Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!I guess the Cook 2013 paper is uppermost in some peoples minds but to my mind the consensus contention has been around much longer than 6 years.
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!I guess the Cook 2013 paper is uppermost in some peoples minds but to my mind the consensus contention has been around much longer than 6 years.
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!I guess the Cook 2013 paper is uppermost in some peoples minds but to my mind the consensus contention has been around much longer than 6 years.
The conclusion in the Cook paper is actually pretty uninteresting imo - most of the scientists that many consider to be on the 'contrarian' side of the debate would be part of 'the consensus' as it is defined in their paper - that AGW is happening (unquantified). The paper is aimed at 'joe public deniers' who are still stuck on this mundane point.
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
....oh and Cook 2013 asked authors to rate their own papers too so that would be 'a question' I believe.
Not sure if that would be classed as "a question"? But I'm very interested to learn more about this 'rating' request.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/2...
Linked article said:
In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.
Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.
The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.
Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.
The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.
An article on modelling, not specifically related to Climate, but certainly relevant.
A short comment on statistical versus mathematical modelling
A short comment on statistical versus mathematical modelling
https://youtu.be/Esl4CpPmClw
Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
PRTVR said:
https://youtu.be/Esl4CpPmClw
Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Well it would do were the individuals concerned qualified in climate science.Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Their “peer reviewed” papers are, as usual, not actually peer reviewed at all. Drop by their website and you yourself can apparently “peer review” their offerings.
They have a website called, rather modestly, GlobalWarmingSolved
I quote:
Ordinarily, you’d say, fair enough, the Connollys are as entitled as Lord Monckton to their opinions, however at variance with the scientific evidence they may be. However, they go further, much further, by actually presenting what they claim is the hard science to support the above four extraordinary propositions. And they do so via a brand new peer-reviewed online journal…their own peer-reviewed journal, featuring eight of their own articles. There is no mention anywhere on OPRJ.org of an Editorial Board, or any information whatever on who exactly is going to do the ‘peer-review’ of these papers, or other papers, should people not from the Connolly family choose to submit a paper.
Generally, when people make grand pronouncements claiming to have overturned our understanding of something as highly specialised and intensely studied as atmospheric physics, then those people go directly to one or more of the established major peer-reviewed science journals. Fame, fortune and the Nobel Prize for Physics await anyone who can actually make such claims stand up.
Another important thing we look for in a novel paper making potentially ground-breaking claims is: prior publication. Have the authors published hundreds, or even dozens of times previously in the peer-reviewed press? If so, have their articles been cited frequently in other papers (a good guide to the importance of a given paper over time is how frequently other peer-reviewed paper cite it)? There is no evidence presented on the website of any previous publication, and certainly none in a field relevant to the science of climate change.
Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry from UCD. Since receiving his PhD, he says he has been working with his dad, Michael, and “we began actively researching climate change in early 2009”, but he doesn’t say anything about the nature of this research. Michael’s stated qualifications also include a PhD, but it’s not stated in what field. “I have lectured and tutored at third level in the fields of physics, chemistry, electronic engineering, computer science, mathematics and statistics” is all the information he provides, though he does also mention having owned and operated the National Aquarium in the past, and he has a strong interest in aquaculture.
This way, their study, as well as the supporting evidence upon which it is based, can be thoroughly reviewed by a panel of expert peers before being published. This makes a lot of sense. Peer-review helps to iron out any actual errors or omissions, large or small, before the paper makes its way into the public domain. In science, there are very, very few Galileo moments, but lots and lots of people who are convinced they are the next Galileo.
So in a nutshell it appears it’s just another in a long list of dodgy climate scientists wheeled out by deniers as evidence that the whole of the scientific community are wrong.
This is how it works if you are a denier and you are looking for evidence to back up your bias...you qoute blogs, you tube interviews and non-peer reviewed (except by the GWPF) papers.
Shall I start quoting Greta Thunberg?
Gadgetmac said:
Well it would do were the individuals concerned qualified in climate science.
Their “peer reviewed” papers are, as usual, not actually peer reviewed at all. Drop by their website and you yourself can apparently “peer review” their offerings.
