which can also happen a long, long time before it actually melts. That Hansen paper Daniel Bailey referenced way back at comment #8 also makes the point that, once sea level rise reaches a rate of about a metre per decade, that we will start to see significant negative feedback from all those chunks of ice floating around in the oceans. That's pretty cold comfort, though (no pun intended!) - 1 metre per decade will be disastrous, as will the cumulative rise before we get to that point. BTW, for some sea level rise maps of selected areas of Australia, check out this site. It only has 0.5, 0.8, and 1.1m scenarios, but it's a starting point.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] fixed link
95591. Marcus at 13:39 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Also, going back to an earlier matter. MacLeans paper didn't just receive *criticism*, it was shown to complete & total *junk*. I mean, come on, the guy spliced together the temp. anomalies for weather balloons & satellites, without telling readers he'd done it, & using the same anomaly values-even though said values were based off completely different baselines-all in order to *hide* the increase in temperatures. By having that trick exposed, it rendered the rest of his entire paper totally null & void (his attempt to link ENSO to recent global warming relied entirely on that temperature graph). Now, if a Climate Scientist were to do that in order to advance the AGW theory, denialists like yourself would be screaming in faux outrage, yet you not only have no criticism for MacLean's dodgy work, you're quite happy to retain it in your list-simply because it pads it out that little bit more.
95592. Philippe Chantreau at 13:38 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       E&E is listed as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal in some databases. It also does have an agenda. That agenda has been claimed vigorously by Sonia Boehmer- Christansen, who is intimately involved in the development of that "publication." That you deny this fact does not make it go away, it only indicates how ready you are to twist reality in order to fit your strange world view. The quality of the work in E&E is miserable. Quality in science publication is not subjective. It is dependent on the rigor in analysis, the care in choice of data and their treatment, the coherence in the reasoning, and how the conclusion is supported. If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science. Peer-review in science is meant to guarantee a minimumn level of quality. If a publication can not achieve that minimum level, it has a serious problem. When the editorial board headed by Von Storch understood how much of a problem they had with the Soon&Baliunas paper, they all resigned. That was the right thing to do and indicates that they all had an idea of what objective level of quality should be present in their journal. You can deny that all you want, it will only demonstrate how delusional you are willing to be. The Beck piece was so flawed that it did not deserve any consideration. E&E decided to publish it. Other pieces with very low quality have appeared there. It makes it a low quality journal that does not deserve attention. We're not just talking about somebody who is wrong here; the Beck piece was so bad that it wasn't even wrong, it was a travesty. Anyone peering through that paper will realize as much, that is not subjective. You have not irrefutably deomstrated anything except a somewhat unique perception of reality. The denominator can be estimated with a range, the lower end of which, for science papers only, still dwarfs your ridiculous little list, which is loaded with law articles, obscure policy publications, think tank papers and all sorts of junk. Everyone can see why you are trying so hard to argue about the subjectivity of quality. As for CATO, it is a political think tank. Their journal's only function is to foster the organization's idelology. That makes it worthless as a source of information, regardless of how it is listed in databases. I repeat my question: How does the Mavromichalaki et al paper support AGW alarm skepticism? If it does not, it must be removed from the list. And how are conference proceedings peer-reviewed?
95593. Marcus at 13:34 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Incorrect, Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)" Yes, & that makes them experts in global warming how exactly? You see, PT, you do a better job than we do of showing just how worthless your list really is-by showing that many of these skeptic viewpoints are published in obscure journals whose reviewers don't know the subject matter well enough to decide whether it has actual merit (indeed, it reads more like a page filler for the journal). The same goes for Journals of Law-I might go to them for peer-reviewed opinion on purely legal matters, but I do *not* expect them to know about Global Warming. Of course, if the science of the skeptics was so strong-*objectively speaking*-then the authors of these papers wouldn't need to seek out such obscure journals just to get their work published (oh, & please spare us another rant about some kind of "conspiracy" to keep skeptics out of mainstream journals, 'cause that won't wash here).
95594. Marcus at 13:29 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Since it is subjective I can choose whether I consider it "strong evidence" or not. Just like you have with my list." No matter how often you make this false claim, PT, "belief" & "subjectivity" don't cut it in the world of science. In that world, nothing but objective evidence & facts will do the trick. I'd suggest you'd do better in Philosophy or even Religion with that approach-& we all know that Denialism is pretty much a religion-with Monckton, Plimer & Inhofe as its High Priests. Clearly, though, Poptech sees himself as an aspirant for the top job.
95595. Marcus at 13:19 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current climate." That is the biggest load of ignorant hokum I've ever heard. That claim is as ludicrous as saying "forest fires have largely been caused by lightening strikes in the past, therefore it supports skepticism of arson". Total & utter *hogwash*-but still pretty much what I've come to expect of Denialists like yourself. To claim that such things *strengthen* your argument just prove how utterly deluded you are!
95596. Marcus at 13:16 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Incorrect, I have irrefutably demonstrated that his denominator is based on erroneous results." Nope, only in your own mind-& in the Denialist Universe you inhabit. Out here in the real world, you've still largely missed the point "That is because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal." Cato Journal, like E&E, has *proven* low standards when it comes to the publication of papers that "tow the party line"-due to their funding links with the Coal & Oil industries (you don't bite the hand that feeds you). Good & Bad are definitely *not* a subjective terms either-as many fail the basic evidence test that should be the foundation of any published paper. Many papers published in E&E fail Science 101, yet still get published as long as they say "Climate Change isn't real". If you're going to rely on relatively obscure journals-with poor Peer Review Standards & a clear ideological agenda-just so you can pad the list out a little bit more, then it doesn't say much for the strength of your list.
95597. muoncounter at 13:13 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Peter: "ask how long the ice will last. Please." We have, several times. See the thread on Ice free Arctic, among others. I don't understand why you seem to be insisting that Arctic ice isn't in jeopardy. You've agreed that the Arctic is warming precipitously and that Arctic ice melt is increasing. There's no need for any specific heat calculation; the figures in the ice-free thread -- and several other threads on the same topic -- show very clearly how long the ice will last. The Flanner thread and papers linked on that thread amplify this topic with the increase in heat absorption of open Arctic waters vs. ice.
95598. Peter Offenhartz at 13:08 PM on 17 February 2011
       A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
       Please, please, no more doomesday scenarios! Here's the math that no one will do: The total ice volume is about 40 x 10^6 GT. The rate of melting is currently well under 1000 GT per year, or 0.001 x 10^6 GT/yr. (I hope this time I've done the math correctly!)
95599. angliss at 13:03 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Wow. 509 comments. I personally recommend to everyone still debating Poptech take leave of the argument - you have better things to do with your time, and Poptech simply isn't worth your effort any more. If he ever was.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Worthy advice all should heed.
95600. muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 17 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PT: "Papers are not included or removed from the list based on .. if they ... support skepticism of AGW alarm." Then by your own words, you must remove the three papers discussed here, as they do not support 'skepticism' in any way whatsoever. Failure to do this is admission of total and complete hypocrisy.

Prev  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  Next