New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

[Dan J 277]

You posted this article before. If you remember, this guy who wrote the article is a PR guy for the Republicans.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Do you take all PR releases as truth?

[HAL 9000 96]

So looking at the evidence in paper 1 (Heat Capacity) sponsored by BNL:

1. Too much energy is spent making mathematical models based on assumptions based on previous evidence from further assumed observations (modeled data based on microexperiments). In other words, its like making conclusions for the area of a patterned behavior based on (out of a possible 100 data points) using 20 data points. Furthermore, the doubts that arise in the author's own words as to the uncertainty of the possibility that the conclusions are flawed is addressed by the proposal of a secondary model based on linear calculus that takes its variables as those assumed data points that may not fit into the calculus-based model to begin with once all data points are considered.

Now, the author further mentions unequal temperature variations over short term time periods that do not infer climactic shifts but rather weather patterns. Filters that remove (defined by the researchers) events in weather changes are applied in this study that I do not understand, but the author chooses to follow that data that is filtered out according to these criteria- not necessarily something that would be set in stone per se. Then the strength of the time filters are adjusted for longer periods of time (like a century). Hence, the data obtained from these mathematical models is not necessarily consonant with that obtained for shorter periods of time (comparing short year-long weather change with 100-year old weather changes).

While the author begins a discussion as to possible sources of error in their findings. The data that mathematically supports the GW argument, if applied to the mathematical equations developed by the author, actually supports the perpetuation of the GW from the scientific point of view. The author further goes on to use the data points that do not support the GW argument, and voilà... no mathematical support. Plus the error-uncertainty values themselves are beyond the limit of acceptability for proper validation of a scientific model. I also loved how (see fig 2) showed the depth temperature values over time by decade for ocean depts of 300m + but the author's assertions were based on half that depth, and the UPWARD trend in the data, although as shown is not accurate since the data is not normalized to baseline fluctuations at the same time integrals.

Its a scientific comparison of apples and oranges.

Figure 5 was more dead on... and yet again the trend shows the increase in red ink. With a 1:1 relationship between time constancy and temperature increase.

Overall the paper was good in quality but lacking in a proper alignment of real, available data, with the development of yet another mathematical model to interpret certain parts of the data, but not all.

That is the real problem then isn't it? The lack of real data causes some scientists to build on models rather than facts. So the errors get amplified and that is the basis of the wildly different results. One of the things that causes me pause is the reliance on computer modeling that results in conclusions. The outcome is only as good as the model created, the factors taken into account and the completeness of the data used. The old garbage in garbage out line. As I understand the scientific method, conclusions should be based on accurate experiments and not on theoretical models. I see to many papers that use simplistic modeling that doesn't take the whole picture in. We don't really understand all the factors that could effect that outcome and we cannot accurately get a complete data set of the factors we know of.

Please keep reading. I appreciate your insight.

I actually assumed you'd reply exactly that way. It is not that the errors get amplified. Its that some scientists choose to cherry pick what they want to analyze. We need to completely account for all data available, and that is something that unfortunately not all scientists are taking into account. As a result, we have public realities constructed based on incomplete science.

Theoretical models, when developed accurately, can be far more powerful than the variability obtained from researcher-led fishing trips. This is called computational science and some models are a hit while others are not.

Link 3. National Review... not exactly a scientist's idea of a neutral interpreter.

Link 4 is Dr. Carter's opinions in testimony. Funny he mentions three realities when it comes to climate reality- scientific, virtual, and public. I think you, reader, would benefit by understanding that understanding in itself is derived from those three in 3 very different ways. When we hear from one, and do not understand what is really said, false conclusions can arise. Dr. Carter needs to understand that his own public reality is constructed from cherrypicked science that he wants to believe above the rest of science's conclusions.

Link 5. Dr. Carter again telling all about his public reality opinion.

Link 6. Public reality being used in lieu of scientific reality. I also love the theme from Mark Twain: "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get."

The problem is that these folks think that weather is climate, and that is something that has been defined repetitively.

Link 7. Opinion refuting IPCC as all the other opinions above.

Link 8. An appalling misrepresentation of scientific findings risen to scandalous proportions, not surprising in any way.