They have a website called, rather modestly, GlobalWarmingSolved
I quote:
Ordinarily, you’d say, fair enough, the Connollys are as entitled as Lord Monckton to their opinions, however at variance with the scientific evidence they may be. However, they go further, much further, by actually presenting what they claim is the hard science to support the above four extraordinary propositions. And they do so via a brand new peer-reviewed online journal…their own peer-reviewed journal, featuring eight of their own articles. There is no mention anywhere on OPRJ.org of an Editorial Board, or any information whatever on who exactly is going to do the ‘peer-review’ of these papers, or other papers, should people not from the Connolly family choose to submit a paper.
Generally, when people make grand pronouncements claiming to have overturned our understanding of something as highly specialised and intensely studied as atmospheric physics, then those people go directly to one or more of the established major peer-reviewed science journals. Fame, fortune and the Nobel Prize for Physics await anyone who can actually make such claims stand up.
Another important thing we look for in a novel paper making potentially ground-breaking claims is: prior publication. Have the authors published hundreds, or even dozens of times previously in the peer-reviewed press? If so, have their articles been cited frequently in other papers (a good guide to the importance of a given paper over time is how frequently other peer-reviewed paper cite it)? There is no evidence presented on the website of any previous publication, and certainly none in a field relevant to the science of climate change.
Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry from UCD. Since receiving his PhD, he says he has been working with his dad, Michael, and “we began actively researching climate change in early 2009”, but he doesn’t say anything about the nature of this research. Michael’s stated qualifications also include a PhD, but it’s not stated in what field. “I have lectured and tutored at third level in the fields of physics, chemistry, electronic engineering, computer science, mathematics and statistics” is all the information he provides, though he does also mention having owned and operated the National Aquarium in the past, and he has a strong interest in aquaculture.
This way, their study, as well as the supporting evidence upon which it is based, can be thoroughly reviewed by a panel of expert peers before being published. This makes a lot of sense. Peer-review helps to iron out any actual errors or omissions, large or small, before the paper makes its way into the public domain. In science, there are very, very few Galileo moments, but lots and lots of people who are convinced they are the next Galileo.
[b]So in a nutshell it appears it’s just another in a long list of dodgy climate scientists wheeled out by deniers as evidence that the whole of the scientific community are wrong.
This is how it works if you are a denier and you are looking for evidence to back up your bias...you qoute blogs, you tube interviews and non-peer reviewed (except by the GWPF) papers.[/b]
Shall I start quoting Greta Thunberg?
So, the whole of the scientific community are climate change approved? Their “peer reviewed” papers are, as usual, not actually peer reviewed at all. Drop by their website and you yourself can apparently “peer review” their offerings.
They have a website called, rather modestly, GlobalWarmingSolved
I quote:
Ordinarily, you’d say, fair enough, the Connollys are as entitled as Lord Monckton to their opinions, however at variance with the scientific evidence they may be. However, they go further, much further, by actually presenting what they claim is the hard science to support the above four extraordinary propositions. And they do so via a brand new peer-reviewed online journal…their own peer-reviewed journal, featuring eight of their own articles. There is no mention anywhere on OPRJ.org of an Editorial Board, or any information whatever on who exactly is going to do the ‘peer-review’ of these papers, or other papers, should people not from the Connolly family choose to submit a paper.
Generally, when people make grand pronouncements claiming to have overturned our understanding of something as highly specialised and intensely studied as atmospheric physics, then those people go directly to one or more of the established major peer-reviewed science journals. Fame, fortune and the Nobel Prize for Physics await anyone who can actually make such claims stand up.
Another important thing we look for in a novel paper making potentially ground-breaking claims is: prior publication. Have the authors published hundreds, or even dozens of times previously in the peer-reviewed press? If so, have their articles been cited frequently in other papers (a good guide to the importance of a given paper over time is how frequently other peer-reviewed paper cite it)? There is no evidence presented on the website of any previous publication, and certainly none in a field relevant to the science of climate change.
Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry from UCD. Since receiving his PhD, he says he has been working with his dad, Michael, and “we began actively researching climate change in early 2009”, but he doesn’t say anything about the nature of this research. Michael’s stated qualifications also include a PhD, but it’s not stated in what field. “I have lectured and tutored at third level in the fields of physics, chemistry, electronic engineering, computer science, mathematics and statistics” is all the information he provides, though he does also mention having owned and operated the National Aquarium in the past, and he has a strong interest in aquaculture.
