quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

New paper, published in nature climate change claims the probably of catastrophic global warming is much less than claimed by IPCC:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-rules-out-catastrophic-global.html

And a second paper accounts for 96% of climate variation using 11 factors. Of which CO2 is one. Quoting
"Climate sensitivity, the response of the carbon cycle and aerosol effects remain highly uncertain"

Ah but so much for settled science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie



"Jane, you IGNORANT SLUT!!!!!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

New paper, published in nature climate change claims the probably of catastrophic global warming is much less than claimed by IPCC:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-rules-out-catastrophic-global.html

And a second paper accounts for 96% of climate variation using 11 factors. Of which CO2 is one. Quoting
"Climate sensitivity, the response of the carbon cycle and aerosol effects remain highly uncertain"

Ah but so much for settled science.

You fool.

It's one blog citing a periodical and linking instead to a blog, and the piece on the other blog cites the same periodical and links back to the same blog. You've been had.

So much for "sources."

"Jane, you IGNORANT SLUT!!!!!"

Apparently you lack the skill to get to the actual abstracts. Not my issue.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

Second source, as listed above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

Any post with a picture that was posted after my warning, that was too large, has been deleted. If your post is gone, you now know why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So let me see if I get this straight, articles disputing climate change written by a man with absolutely no training in the field of climatology even going so far as to say that 97.7% of climatologists who repeatedly published peer reviewed articles (reviewed by noted members of the field) are wrong and doing their research wrong and basically that the climate data should come from rocks and not ice cores is correct?

And the "peers" that reviewed his work are all climate change deniers means they are objective? FYI here is the total number of peer reviewed papers written by climate change deniers
Here is a study on just the peer reviewed papers about cliamte change, showing 97% support climate change and mankind's involvement
Did you know that papers published denying AGW numbered exactly 1, papers supporting the AGW theory totaled a couple of more, like 8,999 more.

Now, find 9000 published articles denying AGW and we have a debate, as it is now, it is a battle of wits and the deniers are unarmed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

AGW stands for Anthropogenic Glogal Warming, essentially human driven climate change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So let me see if I get this straight, articles disputing climate change written by a man with absolutely no training in the field of climatology even going so far as to say that 97.7% of climatologists who repeatedly published peer reviewed articles (reviewed by noted members of the field) are wrong and doing their research wrong and basically that the climate data should come from rocks and not ice cores is correct?

And the "peers" that reviewed his work are all climate change deniers means they are objective? FYI here is the total number of peer reviewed papers written by climate change deniers
Here is a study on just the peer reviewed papers about cliamte change, showing 97% support climate change and mankind's involvement
Did you know that papers published denying AGW numbered exactly 1, papers supporting the AGW theory totaled a couple of more, like 8,999 more.

Now, find 9000 published articles denying AGW and we have a debate, as it is now, it is a battle of wits and the deniers are unarmed.

What the fuck is AGW?

Jlf, I think I can guess from the above where you stand on this issue. Without links, Phydeaux, what are your thoughts on this subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And here is a journal entry documenting how Australia's 'adjustments' to land based temperature sites increased global warming 40%...
In other words, adjustments account for 40% of the observed warming in australia. The same neat technique that nasa did .. although less pronounced.


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Uh, so you care to explain why in one year, 1 paper was written to deny climate change, and 9000 peer reviewed articles were written supporting AGW?

2) Peer reviewed usually means "objectively reviewed" so how does papers against AGW reviewed by groups who deny AGW qualify as objectively reviewed?

3) what about this that disputes your stand that the 97.7% is wrong?

4) Out of objectively peer reviewed papers written against AGW, the total is 1350 over a ten year period, this included the year that 9000 peer reviewed papers supporting AGW were published.

And you maintain that the thousands of peer reviewed articles are wrong, and those 1350 are correct?

You are aware that there is a history who followed the same logic. Every one of G. A. Custer's scouts told him the Sioux/Cheyenne camp was bigger than he thought, he told them to leave the column because they were cowards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So let me see if I get this straight, articles disputing climate change written by a man with absolutely no training in the field of climatology even going so far as to say that 97.7% of climatologists who repeatedly published peer reviewed articles (reviewed by noted members of the field) are wrong and doing their research wrong and basically that the climate data should come from rocks and not ice cores is correct?

