AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Those are very, very rare people. What I'm seeing is anyone that doesn't jump on board with "The Day After Tomorrow Mentality" is labeled a denier. That's whacked!! There's no denying that humans have raised C02 levels & that it has indeed contributed to the warming of the globe; however, if you think that seeing a carbon footprint behind every hurricane, tornado, flood, heat wave, cold wave, High Pressure ridge, El Nino, La Nina...then you're all on your own. Science IS NOT on your side. Most skeptics are only skeptical of painting the worst possible outcome or at least expressing extreme confidence in the certainty of the worst possible outcome. Most skeptics are also very honest about our while we've learned much the last century about climate we are still very ignorant. Our ignorance of natural climate drivers is well documented & it limits our ability to know just how much we humans have screwed with the climate. Sorry but that relationship is simply not possible. Think of the butterfly effect and how sensitive the Earth System is to long-term continued inputs. Every event that happens is a product of climate change, period. Even if it may resemble the old climate, which it often does. The inertia keeps the system similar but it's not the same, don't be fooled. I've only heard discussions about the above bolded in mass media and Michael Mann interviews. I'm unaware of any scientific studies that attempt to evaluate AGW contribution to individual weather events. Don't be slanderous, don't be deceptive. If you don't know, it's okay to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The following is a small sampling of the peer-reviewed literature which finds ECS values of 1.5C or lower. Below I've attached several studies alongside their corresponding ECS projections. As I noted earlier, there are at least 20 others which find 1.5C or lower (at least that I'm aware of - there are probably more). ECS 1.35C: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3706 Ugh, Energy & Enviroment is not a good publication to cite from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Social science is an interesting field but has no place in climate studies. This is because you often have the humanitarian signal getting in the way and bringing out emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 "The journal Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_and_Environment Given the above, I'll assume that any reasoning for your statement is simply that you disagree with that study's conclusions. Whether you think the journal is good or not is unimportant. The fact remains that the above studies are peer reviewed, and that was the point I was arguing in the prior pages. Great post, thanks for the links to these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Ugh, Energy & Enviroment is not a good publication to cite from. While I agree, that alone doesn't refute any of the science published there. It's important to critique the science itself, rather than the source. I've read a few decent papers in E&E myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sorry but that relationship is simply not possible. Think of the butterfly effect and how sensitive the Earth System is to long-term continued inputs. Every event that happens is a product of climate change, period. Even if it may resemble the old climate, which it often does. The inertia keeps the system similar but it's not the same, don't be fooled. I've only heard discussions about the above bolded in mass media and Michael Mann interviews. I'm unaware of any scientific studies that attempt to evaluate AGW contribution to individual weather events. Don't be slanderous, don't be deceptive. If you don't know, it's okay to admit it. How sensitive the earth system is? I'm glad you're enlightened enough to solve a tough issue...that of Climate sensitivity. FWIW, IPCC has lowered its take on ECS 3 times over 20 years. There is a reason they've done that. We really just do not know...but I'm glad you've solved it that climate sensitivity is VERY high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I don't agree. My only take-away from the article is that E&E is being attacked for allowing papers to be published which do not fit the agenda of the accusers. It proves nothing pertaining to the science of paper(s). Furthermore, if anyone truly believes that there aren't journal editors who purposely exclude papers with low sensitivity conclusions, then they're very naïve. Some of the science that's come out of E&E has been pretty bad. Let's not forget the iron Sun debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 "The journal Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_and_Environment Given the above, I'll assume that any reasoning for your statement is simply that you disagree with that study's conclusions. Whether you think the journal is good or not is unimportant. The fact remains that the above studies are peer reviewed, and that was the point I was arguing in the prior pages. From your own link, "The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen ... states elsewhere 'I'm following my political agenda' " So you don't think that the editor of a journal who publically admits to following a personal political agenda is a problem for the credibility of a journal? But we can also look at it another way. Journals are judged by their Impact Factor that measures how useful to the body of scientific knowledge papers from that journal are. This includes, among other things, how many times those papers are cited in other research papers. Energy & Environment has an Impact Factor of 0.410. As a comparison, Nature has an Impact Factor of 42.351. So it is the opinion of other scientists that there isn't much good science coming from that journal. There is a difference between peer-reviewed and pal-reviewed. E&E is definately a pal reviewed journal. If you do a little more web searching on this journal, you will find that there are papers that passed the "peer" review of Energy & Environment that have basic math errors and other basic science gaffs, like one paper that claims the sun is made of iron. So you are free to assume that the reson for my statement is that I disagree with the results, but the real reason is because that journal has shown time and time again that it cannot filter out the bad science from the good. Therefore, all papers in that journal are suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I don't