Link 9. Here we clearly have an example that many critics of the GW argument do so out of sheer ignorance in what climate really is. Weather prediction and forecasting relies on previous weather patterning, not on climate for a given region. It is clearly obvious and logical to conclude then, that the combination of natural and artificial causes of weather change are in themselves proof positive that we are contributing to weather change. The research should then be dedicated to the threshold point at which these effects will become permanently climactic until its mechanisms of balance can kick in. Well after measurable human lifetimes.

Link 10. Not found.

I understand what you are saying. The arguments are not persuasive as of yet. But has any of what you have read so far given you reason to rethink the conclusions of the pro-GW? Everything I posted was from the point of view that the conclusions of the majority may have it wrong. I understand that tends to cast doubt on their objectivity. If I were to post papers that come from the pro-GW perspective I would imagine that you would see the same bias coming from the other side and some of the same problems you have with these papers would apply to those. I have been following this argument since the 70's when the consensus was we were heading to a new ice age. I have watched it evolve into the GW arguments we have now. The political bias from both sides is very hard to filter out.

Very good points Gary.

I am also confident we can find scientific flaws of the statistical kind in the "pro-GW" papers. Nevertheless, their statistical relevance (aka errors and uncertainty) are MASSIVELY less. In other words, accepted analysis of variance and significance state (at least from some of the papers I've looked at) that the data obtained by more responsible scientists point to the validity of their conclusions.

Their basis is set on repeated, inclusive data collection- not assumptions.

[GaryC 7]

Very good points Gary.

I am also confident we can find scientific flaws of the statistical kind in the "pro-GW" papers. Nevertheless, their statistical relevance (aka errors and uncertainty) are MASSIVELY less. In other words, accepted analysis of variance and significance state (at least from some of the papers I've looked at) that the data obtained by more responsible scientists point to the validity of their conclusions.

Their basis is set on repeated, inclusive data collection- not assumptions.

I have by no means read everything that has been published so I will grant you that point. But I have read many papers that conclude that GW is real and man is causing it that have the same kinds of assumptions that your pointing out here. I really wish I could start over and become a climate scientist because it's hard for me to recognize what is backed up with facts and what isn't. But in my own way I have studied the problem and see enough evidence to warrant my skepticism of the dire predictions for our planet. Please continue with your views as you have the time to read. I have an entire folder of bookmarks of papers on GW. I would love to have an ongoing discussion on the subject. It's time to put the political rhetoric aside and just talk about it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, while I commend you for your passion on wanting to prove your view about GW is right, why not take a class at a local college on environmental science where you'll be confronted with the right kind of data and analysis? And who knows, you might get into a few lively discussions with your professor.

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 16. A Repeat.

Link 17. Marc Morano's holy crusade once again. Another blog post that paraphrases incorrectly the statistical relevance of published research supporting via conclusions the accepted precepts of its science. What one defines as catastrophic climate events is contingent on our interpretation of what threshold values to accept or reject.

Link 18... More debating of the argument for sake of argument while ignoring the science. This is really parallel to the elections process in the USA.

Link 19. I'd love to know what pass filters they used to collect their data. It is most likely influencing their predictions model.

Link 20. Sun again.

Link 21. My interpretation could be wrong... but its argument relies on discarding CO2 as a contributor as a net effector on temperature when it is in fact known to be an effector. We want to know whether or not its effecting (yes/no) vs we want to know how much its effecting (+/-). Different questions that often are misquoted.

Link 22. Cosmic radiation again.

Link 23. Another blog posting from folks that ensure their own hysterical pro-industrial agenda by trying to debunk artificial factors that lead to temperature increases via the seed of doubt.

Link 24. The Sun once more.

Link 25. A critique against a Science paper... wow. It even brings into analysis Russia's Lake Baikal- the world's deepest lake... yet no mention that it is also heavily polluted. We need to be careful how we choose to refute scientific observations by not including our own scientific completeness in the arguments we try to use as evidence.

[HAL 9000 96]

Very good points Gary.

I am also confident we can find scientific flaws of the statistical kind in the "pro-GW" papers. Nevertheless, their statistical relevance (aka errors and uncertainty) are MASSIVELY less. In other words, accepted analysis of variance and significance state (at least from some of the papers I've looked at) that the data obtained by more responsible scientists point to the validity of their conclusions.

Their basis is set on repeated, inclusive data collection- not assumptions.