This way, their study, as well as the supporting evidence upon which it is based, can be thoroughly reviewed by a panel of expert peers before being published. This makes a lot of sense. Peer-review helps to iron out any actual errors or omissions, large or small, before the paper makes its way into the public domain. In science, there are very, very few Galileo moments, but lots and lots of people who are convinced they are the next Galileo.
[b]So in a nutshell it appears it’s just another in a long list of dodgy climate scientists wheeled out by deniers as evidence that the whole of the scientific community are wrong.
This is how it works if you are a denier and you are looking for evidence to back up your bias...you qoute blogs, you tube interviews and non-peer reviewed (except by the GWPF) papers.[/b]
Shall I start quoting Greta Thunberg?
Ha, the number of blogs, youtube vids, and non peer reviewed stuff going round promoting the AGW scare story are vast.
Do you worship at the alter of Greta? It would explain a few things.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
https://youtu.be/Esl4CpPmClw
Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Well it would do were the individuals concerned qualified in climate science.Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Their “peer reviewed” papers are, as usual, not actually peer reviewed at all. Drop by their website and you yourself can apparently “peer review” their offerings.
<snip>
Shall I start quoting Greta Thunberg?
The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
jet_noise said:
Look harder.
The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
...and is rather a good example of why peer review shouldn't be blindly trusted. Nonsense can get sometimes through peer review. It's just a first pass "should I even be arsed to read this?" filter.The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
paper said:
This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate.
Nope. GCM's are not a linear extrapolation for a start.He has changed the units of the flux error he has quoted from the Lauer paper. He has decided it is ±4 Wm-2 per year for some reason. It's stupid. The magnitude of the uncertainty he calculated is entirely dependant on this time period.
Lauer, Axel, and Kevin Hamilton. "Simulating clouds with global climate models: A comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data." Journal of Climate 26.11 (2013): 3823-3845.
hairykrishna said:
jet_noise said:
Look harder.
The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
...and is rather a good example of why peer review shouldn't be blindly trusted. Nonsense can get sometimes through peer review. It's just a first pass "should I even be arsed to read this?" filter.The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
paper said:
This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate.
Nope. GCM's are not a linear extrapolation for a start.He has changed the units of the flux error he has quoted from the Lauer paper. He has decided it is ±4 Wm-2 per year for some reason. It's stupid. The magnitude of the uncertainty he calculated is entirely dependant on this time period.
Lauer, Axel, and Kevin Hamilton. "Simulating clouds with global climate models: A comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data." Journal of Climate 26.11 (2013): 3823-3845.
hairykrishna said:
jet_noise said:
Look harder.
The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
...and is rather a good example of why peer review shouldn't be blindly trusted. Nonsense can get sometimes through peer review. It's just a first pass "should I even be arsed to read this?" filter.The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
And on the "not qualified" discussion point:
Climate science, as other sciences, uses methods from many disciplines, not just atmospheric physics. e.g. statistics, control theory to pick two that attract particular criticism. It seems to me that experts (if such is important to your POV) in those disciplines may be able to make very valid assessments of issues in fields in which they have less knowledge.
paper said:
This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate.
Nope. GCM's are not a linear extrapolation for a start.He has changed the units of the flux error he has quoted from the Lauer paper. He has decided it is ±4 Wm-2 per year for some reason. It's stupid. The magnitude of the uncertainty he calculated is entirely dependant on this time period.
Lauer, Axel, and Kevin Hamilton. "Simulating clouds with global climate models: A comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data." Journal of Climate 26.11 (2013): 3823-3845.
And less seriously:
"is rather a good example of why peer review shouldn't be blindly trusted"
You'll be a sceptic yet
jet_noise said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
https://youtu.be/Esl4CpPmClw
Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Well it would do were the individuals concerned qualified in climate science.Don't know if this information has been posted before but appears interesting.
Irish scientists debunking Man Made Climate Change.
Their “peer reviewed” papers are, as usual, not actually peer reviewed at all. Drop by their website and you yourself can apparently “peer review” their offerings.
<snip>
Shall I start quoting Greta Thunberg?
The paper is formally published and peer reviewed here AFAIK.
hairykrishna said:
jet_noise said:
The author is open to and indeed encourages questions. Dive in here
I note that Nick Stokes and others have already attempted to get the author to address the point I made without a great deal of success. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff