Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Global Warming Denial.

William of Walworth said:
Denialist papers are so shot full of holes (and are not properly peer reviewed either) it's not true.
.
Click to expand...

You're just pulling stuff out of your ass!:D

Something tells me that you haven't canvassed every 'denialist' paper, to determine if it is peer reviewed or not.

Given that you don't know this for sure, why would you say it?
 
Umm, I have read the very few denialist papers that made it through peer review. It doesn't take long because there really aren't that many of them.

If you'd like me to link the evidence demonstrating that they're bullshit, just name one and I'll oblige.
 
William of Walworth said:
Your hatred of Gore blinds you to the far greater charlatanry and downright lies of people such as Martin Durkin and all his crew. You can't use Gore to discredit the SCIENCE -- argue the point with free spirit and Bernie, I'm not here from now on for a few days ....
.
Click to expand...

I don't hate Gore: how can you hate a buffoon, really?

But as for the Gore/science connection, he uses the science in dodgy ways, or states pseudo scientific 'facts' that don't stand up to scrutiny.

He's a scaremonger, and because he's suave and presentable, you and many others, swallow the hook.:) Just like politics, innit? You're swayed by the image, just like the Daily Mail readers/voters.:)
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Can I just say, I know laptop in the real world and can vouch for what he's saying here.
Click to expand...


That makes me feel better.

62tweedledum.jpg
 
The challenge stands JC. Produce a denialist paper that passed peer-review and I'll explain why it does not demonstrate that say the IPCC 4th report is wrong.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Umm, I have read the very few denialist papers that made it through peer review. It doesn't take long because there really aren't that many of them.

If you'd like me to link the evidence demonstrating that they're bullshit, just name one and I'll oblige.
Click to expand...

Go back to the articles I cited in the 32,000 thread.

You didn't debunk them then. Have you come up with something new in the last two weeks?
 
Can't find any? All your sources turn out to be dodgy Exxon PR front groups?

Come on JC, you should be able to produce at least one peer-reviewed paper that supports your case ...
 
Oh come on JC. If your case as any merit there must be loads of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support it.

Of course if there aren't that does rather tend to lend weight to the suggestion that actually this is all a bunch of Exxon-sponsored PR bullshit and that it is not supported by any actual peer-reviewed science doesn't it?
 
Signal 11 said:
bigfish said:
David Evans
Click to expand...
Debunked here.
Click to expand...

OK, some risk of outing one of my selves here, but would out the outer too...

Cutting and pasting from my response to the person who raised David Evans' bollocks on 30 July:


There's a point-by-point response to Evans on realclimate.org - catchline "Climate science from climate scientists" - at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...posphere-trends/index.php?p=581#comment-93077

This refers to a realclimate feature on the stratospheric *cooling* expected with increasing CO2 levels, and observed:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

And there's condensed discussion by Tim Lambert (a computer scientist):

http://climate.weather.com/blogs/9_16418.html

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/


And the issued on which Evans bases his claims are discussed in general terms on


http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths

at

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11660
Click to expand...
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Does this mean you post under different names? Why do you do that?
Click to expand...

Now I know that either you only play a lawyer on the interwebs, or you only do conveyancing in Podunk, IL: that's feeble.

No, I only post under one name here, fool, because those are the rules here.

In Real Life™ I have several selves. All under the same name, as it happens, but distinct.
 
laptop said:
Now I know that either you only play a lawyer on the interwebs, or you only do conveyancing in Podunk, IL: that's feeble.

No, I only post under one name here, fool, because those are the rules here.

In Real Life™ I have several selves. All under the same name, as it happens, but distinct.
Click to expand...

aka: crazy.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
The challenge stands JC. Produce a denialist paper that passed peer-review and I'll explain why it does not demonstrate that say the IPCC 4th report is wrong.
Click to expand...


Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here are many "Peer-Reviewed" articles that should end the belief that "the debate is over" about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts.....and that is putting it politely.

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Give us a shout if you need anymore.
 
bigfish said:
Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
Click to expand...


Yet more evidence that bigfish doesn't even read, yet alone understand, the links his PR masters provide for him to post :D

Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of approx87 and approx210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html
Click to expand...


We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.abstract
Click to expand...


1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Click to expand...

Three entirely different discussions of ~10^3 year cycles, then, none having anything at all to say in their abstracts about the greenhouse effect.


So. Bigfish. Proponent of new theories, bearer of the burden of providing evidence for these. Obsessive about others' qualifications. Your experience and qualifications, please?
 
bigfish said:
You'll be linking to (sur)realclimate next.
Click to expand...


So let's record this moment.

Bigfish is mocking realclimate.org as a source of summaries of climate science - on the grounds that it is edited and moderated by, er, climate scientists.

Savour this thought:

Apparently, you must not listen to people who disagree with bigfish/marlin - because they know what they're talking about.





So. Bigfish. Proponent of new theories, bearer of the burden of providing evidence for these. Obsessive about others' qualifications. Your experience and qualifications, please?
 
bigfish said:
Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here are many "Peer-Reviewed" articles that should end the belief that "the debate is over" about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts.....and that is putting it politely.