I have by no means read everything that has been published so I will grant you that point. But I have read many papers that conclude that GW is real and man is causing it that have the same kinds of assumptions that your pointing out here. I really wish I could start over and become a climate scientist because it's hard for me to recognize what is backed up with facts and what isn't. But in my own way I have studied the problem and see enough evidence to warrant my skepticism of the dire predictions for our planet. Please continue with your views as you have the time to read. I have an entire folder of bookmarks of papers on GW. I would love to have an ongoing discussion on the subject. It's time to put the political rhetoric aside and just talk about it.

Absolutely Gary. I highly encourage you to follow your heart and take a class or two in environmental sciences. Hopefully you'd end up with a professor that encourages critical questioning as that is what science is about.

One thing that must also be remembered is that just because its published doesn't make it set in stone. In fact, we'd be out of jobs if that were the case for those of us that rely on answering questions in research.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Try this, Gary... online environmental science courses.

http://www.worldwidelearn.com/online-cours...ment-course.htm

[LuzyC 0]

Sorry, I didn't see my wife had logged in.

Link 16. A Repeat.

Link 17. Marc Morano's holy crusade once again. Another blog post that paraphrases incorrectly the statistical relevance of published research supporting via conclusions the accepted precepts of its science. What one defines as catastrophic climate events is contingent on our interpretation of what threshold values to accept or reject.

Link 18... More debating of the argument for sake of argument while ignoring the science. This is really parallel to the elections process in the USA.

Link 19. I'd love to know what pass filters they used to collect their data. It is most likely influencing their predictions model.

Link 20. Sun again.

Link 21. My interpretation could be wrong... but its argument relies on discarding CO2 as a contributor as a net effector on temperature when it is in fact known to be an effector. We want to know whether or not its effecting (yes/no) vs we want to know how much its effecting (+/-). Different questions that often are misquoted.

Link 22. Cosmic radiation again.

Link 23. Another blog posting from folks that ensure their own hysterical pro-industrial agenda by trying to debunk artificial factors that lead to temperature increases via the seed of doubt.

Link 24. The Sun once more.

Link 25. A critique against a Science paper... wow. It even brings into analysis Russia's Lake Baikal- the world's deepest lake... yet no mention that it is also heavily polluted. We need to be careful how we choose to refute scientific observations by not including our own scientific completeness in the arguments we try to use as evidence.

Just a thought about link 20. It has been shown that the sun goes through both long and short period variations. From what I have seen of the man made GW arguments they tend to ignore the sun as a factor. It seems to me that since all of our heat energy comes from the sun it should be factored into any discussion of GW. Also our orbit around the sun varies in cycles and I don't see much discussion with that.

About link 21. I wouldn't completely discount CO2 as a factor but I have seen several papers that make an argument that CO2 is a lagging indicator rather than a cause for warming. That makes sense in the way a warmer planet will produce CO2 from ocean evaporation. I would have to look it up but I remember a chart showing that CO2 in the atmosphere was still going up when the last ice age started. That seems counter intuitive if CO2 were the cause of warming. I also don't understand how CO2 could be the cause of warming since global temps went down during the 70's and temps have started to flat line in the last 10 years while CO2 levels continue to rise. There are factor in play that are not being taken into account.

Edited April 3, 2008 by LuzyC

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

oops wrong id gary

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

oops wrong id gary

that's become as famous as almaty's double posting

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 26. The commentator attempts to normalize data from this century to that of the (same as in paper #1) assumed temporal constant for much longer temporal epochs. Scientifically this is apples to oranges, mind you. All analysis as stated in the last 2 paragraphs (mathematically done appropriately) are good, however they are flawed because of the initial assumptions in equating historically incongruous data. At a p value of 0.01, it would be convincing to almost anyone having rudimentary understanding of statistics... but again, statistics can be molded even by mistake.

Link 27. Interesting. Not particularly relevant but if the observations are correct we will see some continually strange weather patterns up ahead.

Link 28. Mr. Avery (Fred Singer's State Department buddy) asks why a (questionable) rise of 0.2 degrees C over the last 65 years and "no net rise" over the last 8 is such a big deal. I can answer that one but I doubt that he'd understand that he refers to mean temperature and not actual fluctuating extremes that arise as a result of our pushing. Also, he probably hasn't noticed what we have done as a race to curtail the release of CO2 and other environmental polluters. Its been what... nearly 20 years since we started doing serious things little by little... and hopefully NOW, we may be seeing part of the positive effort.