And the "peers" that reviewed his work are all climate change deniers means they are objective? FYI here is the total number of peer reviewed papers written by climate change deniers
Here is a study on just the peer reviewed papers about cliamte change, showing 97% support climate change and mankind's involvement
Did you know that papers published denying AGW numbered exactly 1, papers supporting the AGW theory totaled a couple of more, like 8,999 more.

Now, find 9000 published articles denying AGW and we have a debate, as it is now, it is a battle of wits and the deniers are unarmed.

What the fuck is AGW?

Jlf, I think I can guess from the above where you stand on this issue. Without links, Phydeaux, what are your thoughts on this subject?

JLf - I don't understand the essence of your comment.

a). Most of the articles I posted were from the vostok (et.al) ice cores.
b). People that believe in AGW say that the studies debunking the 97% figure can't possibly be correct since they are not done by climate scientists.

But thats much like the pot calling the kettle black - since the authors of the 97% figure - both Orestes (2004) and Cook (2011) NEITHER one of them are climate scientists, either. And since when does a speciality in climate science necessary for statistics or textual analysis.

But even THATS beside the point. The figure is a complete fraud - and bollux. Out of 12000 papers (cook) surveyed, only 60 odd strongly endorsed AGW. Thats 1% - not 97%.

But even accepting that - read this critic from Marcel Crok:

"Now here comes the misleading part. If an abstract/paper “endorses AGW”, what would this mean for most people? Let’s look again at the tweet of Obama: “#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”. If this is what it means for the president of the US, it probably means the same for many citizens who heard the news in the media. However, can this be sustantiated by the survey results? In no way.

To the credit of the researchers they made all their results available in a searchable database. Their rating system is online as well. There are 7 levels of endorsement, going from quantified endorsement of AGW all the way down to a quantified rejection of AGW. Seems fair enough. But here is the issue. Only the first category can be regarded as a real or strong endorsement of AGW. Here is the description of category 1:

1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification
1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
1.2 Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement – that would be implicit.

Now specifically look at 1.1. This comes close to the iconic statement from the IPCC AR4 report which said that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Now if 97% of the abstracts would repeat in slightly varying terms this major conclusion, than at least the conclusion of the survey would be more or less fair. However the survey doesn’t come even close.

Brandon Shollenberger, who is guest blogger at The Blackboard, was the first who reported that actually only 65 papers have been rated “category 1″. Yes that’s right, only 65 abstracts clearly “mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)”. 65 on a total of 12,000 is 0.5%. So a completely fair conclusion from their survey is that only 1 in 200 abstracts explicitly mentioned that humans are dominating climate. If you ignore the 8000 papers that were labelled category 4 (neutral, meaning having no position on AGW) the 65 would be 1.6%. The paper reported that only 78 papers (1.9% if you ignore the 8000 neutral abstracts) rejected AGW. (to be fair, as you can see in the table below only 10 papers fall in category 7 and therefore (7.1) “explicitly reject or minimise anthropogenic warming with a specific figure”.)

Now where is the 97% endorsement of AGW coming from? What the authors did is to add up the numbers of category 1 to 3 and of the category 5 to 7 which I show below*:

Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4: 8261
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
Total: 12271

As you can see the 78 “rejection of AGW” abstracts are the added number of category 5-7. Category 1-3 together adds up to 3932 papers. This 3932 divided by 4010 (the total of category 1-3 + 5-7) gives their impressive 97% (with the above numbers it is even 98%, see * for more explanation about how these numbers were found). However of these 3932 abstracts 2933 (75%) fall in category 3. Now how strong is the endorsement of AGW in this category? Here is the description:

3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)

I like 3.2: “endorse that GHG’s cause warming”. I also strongly agree with this part of 3.5: “implying warming from CO2″. The meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75% of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to climate change” or “imply warming from CO2″.

The misleading part is that they didn’t specify this result in their paper. Nowhere in their paper or in the supplementary material they even mentioned the total numbers in the different categories like I did in the simple table above. They only showed the total of category 1-3 in their figure 1(a):



Even the other >24% of AGW endorsement (based on the 4010) in category 2 is pretty meaningless:

2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification
2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change as a given fact.
2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity relegates to implicit endorsement.

