Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
I checked into this thread after a day, and Walter, you win the prize for one of the most humorous posts.

I'll give it to the Swiss Federal Geological Society, whose president made the comments and to the Geological faculty of Bern university.

okie wrote:
Just wondering Walter, have many of these Swiss ever visited the Grand Canyon?

You mean, the don't know that the climate there is the same as at the Eiger? Well, well, that really should be common knowledge ...

The glaciers must have retreated in the Grand canyon since I was last there. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Geez Thomas. I don't want to have to go back through hundreds of pages of posts here or on other boards to find it. Where are you getting YOUR list indicating peer review on this issue?

I have none, and I don't need one, because I'm getting a very strong sense that your list doesn't actually describe peer review. I just know that climatologists, just like any other kind of scientist, publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed journals. "Peer review" means that a research group writes an article describing its results and send it to the journal. The journal then sends the article to scientists from the same field, or from some very nearby field. These are the peer reviewers. They then check the results for consistency and the conclusions for soundness before the article gets published. Overall, this process has turned out to be quite efficient at assuring quality in scientific publishing. It certainly has proven better than every other alternative that's been tried.

What you appear to be describing isn't peer review. It's a petition by some organization of scientists who may have used the term "peer review" incorrectly. But since you decline to identify what you're talking about, I see no point of debating this point any further.

0 Replies

Another step in peer reviewed journals is all readers are allowed to, if not encouraged, to review the research and point out any errors.

0 Replies

For those claiming satellites show a warming in the atmosphere I suggest they read this recent report

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

Page 135 in Appendix A shows the 3 diffferent satellite datasets and all show an increase in temperature.

0 Replies

parados, Pretty impressive report. Thanks for sharing it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Geez Thomas. I don't want to have to go back through hundreds of pages of posts here or on other boards to find it. Where are you getting YOUR list indicating peer review on this issue?

I have none, and I don't need one, because I'm getting a very strong sense that your list doesn't actually describe peer review. I just know that climatologists, just like any other kind of scientist, publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed journals. "Peer review" means that a research group writes an article describing its results and send it to the journal. The journal then sends the article to scientists from the same field, or from some very nearby field. These are the peer reviewers. They then check the results for consistency and the conclusions for soundness before the article gets published. Overall, this process has turned out to be quite efficient at assuring quality in scientific publishing. It certainly has proven better than every other alternative that's been tried.

What you appear to be describing isn't peer review. It's a petition by some organization of scientists who may have used the term "peer review" incorrectly. But since you decline to identify what you're talking about, I see no point of debating this point any further.

Well I've read that the IPCC defends its data supported by "peer review" of 2000 or 20000 scientists--can't remember which. But that's cool. If you don't have a list of "peer review" people at your disposal either, then we indeed are both operating in the dark on that.

You might agree, however, that the journal in question, depending on its own ideological bent, might skew the findings a bit in choosing which 'peer reviewers' to send the article to? I know that sounds paranoid. But I have a scientific researcher in my family who says it happens.

Anyhow, in addition to the scientists I know personally who have indicated skepticism about some of the 'conventional wisdom' re global warming, I keep running across articles like this:

Excerpt:

Quote:

William Gray, longtime meteorologist - Discover Magazine - September 2005 - Interview

G: Right now I''m trying to work on this human-induced global-warming thing that I think is grossly exaggerated.

You don''t believe global warming is causing climate change?

G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I''m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ''40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ''40s to the early ''70s. And there has been warming since the middle ''70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don''t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, ""Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related."" Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn''t mean that one is causing the other.
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/

Now a hurricane specialist isn't exactly a paleontological climatologist, but don't you think these guys deserve at least some attention re their skepticism? Especially when paleontological climatologists are in short supply among that 2000 scientists (that I can't find the list) that I previously mentioned?

I honestly don't know what to believe on this issue. But I do think everybody should be heard before we start making serious policy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I've read that the IPCC defends its data supported by "peer review" of 2000 or 20000 scientists--can't remember which.

The IPCC's publications are readily available on its website. There is no reason to rely on hearsay. Please identify where the IPCC says what you claim it says.

Foxfyre wrote:

But that's cool. If you don't have a list of "peer review" people at your disposal either, then we indeed are both operating in the dark on that.

You are not paying attention. I just explained to you that I don't need such a list at my disposal. It would have nothing to do with how peer review works.

Foxfyre wrote:

You might agree, however, that the journal in question, depending on its own ideological bent, might skew the findings a bit in choosing which 'peer reviewers' to send the article to? I know that sounds paranoid. But I have a scientific researcher in my family who says it happens.

It happens, but competition between journals limits such cronyism. Idological blinders certainly don't explain that practically all of the peer-reviewed research find that a) the globe is warming and b) that much of it is caused by a human-made increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. There is some debate on how much the globe is warming, how much of it is man-made, and how much warming to expect in the future. But the near consensus that global warming is real and man-made hasn't emerged because the skeptics weren't heard. It has emerged because the data contradicted them.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now a hurricane specialist isn't exactly a paleontological climatologist, but don't you think these guys deserve at least some attention re their skepticism?