agree. My only take-away from the article is that E&E is being attacked for allowing papers to be published which do not fit the agenda of the accusers. No, it is being attacked because it has a history of publishing papers that are wrong. From the first article I linked to, Roger Pielke Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, said he regrets publishing a paper in the journal in 2000 – one year after it was established and before he had time to realise that it was about to become a fringe platform for climate sceptics. "[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor's political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet," Pielke says. "If I had a time machine I'd go back and submit our paper elsewhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 It's one of those fringe journals that is biased and funded by a concoction of right-based organizations. We want unbiased studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Regardless of what the mainstream opinion is of this journal and some of it's other studies, there hasn't been a paper released refuting or discrediting the work of the paper I posted, to my knowledge. Every paper with a different ECS is refuting that paper. That's how science works. If other scientists aren't referencing that paper, then they have not found it's results compelling. I noticed you didn't address the other studies I listed above that were not published in E/E. What's your opinion on those? The opinion of many on the board was that virtually no peer reviewed studies existed with ECS at or below 1.5C. I haven't had a chance to review them yet, so I cannot comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 ECS 1.1C: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012.html[/size] From your link: "Review Status: This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Climate of the Past (CP). A final paper in CP is not foreseen." This paper did not pass peer review and was never published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I see Isotherm has gone back and deleted all his posts regarding low ECS numbers. I assume that is because he determined those papers were of low quality. I would have preferred that he left his posts up so that the discussion is not so disjointed now, but I do appreciate that he has learned from his mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-behind-the-floods-in-texas-and-heat-in-india/ So, no mention of the current El Niño being a factor at all? Even the alarmists have to admit that this is a gross misrepresentation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-behind-the-floods-in-texas-and-heat-in-india/ So, no mention of the current El Niño being a factor at all? Even the alarmists have to admit that this is a gross misrepresentation! The media is the last source anyone should go to for attribution studies. Or even their interpretation of published attribution studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 A lot of attribution studies are also future predictions and not empirical. You'll see a study that says "X type of weather could become more common in the future" and the media will determine that means that the current weather event is already due to climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I see Isotherm has gone back and deleted all his posts regarding low ECS numbers. I assume that is because he determined those papers were of low quality. I would have preferred that he left his posts up so that the discussion is not so disjointed now, but I do appreciate that he has learned from his mistakes. No. Rather than debate / engage the science presented in the papers, you / others immediately rushed to attack the credibility of a journal which hosted one of the studies I posted. It's apparent that many here are not willing to even entertain scientific papers that deviate from their current mindset. That mindset is further evidenced in your reply above: you assume that low sensitivity papers are of low quality without having thoroughly examined the studies. It's pointless to post studies if no one intends to actually critique/address them for the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 No. Rather than debate / engage the science presented in the papers, you / others immediately rushed to attack the credibility of a journal which hosted one of the studies I posted. It's apparent that many here are not willing to even entertain scientific papers that deviate from their current mindset. That mindset is further evidenced in your reply above: you assume that low sensitivity papers are of low quality without having thoroughly examined the studies. It's pointless to post studies if no one intends to actually critique/address them for the science. No, I assumed that the papers you posted were low quality because I actually took the time to look at them, and found them to be low quality. I was slowly working my way through your list because I am interested in reading how the low sensitivity was determined. But I am not going to waste my time reading papers in politically-motivated "journals," or papers that did not pass peer-review for whatever reason. Perhaps some of those papers you posted were solid science in real peer-reviewed journals. But since you have your take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude, instead of engaging in a constructive discussion of the topic, I will never know. It was you who intially asserted that there were dozens of papers that supported your position of low ECS, so it is up to you to prove your case. You have clearly not done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 No. Rather than debate / engage the science presented in the papers, you / others immediately rushed to attack the credibility of a journal which hosted one of the studies I posted. It's apparent that many here are not willing to even entertain scientific papers that deviate from their current mindset. That mindset is further evidenced in your reply above: you assume that low sensitivity papers are of low quality without having thoroughly examined the studies. It's pointless to post studies if no one intends to actually critique/address them for the science. I looked at the abstracts and didn't see anything that makes me want to read further. Why should I go to the trouble of reading and critiquing obscure papers. Would be much easier if you summarized the key science in the papers that supports low sensitivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 It's one of those fringe journals that is biased and funded by a concoction of right-based organizations. We want unbiased studies. And likewise those with left based organizations....so what are some fringe left biased journals in your mind?