In a comment under his post Shollenberger nicely explains who the different categories skew the result towards “endorsement of AGW”:

To give an example, if we say, “Humans are responsible for 40% of global warming,” that puts us in the bottom category. Change the number to 60%, and suddenly we’re in the top category. But what if we don’t give a number at all? If we just say “Humans cause some global warming,” we could be supporting a value 20% or 90%. Despite being able to support either position, we’d land in the top categories. That means the results will automatically be skewed toward the top."

c). I've previously provided links to studies that show just exactly how deceptive the Cook (and other) studies were.
Peiser for example. Or the American Thinker critique.

d). In fact Cook found more papers that rejected AGW outright (78) than supported it explicitly (60).

e). Cook claimed to find only 78 papers - when popular technology lists over 1250, and the NGIPCC maintains a library of over 10,000.

More importantly - the very methodology is fatally and fundamentally flawed. People that conduct skeptical science aren't going to used the words "global warming" - they're going to do studies on "ionizing radiation and the aerosol forcing effect". In other words - these papers will be completely (deliberately) missed.

f). More importantly, the number of lead authors of the IPCC report - and other experts that reject the notion of consensus is large and striking:

"One of the biggest lies of the AGW alarmist camp has been that virtually all scientists of any stature and expertise support the claims of AGW activists. Only old dinosaurs unfamiliar with modern climate research or corrupt scientists bought off by the fossil fuel industry disagree, goes their argument. The truth is strikingly at odds with this claim. As we noted last year (“'Climate Science' in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda") two of the most important AGW scientist activists have jumped ship and now battle against the cause they once supported: James Lovelock (photo above), the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis; and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a founding father of Germany’s environmental movement and a director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies. But that dynamic duo comprises only a minute fraction of the thousands of distinguished scientists who take issue with the AGW activists. In the same article last year, we noted that some of the IPCC’s severest critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science. Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC’s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as:

• Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences;

• Mike Hulme, professor of climate science at East Anglia University where the Climategate e-mails were hacked;

• Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

• Dr. John Christy, climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;

• Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;

• Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;

• Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;

• Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and

• Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.

In 2010, Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com published an important 321-page report featuring the statements of more than 1,000 renowned scientists worldwide who have challenged the IPCC’s manmade global-warming claims. (The full report may be downloaded for free, as a PDF, here.) The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community. It includes:

• Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;

• Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University;

• Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace;

• Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

• Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

• Dr. Hans Jelbring, Swedish climatologist of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University;

• Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;

• Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and founding director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;

• Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; and

• Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.

And if still more proof is needed that the science is not “settled” — as Al Gore, the IPCC, the UN, and other members of the alarmist choir claim — more than 31,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject the types of actions that have been proposed at UN forums in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, and Rio. The Petition Project, organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates a resounding rejection of claims that there is any kind of "overwhelming consensus" that anthropogenic global warming is a crisis or serious threat.The petition reads, in part:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Uh, so you care to explain why in one year, 1 paper was written to deny climate change, and 9000 peer reviewed articles were written supporting AGW?

2) Peer reviewed usually means "objectively reviewed" so how does papers against AGW reviewed by groups who deny AGW qualify as objectively reviewed?

3) what about this that disputes your stand that the 97.7% is wrong?

4) Out of objectively peer reviewed papers written against AGW, the total is 1350 over a ten year period, this included the year that 9000 peer reviewed papers supporting AGW were published.

And you maintain that the thousands of peer reviewed articles are wrong, and those 1350 are correct?

You are aware that there is a history who followed the same logic. Every one of G. A. Custer's scouts told him the Sioux/Cheyenne camp was bigger than he thought, he told them to leave the column because they were cowards.

That's the point, isn't it. He's not interested in the science; he's interested in finding whatever he can that supports his (uninformed) opinion.

Even linking to blog posts labelled "a paper published in" as if they were peer-reviewed.

He's gullible, dishonest, or both. And once busted, stubborn--he'd insist the sun weren't shining on a bright summer's day if he'd previously predicted clouds.