I will pay attention to him when he has started working on "this global warming thing", as he calls it, and publishes his results. From a quick search on Google Scholar, Mr. Gibson is a noted scholar, not a crank. When he has results, they certainly merit attention. But he doesn't have any results yet. You may have noticed in his interview that he is currently "trying" to work on global warming, indicating that he hasn't actually worked on it yet.

0 Replies

Okie said:

Quote:

conclusive data

There is no such animal, Okie. Data either support a hypothesis (usually derived from a theory), or they don't.

Thomas
Wish I had a decent public library around here. No university or even community college of merit.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

For those claiming satellites show a warming in the atmosphere I suggest they read this recent report

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

Page 135 in Appendix A shows the 3 diffferent satellite datasets and all show an increase in temperature.

Parados, I should have used the term, tropospheric or stratospheric. What do you make of the following information?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/graphics/globe.jpg

These graphs show no significant warming, and in fact it shows possible cooling in the lower stratosphere.

Also, one thing I would like to point out is the possibly misleading design of graphs. Often, a graph will show the entire scale to span maybe 1 or 2 degrees C, or even less, which makes 0.1 or 0.2 C to look huge on the graph, when in reality it may be statistically insignificant if we had enough reliable data for a long enough time to get a better overall view of the cycles. Basically what we are seeing is a snapshot of a very short period of time, so we are left to guess at what the long term picture was, based on more inexact evidence like tree rings, glaciers, etc.

0 Replies

Bush's claim that the federal government doesn't have authority over greenhouse gasses, but may control unauthorized wiretaps in the US in contradiction to FISA laws is too funny to conptemplate.

If the terrorists don't kill us, our air will.

0 Replies

You got it, c.i.

0 Replies

It's a good thing California doesn't listen to Bush.

Cleaner air in California

0 Replies

Mr. Parados has posted the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those claiming satellites show a warming in the atmosphere I suggest they read this recent report

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

Page 135 in Appendix A shows the 3 diffferent satellite datasets and all show an increase in temperature.

***********************************************************

To which I reply--Mr. Parados is mistaken.

I am going to make some statements which I am directing towards Mr. Parados and I hope that he will pay attention. I hope he will pay attention because I read the entire report he listed above and I will quote from the report to show that he( Mr. Parados) does not really know what he is talking about.

After I show how weak and misleading the report he references really is( I WILL SHOW THAT BY QUOTING FROM THE VERY REPORT) then , If Mr. Parados has the ability to rebut my many pieces of evidence( posted on this thread) I hope he will do as I am doing--and what should be done by people who have integrity and ability---TO SHOW THE WEAKNESS OF MR. PARADOS'S REFERENCE.

There has been a great deal of blah-blah-blah on this thread with almost no reference to Scientific Journals and Reports. Mr. Thomas has commented on those peer-reviewed references. MY POSTS, FOR THE MOST PART CONTAIN REFERENCES TO PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND REPORTS AND HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED.

Now, to Mr. Parados' references. I hope that he did not list the reference because he felt that no one could or would read it. I DID!!!

I will capitalize key words and then comment at the end of the quotation with a comment in parenthesis:

Chapter 6- Page 125---from Reference by Mr. Parados

QUOTE---from CONCLUSION OF REPORT

However, most individual models considered in this report DO NOT MAKE USE OF ALL LIKELY IMPORTANT CLIMATE FORCINGS. In addition, many of the forcings ARE NOT YET WELL QUALIFIED. Models that appear to include the same forcings OFTEN DIFFER IN BOTH THE WAY THE FORCINGS ARE QUANTIFIED AND HOW THESE FORCINGS ARE APPLIED TO THE MODEL. This makes it DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE INTRINSIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODELS FROM THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FORCINGS...

(Report admits models don't use all imporant and likely climate forcings

Report Admits many of the forcings are not yet well qualified

Report shows that the same forcings are quantified differently in different models and how they are applied to the model)

(Mr. Parados evidently does not understand what I have alluded to in several of my previous posts--Computer Models are ONLY as good as the data and ASSUMPTIONS fed into them and as HIS OWN REFERENCE STATES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY COMPARE DIFFERENT COMPUTER MODELS TO FIND CONVERGENCE SINCE THE MODELERS--THE PEOPLE- THE SCIENTISTS--USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, DIFFERENT QUANTIFICATION AND DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS).

I sincerely hope that this will not be too difficult for Mr. Parados to understand.

Now, on to the next point( I do have ten pages of notes on Mr. Parados' reference and will utilize them as necessary.

0 Replies

Again- Quoting from Chapter 5 of Mr. Parados's reference--

quote

"This chapter has evaluted a widew range of Scientific Literature dealing with the possible causes of recent temperature changes, both on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. It shows that MANY FACTORS IN BOTH THE NATURAL AND HUMAN RELATED CAUSES probably contributed to the change... Although computer models of the climate system are helpful, THEY TOO HAVE LIMITATIONS."

