So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm?


#82

Before you start commenting on “the real world” you might first try living IN the real world.


#83

The contents of the article are basically good,but their HEADLINES are false since the original author who made the 400 papers post never said it was a “myth” or that it “debunks climate change alarm”.

I think this is what triggered csbrown28 to write the way he did,but he is wrong too since those 400 papers make clear the science is NOT settled,that what the IPCC and those misleading scientists have stated in the media are wrong.

Here is what the ORIGINAL post at No Tricks Zone (NTZ),where the 400 papers post originated from,states:

400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

“During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 418 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.”

LINK

Then after those postings at WUWT and Breitbart showed up with bad headlines,Kenneth Richards (NTZ) made a new post to respond to the reactions of the bad headlines:

Deconstruction Of The Critical YouTube Response To Our 400+ ‘Skeptical’ Papers Compilation

"Below is a commentary addressing the YouTube response to the late October Breitbart headline that claimed the 400 papers (now 415) compiled here at NoTricksZone say that “Global Warming Is A Myth“.

While the headline at Breitbart was presumably assembled for the expressed purpose of attracting readership (mission accomplished, if so), it will be explicitly stated here that this compilation certainly does not assert that “Global Warming Is A Myth”. It isn’t. Large regions of the Earth have undergone a warming trend in the last century, rising out of the depths of the Little Ice Age.

It is also true that these papers are not claimed to literally “debunk” any positions currently held by those who advocate for the main “consensus” positions related to anthropogenic global warming. That particular d-word was used in another headline. Instead of using such ambitious and affirmative language, the nuanced words used to describe what this list is proposed to accomplish were carefully chosen so as not to assert it does more (or less) than actually claimed."

LINK

The now 418 papers does indeed cast skepticism on the overblown claims of CO2 being the main climate driver,which is mathematically/statistically IMPOSSIBLE!


#84

Mr,csbrown28,

He he, your comment about Mr. Borg was dishonest since he was talking about a TWO year period,where indeed it was flat,note that he made this comment in year 2008,while your chart goes one for another 9 nine years AFTER he made the statement. for two years he was correct,but wrong over all since the trend has been a gradual increase over many years before he made the statement and afterwards too.

Please don’t do that again.Making profoundly dishonest claims like WUWT and Breitbart did,muddies up the picture.


#85

Yes, that’s called cherry-picking the data. When you try to make it seem, in this case, where a two year period represents the overall trend, which in this case, was increasing both before, and after, he made his comments.


#86

Mr. csbrown, your argument is faulty since you completely left out what the IPCC predicted for Per Decade temperature trend,which is based on the AGW hypothesis. Hardly anyone is disputing that warming has been going on since the mid 1800’s. What most skeptics dispute is that CO2 is the main driver of the warming which is silly since it it started warming in the late 1600’s,slowly at first,while CO2 level in the air STAYED the same until the late 1800’s, a 190 year gap.

The 1990 IPCC report stated:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)…"

LINK

a .30C per decade they state,what is the reality since 1979,1990 trends?

1979 UAH, a .15C per decade trend.

CHART

1990 UAH, a .15C per decade trend

CHART

Not even close!

You and many others apparently have no idea how little CO2 absorbs OUTGOING IR,which alone destroys the absurd, “CO2 is the main driver of climate”, bullcrap. It is STUPID because CO2 only covers about 5% of the IR window in the first place,it is funny that warmists mostly ignore the other 95% of the IR outflow since CO2 doesn’t touch it at all.


#87

Oh please, you ignored the part I pointed out that he made this statement in October 2008,during that small time when it was indeed flat for two years. The very last two years up to his statement How can that be wrong?

I pointed out that he was wrong over all,how come you missed that part?


#88

csbrown,

peer review is a vastly overrated process,since there have been buckets of papers RETRACTED because they were found to be junk or fraudulent. From Retraction Watch:

LINK

Don’t be so sure that what is published as a “peer review” is actually good. Too many times they were LATER found to be bad.


#89

You obviously aren’t reading all of my replies to this thread or you’d already know how I’m going to respond.

  1. Yes, it’s true that being peer reviewed does not mean the work in question is supported by the evidence
  2. Papers that are retracted are retracted because other people in the field have found mistakes and pointed them out (this is an example of how peer review works.
  3. It is only when a paper is cited as the basis for other work and is confirmed via experiments that it gains increased explanatory power.

But you’re not really interested in seeking the truth. You interested in discrediting an entire body of work because you either, don’t understand it, or it conflicts with what you believe.


#90

Because he didn’t phrase it the way you are. He was asking why no one considered it substantial that no one had been reporting on that period. But periods like that are not only explainable but expected and if he knew anything about climate science (not what he spends his time trying to understand) he’d already know that.


#91

The North and the Wegman reports showed that Dr. Mann’s paper was statistically faulty. That Dr. Mann’s use of Bristlecone Pine tree ring data are not useful for temperature trends. Later D. Mann published a later paper RESTORING the MWP and LIA, which is a conflict with his junk 1998 paper.

The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies

Question for you brown, where is the source for the Bristlecone Pine tree ring data, that Dr. Mann improperly used for his absurd paper? I give you a hint,it wasn’t temperature data…

Meanwhile there is an explosion of new science papers showing NO Hockey Stick shape and shows the obvious MWP and LIA, which was absent in that 1998 junk paper,which was for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE only.

Update: The 2017 Explosion Of Non-Hockey Stick Graphs Continues

"It was four months ago that an article entitled 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming appeared on this website. The article received international attention and was “shared” tens of thousands of times.

In the last 4 months, 40 more graphs taken from 30 more new peer-reviewed scientific papers have made their way into the ever-growing volume of evidence that today’s climate is not only not unprecedented or unusual in the context of the last millennium, but modern temperature values are still among the coldest of the last 10,000 years.

In other words, there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about today’s climate. Modern temperatures are still well within range of what has occurred naturally.

The roughly 3 dozen papers and graphs that have appeared in the scientific literature since the original list appeared 4 months ago are shown below."

LINK


#92

csbrown,

is already getting puffy about what I post here,which is interesting because I am trying to be fair in my replies using credible sources. Meanwhile this reply he makes indicate that he doesn’t really understand why “peer review” system is not doing well. He still doesn’t realize how many published papers are later to be found without merit, waaaay too many since the bad papers gets read and cited by others who are now on the wrong track,which compounds the problem in the long run.

Rachel Carson badly mangles the DDT history with her shoddy claims against it. The damage was done because too many people went with her many times unsupported and even lying claims. Now DDT is slowly making a comeback as the science behind it has been strongly supportive of using DDT. It was never anywhere close to be so bad to the environment,as Rachel claimed. The damage from just one person is enormous as millions suffered or died because DDT was not allowed to be used.


#93

Sort of, in the past, it’s started with some other change. Those changes have released CO2 wich in turn began a feedback loop.

I don’t have the IPCC report in front of me and you didn’t link it, but ususally reports like that state that there are variabiles they cannot predict, like the suns output for instance. The Sun’s output had been steading or rising to through 1980, yet since 1980 the suns output has been declining, something the IPCC at the time wouldn’t have known reliabily.

Usually, long-term predictions have a “cone of error” sort of like a hurricane prediction. My guess is the prediction you’ve cited is probably the statistical average, but I bet if you read the report, the current rise is within the margin for error, on the low side, which is perfectly in line with what we’d expect given the suns falling output.

Do I? Now, I’m not a scientist, but if you are claiming that people that study the physics of such a thing are all baffled about CO2 and how it absorbs energy, I’d suggest that the only one that’s clueless here is you.

The fact that you cited weather from 1600 and pointed out that it started warming before CO2 concentrations began to increase only shows your ignorance. We know there are lots of contributing factors in climate. The Sun, the orbit of the earth, several ocean cycles, gasses that absorb heat, particulates in the air…

What you’re essentially unable to grasp is the equivalent of leaving your front door open in the winter and being surprised that it’s cold in the house even those the heat is all the way up. When your wife points out that it’s cold because you left the door open you scoff at her and remind her how last July the door was open all the way and not only was it colder, but it was hotter!