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Give us a shout if you need anymore.
Click to expand...
Well now, that's a really interesting mixture of stuff. I can see a number of categories there:

Actual peer-reviewed scientific papers that don't call into question AR4

Reviews of Al Gore's film which have nothing to do with correctness of AR4

Policy articles like that 'Kyoto has failed' one in Nature which doesn't call into question AR4 but does question whether politicians are doing enough about it.

Papers appearing in social science journals like Energy and Environment (which is edited by a contrarian social scientist) rather than actual science journals.

Actual peer-reviewed scientific papers addressing open questions acknowledged to be such by AR4, especially around the impacts of warming.

Mildly contrarian papers by real climate scientists from a very long time ago.

The Soon and Balunias article that got published in Climate Research, by an editor who is now a professional contrarian, despite overwhelmingly negative peer review and causing the entire editorial board to resign in protest and start writing letters of protest in the major journals.

Muliple citations, as though each were a separate peer-reviewed scientific paper, of every single contrarian reply in the letters pages of journals in which controversies about contrarian stuff (e.g. the Climate Research article mentioned above) have been discussed.

It's a bit of a mess really, but as always with contrarians, the point is to mislead, not to clarify. The technique is nicely summed up by the guys at Realclimate discussing a similar use of one of the authors cited above.

In trying to make the point that the "anthropogenic hypothesis" (that humans are influencing climate) is controversial, Corbett cites a recent EOS article. In that article, Wally Broecker and Thomas Stocker contest the idea that humans began significantly influencing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations thousands of years ago. But nowhere do Broecker and Stocker ever question that humans are the chief cause of rising CO2 since the industrial era began (i.e. around 1850).

Wally Broecker is one of the world's most respected climate scientists. Citing one of his papers (or anyone's paper) as if it made a point that it most certainly did not — and with which Broecker would disagree completely — is poor scientific practice, and is very misleading, at best.
Click to expand...
source
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well now, that's a really interesting mixture of stuff.
Click to expand...

Try this one "Doc" - the 3rd one down and predictably omitted from your cherry picked list.

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
Richard A. Kerr

Most scientists have viewed the sun's unvarying brightness as the one constant in the ever-changing climate system. Now, in a paper published online this week by Science (www.sciencexpress.org), paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b


Another one from IAHS

On the credibility of climate predictions / De la crédibilité des prévisions climatiques
Author(s): D. Koutsoyiannis 1 | A. Efstratiadis 2 | N. Mamassis 3 | A. Christofides 4

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
Click to expand...

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671


Or you can have ago at this PNAS paper from Lindzen.

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
Richard S. Lindzen

The realistic physical functioning of the greenhouse effect is reviewed, and the role of dynamic transport and water vapor is identified. Model errors and uncertainties are quantitatively compared with the forcing due to doubling CO2, and they are shown to be too large for reliable model evaluations of climate sensitivities. The possibility of directly measuring climate sensitivity is reviewed. A direct approach using satellite data to relate changes in globally averaged radiative flux changes at the top of the atmosphere to naturally occurring changes in global mean temperature is described. Indirect approaches to evaluating climate sensitivity involving the response to volcanic eruptions and Eocene climate change are also described. Finally, it is explained how, in principle, a climate that is insensitive to gross radiative forcing as produced by doubling CO2 might still be able to undergo major changes of the sort associated with ice ages and equable climates.
Click to expand...

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335.abstract

Let me know if you need further assistance identifying the bleedin' obvious wont you?
 
The first one is about solar variability and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas forcings, as is obvious even from your own quoted summary.

Second one appears to be muddle-headed quibbling about computer models. I'll let the guys at Realclimate sum it up
So what did Koutsoyiannis et al do? They took a small number of long station records and compared them to co-located grid points in single realisations of a few models and correlate their annual and longer term means. Returning to the question we asked at the top, what hypothesis is being tested here? They are using single realisations of model runs, and so they are not testing the forced component of the response (which can only be determined using ensembles or very long simulations). By correlating at the annual and other short term periods they are effectively comparing the weather in the real world with that in a model. Even without looking at their results, it is obvious that this is not going to match (since weather is uncorrelated in one realisation to another, let alone in the real world). Furthermore, by using only one to four grid boxes for their comparisons, even the longer term (30 year) forced trends are not going to come out of the noise.
Click to expand...
source

Third one is an ancient paper by Lindzen suggesting some hypothetical mechanisms for climate regulation which would imply lower sensitivity. Those hypotheses were tested years ago by Hansen et al and didn't pan out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2hats
Aeolus - global wind monitoring satellite
Replies
2
Views
501
TheHoodedClaw
TheHoodedClaw
weltweit
Solar Impulse plane doing epic global flight
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
150
Views
8K
2hats
2hats
frogwoman
could the earth get like venus because of global warming?
Replies
26
Views
1K
Crispy
Crispy
F
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Replies
5
Views
690
Dr Jon
Dr Jon
H
How to avoid waking up because of warm room?
Replies
9
Views
615
Ax^
Ax^
Back
Top Bottom