Limitations? You bet!!!!

Now here is my evidence--note the reference to peer reviewed Scientific Literature--Grassi, Hartmut 2000--"Status and improvements of coupled general circulation models" SCIENCE--288:1, 991-7

quote:

"Coupled atmosphere-ocean-land models assimilating near real-time data from the global observing system (including the ocean interior ) will allow the attribution of a large part of observed system variablity and change to natrual and/or anthropogenic causes, will be ready in about a decade"

(Since this article by an expert in computer modeling was written in 2000, that means that these advanced computers will not be ready until 2010.

0 Replies

Global warming caused by cycles of the sun? Makes sense.

http://biocab.org/Temperature_and_Solar_Radiation.html

The correlation of temperatures to the sun is obvious, it is easy to understand, and it requires no hoops to jump through. It is obviously true. You turn up the heat, the temperature rises. 1 + 1 = 2. Amazing! Much more believable than the CO2 scenario, wherein: a causes b maybe, b causes c maybe, c causes d maybe, d causes e maybe, but it also causes maybe f, g, h, i and j, which might work in conflict with b, c, and d.

Also, this matter of water vapor is a troubling factor to the global warming theorists:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

In the above article, I quote the following:
We conclude:

"Due to the so called "greenhouse effect" - caused by atmospheric trace gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O) - infrared radiation from the earth is stored temporarily in the atmosphere. Of all these trace gases, water vapor represents the most important constituent. It contributes to the natural greenhouse warming process by approximately 60%. Water vapor amplifies the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse warming through a positive feedback. This amplification is counteracted by the increased reflection off clouds. How these two factors combine in the real atmosphere still remains an open question."

In terms of surface temperatures around the globe, cloud cover inherent with weather patterns would obviously represent the most dominant determinant of temperatures. I have yet to see any global warming discussion address this issue in any satisfactory manner, in regard to patterns and intensity through....say the last hundred years, yet to me it represents the proverbial "elephant in the room."

0 Replies

Bernard, I see you are also up late at night reading global warming reports and trying to interpret graphs. Isn't it exciting?

Bernard, the major problems or holes I see in global warmers are the following:

Questionable accuracy of temperature monitoring vs past, and consistency of land use, in other words, comparing apples to oranges.

Conflicting information from tropospheric and lower stratospheric measurements, which show little or now warming, or instead cooling.

If warming is occurring, the very possible or even likely correlation with solar cycles.

The many hoops and assumptions required by global warming theory to blame CO2 concentrations, and how does this all stack up with or tie into the factor of water vapor inherent in weather patterns and climatic cycles.

Even if global warming is occurring, and it is caused in part by CO2, is it serious enough to be alarmed about, and even if so, could anything be done about it practically, and if so, would the cure kill the patient.

Bernard, as Krauthammer stated so well, some of the pundits are testing our credulity to the limit, and I think my limit was surpassed long ago.

0 Replies

A great point, OKIE, and one that the "Global Warmists" have been unable to rebut. You have laid out the references. If I may, I will comment--The water vapor feedback is the MAIN REASON why emissions of CO2 MIGHT cause a significant warming. But a strong water vapor feedback linked to surface temperatures but to the temperature in the troposhpere. The last report by the IPCC indicated that the data showed a warming of only 0.034 C per decade.

This, as I am sure you know, Okie, is miniscule. 0.034C per decade since the warming began( 1977) amounts to a rise in temperature in the troposphere of a MASSIVE??? .112C total for the last three decades--or--
eleven hundredths of one degree.

I do hope, Okie, that none of the left wingers are so misinformed that they think that weather patterns never change. Temperature did, as I am sure that you know, rise 1 or 2 degrees C in Greenland and Iceland enabling the Vikings to farm there. Two or three centuries after that, we went into the Little Ice Age.

As I am sure you are aware, Okie, there were no SUV's in Greenland or Iceland at the time!!

Your point on Solar influences is enhanced by the fact that solar energy output has been at its highest in the last twenty years.

0 Replies

Bernard, I think it is safe to say .112 C is statistically insignificant.

By the way, thanks for your untiring research into all of the details to rebut folks like Parados. I won't say I'm lazy, but I admit to not being quite as detailed.

0 Replies

Bernard, I think it is safe to say .112 C is statistically insignificant.

By the way, thanks for your untiring research into all of the details to rebut folks like Parados. I won't say I'm lazy, but I admit to not being quite as detailed.

Bernard, I may have missed this factor, but something I would like to know more about, perhaps you have information. The average temperatures around the world, are they determined by taking an average of all of them, equally weighted, or are the temperatures weighted according to spacial influence or proximity. For example, if temperatures in remote areas show no rise, while temperatures from densely populated and more closely located sites, show temperature rises, the area governed by remote stations should be weighted much more in comparison to the land area the readings are indicative of. Simple principle, and one which you would think competent scientists would account for, but experience shows scientists aren't always that competent in even simple basics of evaluating such data. It probably isn't a problem, but it struck me as an issue that needs checking into.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know