#94

From an Atmosphere Physicist who state what is so easy to find on the internet, is that CO2 in the main band absorbs around 5% of the outgoing IR.

"Let’s look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called “greenhouse effect”

CHART

“As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”

LINK

If you had bothered to look up the spectrum then see where the absorption bands of CO2 are in it,you will see large parts of the window not covered by it at all,here is a good chart showing it:

CHART

Notice that most of the main Terrestrial IR outflow is OUTSIDE of the main CO2 absorption band?


#95

Added the link,thanks for pointing it out.

The 1990 prediction I quoted is correct and based on emission scenarios at the time. You were shown this,

“Based on current model results, we predict:”

The Models are based on EMISSION scenarios,


#96

You are being hilarious, since the CO2 level stayed around the 280 ppm level from 1700 to 1880,when it then started going up. No feedback loop for the first 180+ years. Since it is obvious something other than magical CO2 a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range caused the warming for 180 years,maybe it continues to be that cause to this day…

Here is a data based chart showing the large temperature swings during the Holocene while CO2 stayed right around the 280 level,this is over 10,000 years of it

CHART

LINK to the post


#98

Since csbrown brought up “peer review” in his post #15, and since his charge that @Pappadave doesn’t understand “peer review” would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic, let’s take a close look at the peer review sacred cow:

First of all, the phrase “peer review” as it applies to studies is actually a misnomer. Those that examine studies for the accuracy and quality necessary for publishing in journals are known as “REFEREES”, and the study/paper is REFEREED, NOT PEER REVIEWED. The phrase “peer review” applies to the scrutiny necessary for FUNDING OF GRANTS.

If a scientist submits an application for a GRANT, to say, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health, then that application is PEER REVIEWED. If a scientist submits a study/paper for publication in, say, the journal Nature, then that article submission is REFEREED.

But the phrase “peer review” has become recognized by the unwashed masses . . . and csbrown . . . as what’s done to studies/papers in journals, so many editors use the phrase “peer review” and we’ll use “peer review” for purposes of this conversation (even though it’s not accurate).

And csbrown “understands” peer review? Give me a break . . .

Peer review became popular only in the past few decades, although it was used going all the way back to the mid 1600′s. That recent popularity is NOT based on any new notion that peer review enhances the credibility of a paper, but rather relieves overworked journal editors of the burden of reviewing thousands of papers (see my fourth and last FACT below.)

Now let’s take a look at some of the less well known facts, flaws, and criticisms of peer review. (And I suspect some of these are what @Sunsettommy was referring to when he said “peer review is a vastly overrated process”)

FACT: Watson and Crick’s breakthrough on DNA was NEVER subjected to peer review.

FACT: Many papers that have been cited in work that won Nobel Prizes were originally rejected by peer review.

FACT: Edward Jenner’s paper on vaccination for smallpox was rejected by some peer review people.

FACT: In 2013, some 10,952 papers were submitted to the journal Nature. In 1997, there were only 7,680 submissions.

Reviewers seem biased in favor of authors from prestigious institutions (the “halo effect”). In a study in which papers that had been published in journals by authors from prestigious institutions were retyped and resubmitted with a non-prestigious affiliation indicated for the author, not only did peer reviewers mostly fail to recognize these previously published papers in their field, they recommended rejection.

The chairman of the investigating committee of the Royal Society told a British newspaper in 2003, “We are all aware that some referees’ reports are not worth the paper they are written on. It’s also hard for a journal editor when reports come back that are contradictory, and it’s often down to a question of a value judgment whether something is published or not.”

He also pointed out that peer review has been criticized for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit“.

In one study, researchers deliberately inserted errors into a manuscript, and referees did NOT detect some of them. (Oooops . . . “peer reviewers” in csbrown’s usage.)

The deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association once said, “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

The editor of the British medical journal The Lancet once said: “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability . . . not the validity . . . of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

Competitors are often chosen as peer reviewers. Might a competitor be inclined to unfavorably review a submission and then steal the idea for him/her self? The irresistible opportunity to put a spoke in a rival’s wheel?

Peer review in journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared and the process is not designed to detect fraud. It assumes ALL scientists are integral, IOW not subject to human flaws. A peer reviewer must preserve scholarly integrity by rising above the three deadly sins of intellectual life: envy, favoritism, and the temptation to plagiarize. That is NOT some kind of a “global conspiracy theory”, it is just a simple account of human nature. Are not scientists part of the human race, or are they angelic?

Peer review is under reconsideration even within the heart of establishment scientific publishing. And that is NOT because of the “internet”:

NONE of the items (criticisms of peer review) I listed above have ANYTHING to do with the Internet.

But the most damaging criticism of peer review may be that which is exemplified by the cloning hoax of Hwang Woo Suk.

Hwang submitted a paper to the journal Science which was later found to be hugely fraudulent. Of course, it passed peer review. It could NOT have been duplicated simply because the results were totally fabricated. In this case, DUPLICATION, NOT peer review, would have uncovered the hoax. One of the many disadvantages to the modern obsessive attention on PEER REVIEW (and csbrown seems to have that obsession . . . more on his denial of that in a second) is the emphasis it places on that peer review TO THE EXCLUSION OF CONFIRMATION BY REPEATED EXPERIMENTS. Often, a paper will be perceived as not needing duplication if it “passes” the PEER REVIEW threshold.

Finally, on this notion of peer review, most journals maintain peer reviewers in anonymity, and the identity of a peer reviewer is a closely guarded secret, generally held ONLY by the journal chief editor (who is the one who decides what gets published, NOT the scientific community). Peer reviewer identities are not normally published (there are exceptions). Consequently, one CANNOT normally see who a peer reviewer was, whether or not he/she is a competitor, and perhaps more importantly, WHERE he/she draws financial support from. The only thing you DO see is that the article got published, which means it passed peer review.

The anonymity of peer reviewers contributes to the “Oz-behind-the-curtain” effect: Reviewers that work anonymously have a greater opportunity to act arbitrarily. The REVIEWEE has no comparable curtain to stand behind. Basically, the REVIEWER can take potshots at the REVIEWEE with NO accountability.

So much for hanging your hat on peer review.

Now let’s get ready for the “I never said peer review was weighted heavily in my evaluations . . . or that it was perfect . . .” dance.

No, it’s just the FIRST thing you look at:

I give “peer review” little, if any, weight. It is definitely not the “first” thing I look at.

@csbrown28 gives it more weight than it warrants:


Wait a minute . . . wait a minute . . .

You mean you’re hanging your hat on the education system we all know is heavily leftist, especially at institutions of higher “learning”?

Lemme’ get this straight.

When Trump makes a mistake, it’s a lie . . . but when your AGW guys make a mistake, it’s “genuine”?

Oh, before I forget, I was hoping Sunsettommy would show up. His rebuttals of the AGW . . . people . . . are good reading. The guy knows his stuff, and can run circles around the AGW . . . people.


#99

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=372604


#100

Heh, from the comments: 42 Climate : a complex system where the only thing that really changes is our misunderstanding of it.

Also, link for the original article that prompted the blog post: https://scienmag.com/researchers-pin-down-one-source-of-a-potent-greenhouse-gas/


#101

Assuming these articles are correct, something I haven’t confirmed, but let’s just say they are. The real issue here is the rate of change, right? I mean, if microbes make methane or they don’t, they’ve been making that methane at the rate they’ve been making it all along. As it’s become warmer more snow melts and more wetlands are exposed and more methane is released. This is just classic feedback effect.


#102

It means the models are based on inaccurate data. Methane is 30 times (approximately) the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, and global climate change models could be accounting for only 1/6 of it. Which means the warming from methane is perhaps as much as 6 times what the models say it is. That’s a pretty significant error. And this is naturally occurring methane, not a result of any human activity. What else has been missed? But tell me again how the “science is settled”.