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 No, I assumed that the papers you posted were low quality because I actually took the time to look at them, and found them to be low quality. I was slowly working my way through your list because I am interested in reading how the low sensitivity was determined. But I am not going to waste my time reading papers in politically-motivated "journals," or papers that did not pass peer-review for whatever reason. Perhaps some of those papers you posted were solid science in real peer-reviewed journals. But since you have your take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude, instead of engaging in a constructive discussion of the topic, I will never know. It was you who intially asserted that there were dozens of papers that supported your position of low ECS, so it is up to you to prove your case. You have clearly not done that. Since responses to my list thus far were only negative and in reference to EE's credibility, I was under the impression that no one had any interest/intention in actually examining the science of the papers. Given you're claiming that is not the case, I will repost the links here. I've eliminated the paper which was not accepted from COP, and replaced it with another one. It's difficult for me to believe that you've concluded the papers are of low quality this quickly, but here they are: And additionally, I've already demonstrated that there are more low ECS studies in existence than most folks thought. ECS 1.35C: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3706 ECS 1.1C: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3b7otVla9qgJ:www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ECS 1.5C: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7554 ECS 0.6C: http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162 ECS 0.6C: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 No, I assumed that the papers you posted were low quality because I actually took the time to look at them, and found them to be low quality. I was slowly working my way through your list because I am interested in reading how the low sensitivity was determined. But I am not going to waste my time reading papers in politically-motivated "journals," or papers that did not pass peer-review for whatever reason. Perhaps some of those papers you posted were solid science in real peer-reviewed journals. But since you have your take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude, instead of engaging in a constructive discussion of the topic, I will never know. It was you who intially asserted that there were dozens of papers that supported your position of low ECS, so it is up to you to prove your case. You have clearly not done that. And one last point regarding "politically motivated journals." Let's say you happen to correct with that accusation -- even if that were the case, it's far from the only journal guilty of imperfect objectivity or bias. It's difficult to find any source that could be considered to possess perfect objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 And likewise those with left based organizations....so what are some fringe left biased journals in your mind?? There are none because they are all 100% true and spoken from God's mouth, duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 There are none because they are all 100% true and spoken from God's mouth, duh! That would be the Ted Cruz church, also known as the Heartland Institute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 It's difficult for me to believe that you've concluded the papers are of low quality this quickly, I had only determined the first two were low quality, because those were the only ones I had looked at so far. Thanks for reposting the list, I will continue to go through them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 And one last point regarding "politically motivated journals." Let's say you happen to correct with that accusation -- even if that were the case, it's far from the only journal guilty of imperfect objectivity or bias. It's difficult to find any source that could be considered to possess perfect objectivity. Correct, it is not the only one. But some do a better job at objectivity than others. I prefer to stick with the ones who have proven over time that they are trying to be objective. That's why I look at the reputation of the journal first, if I'm not already familiar with it. If it appears to be objective an properly peer-reviewed, then I take the time to read the paper and try to understand it. There is a lot of junk out there that is purposely made to look like it is "real science," when, in fact, it is a product created to put forth a certain point of view. With how easy it is to make something "look" legitimate on the internet, it really pays to make sure you're not being duped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 ECS 0.6C: http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162 Another Energy & Environment paper. I'm not sure why it also appears in an unknown journal called "Development in Earth Science." Usually journals don't let papers get published in more than one journal because it dillutes their "brand" and makes it diffcult for people to find or reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm not sure what's the point of discussing a paper with an ECS under 1.5C. Unless you don't believe the surface temperature record, any value under that doesn't even match reality. We are currently 0.9C warmer than preindustrial times. Unless you think warming stops now abruptly for decades... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm not sure what's the point of discussing a paper with an ECS under 1.5C. Unless you don't believe the surface temperature record, any value under that doesn't even match reality. We are currently 0.9C warmer than preindustrial times. Unless you think warming stops now abruptly for decades... You can argue it if you can prove that as much as half of the warming since that time was not anthropogenic. I don't find those arguments very convincing, mostly due to empirical energy budget papers....but you can certainly believe the temperature record and also believe an ECS under 1.5C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now