Link 29. Ah... climate change (atmospheric) data vs... ground level data. Weather (and climate) is primarily affected by higher atmospheric layers that are coincidentally colder, not hotter than our layer.

Link 30. Repeat of more of Mr. Conklin's skepticism.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sorry, I didn't see my wife had logged in.

Link 16. A Repeat.

Link 17. Marc Morano's holy crusade once again. Another blog post that paraphrases incorrectly the statistical relevance of published research supporting via conclusions the accepted precepts of its science. What one defines as catastrophic climate events is contingent on our interpretation of what threshold values to accept or reject.

Link 18... More debating of the argument for sake of argument while ignoring the science. This is really parallel to the elections process in the USA.

Link 19. I'd love to know what pass filters they used to collect their data. It is most likely influencing their predictions model.

Link 20. Sun again.

Link 21. My interpretation could be wrong... but its argument relies on discarding CO2 as a contributor as a net effector on temperature when it is in fact known to be an effector. We want to know whether or not its effecting (yes/no) vs we want to know how much its effecting (+/-). Different questions that often are misquoted.

Link 22. Cosmic radiation again.

Link 23. Another blog posting from folks that ensure their own hysterical pro-industrial agenda by trying to debunk artificial factors that lead to temperature increases via the seed of doubt.

Link 24. The Sun once more.

Link 25. A critique against a Science paper... wow. It even brings into analysis Russia's Lake Baikal- the world's deepest lake... yet no mention that it is also heavily polluted. We need to be careful how we choose to refute scientific observations by not including our own scientific completeness in the arguments we try to use as evidence.

Just a thought about link 20. It has been shown that the sun goes through both long and short period variations. From what I have seen of the man made GW arguments they tend to ignore the sun as a factor. It seems to me that since all of our heat energy comes from the sun it should be factored into any discussion of GW. Also our orbit around the sun varies in cycles and I don't see much discussion with that.

About link 21. I wouldn't completely discount CO2 as a factor but I have seen several papers that make an argument that CO2 is a lagging indicator rather than a cause for warming. That makes sense in the way a warmer planet will produce CO2 from ocean evaporation. I would have to look it up but I remember a chart showing that CO2 in the atmosphere was still going up when the last ice age started. That seems counter intuitive if CO2 were the cause of warming. I also don't understand how CO2 could be the cause of warming since global temps went down during the 70's and temps have started to flat line in the last 10 years while CO2 levels continue to rise. There are factor in play that are not being taken into account.

Sure. We can account for the Sun as a natural effector of weather patterns.

As for CO2, its not about what factors contribute. Its about knowing that it IS a contributor. And global temperatures... again, lets think of the measurement accuracy and location...

[LuzyC 0]

oops wrong id gary

that's become as famous as almaty's double posting

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 31. Not there.

Link 32. Doubt about mathematical modeling. OK with that. The responsible thing to do is to continue researching.

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

Link 34. Not there.

Link 35. Not there.

Link 36. Not there.

Link 37. A nitpick of what data to consider relevant and what threshold data could be used as cause for concern.

Link 38. Criticizing IPCC.

Link 39. Same critique from Marc Morano's crusade by rehashing the same irregular conclusions. This is why these scientists are labeled irresponsible- not for their questionable personal beliefs but for their irresponsible use of incomplete data.

Link 40. I loved the following:

The National Centre for Public Policy Research asserts, "Based on 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32% across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:

• Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20% and 50% higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.

• Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25% and 64% higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.

• Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10% to 55% at elevated CO2 levels.

• Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18% to 75% under elevated CO2 conditions.

• Legumes, including peas, beans and soybeans, post greater yields of between 28% and 46% when CO2 levels are increased."

Yes, genius (Dr. Ball). Obviously he didn't quite pay attention during his biology class. Plants USE CO2 as food. More CO2 -> more glucose -> more biomass (plant).

This is why this rationale will help us when we want to terraform, say, planet Mars.

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 41. Well of course! We humans were such a major part of life on the planet 550 million years ago. And there it is... at up to 18 times the concentration of atmospheric CO2 compared to today... the earth warmed drastically. So its proven... CO2 IS a contributor to warming. That's the top end of the spectrum that starts at the lab greenhouse.