You can’t expect to be taken seriously when the bulk of the scientists you “cite” don’t practice science in the discipline they’re challenging.
Unfortunately, none of the authors listed who wrote the paper have any of the necessary qualifications to comment on climate science. And they are misleading the reader when they say the paper underwent a peer review process–again, none of the folks listed in the journal are competent to comment on climate science.
I’m just using common sense…
Put it another way, would you want a new technique in brain surgery to be peer reviewed by a bunch of atmospheric scientists? If you argue yes, then you don’t understand what peer review means.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons isn’t listed in any major academic literature databases. That’s a red flag right there. Is it a vanity publication? Or a thinly disguised political, religious, or conspiratorial journal?
Thumbing through some of the back issues of the JAPS, (“HIV does not cause AIDS”, “The FDA is unconstitutional”) convinces me that it belongs in the realm of crackpot journals.
I’m just using common sense…:rolleyes:
I’m not dismissing their data, I’m objecting to Skeptical Science’s interpretation of their data! The very first paragraph of the Skeptical Science article refers to Roger Pielke Snr’s statement that global warming hasn’t been occuring since 2004. It then goes on with a “rebuttal” showing data series starting in 1955 and 1994, all showing the long-term upward trends… and all with a leveling off at around 2004. The rebuttal complains that Pielke used only one data set (Josh Willis’ ARGO data) and somehow misses that their seven Lyman data sets and the Levitus data set show exactly the same feature they are trying to rebut!
I’d have been a lot more impressed if Skeptical Science had simply acknowledged that the flattening of the ocean heat content trend was reproduced across various studies. THEN they could have made the point that the timescale was pretty short for jumping to conclusions, and possibly also that the energy flows in the climate system are incompletely understood.
Oh, a correction to a previous post: the Levitus and Lyman sets DO in fact match up fairly well. The pronounced “step” around 2002-2004 in Levitus is also mostly present in the Lyman plots, somewhat reduced in visual impact by the change in the axes.
Why did Mars (no Martians pumping out CO2) show warming in the 1980-2000 time interval?
And (when corrections are made for the 'heat islands effect", do land temperatures show no rise from 2002 onwards?
If these compuer models are robust and accurate, they should have predicted this…why not?
Can you explain why one would need to correct for this?
Do they? Can you cite that?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
I’m with you, and remain with you on your comment about (3): “So experiment and observation might just falsify the current belief that the amplifying feedbacks give us a problem. Not holding my breath.” But you’re glossing over the key point I want a specific detail on: you write that “even a 30 year flat spot or cooling will not falsify (1) and (2)”, and that experiment and observation might falsify (3); how many years of a flat spot – or cooling – would falsify (3)?
Or would the concepts underpinning global warming remain unfalsified – for (1) and (2) and (3) – even after a 300-year flat spot, or 300 years of cooling? Does the data matter at all? Are any falsifiable predictions being made about global warming?
Asking for “falsifiable predictions” is the only way I can tell whether you’re doing science. You’ve just said that if the world heats up for 30 years, you’ll call it global warming – and if we instead get 30 years of cooling, you’ll call that global warming – and if we hit a 30-year flat spot, you’ll call that global warming. And someone who rails against global cooling could show the same blithe indifference to data, likewise handwaving away pesky questions by saying that “falsifiable predictions” don’t particularly help us at the moment. How would I know which of you to side with?
I think you are complaining too much. The overall point stands, the efforts of some skeptics are really underhanded and are giving cover to inaction, Roger Pielke Snr’s statement is tailor made to that effect and so the rebuttal does include the overall picture. The kicker is that even when considering the leveling off, there was significant warming and it remains an ugly fact that going for so few years should not allow one to be so certain on claiming there has been no warming, that does ignore the noise issue and the reason why decadal or longer term views are important.
I’m happy to consider decadal or longer term views; as we’re well past one decade and most of the way to two decades, just how much longer of a term do you have in mind?
Ah the old Mars Attacks! point.
Still a fun point, but a silly one.
Those on the right value private property rights above all other rights. A serious effort to stop global warming will place more restrictions on private property rights.
Also, the right maintains that the goal should be economic growth, rather than economic redistribution. Efforts to stop global warming will place more restrictions on economic growth, until green sources of energy become economically competitive with fossil fuels.
If it becomes generally accepted that economic growth is problematic, there will be more interest in economic redistribution.
There are three reasons I believe in man made global warming. First, it is so plausible. When the dinosaurs lived on this planet the climate was warmer. Ocean levels were higher. Much of what is now the United States is under water. It is easy for me to understand that over many millions of years carbon was taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis, and deposited as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. consequently, the planet cooled. By consuming fossil fuels we are reversing the process, and restoring the climate that existed when the dinosaurs lived.
Second, during my life time I have noticed milder winters and warmer summers. This summer is the hottest one I remember.
Third, the consensus of the experts is that global warming is real. On any complex issue I believe the consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong.
See also Post 25.
Still, Mars Attacks links are appreciated.
Private property rights and personal liberty are inseparable.
Loss of private property rights and economic redistribution. Now you are getting to the heart of the climate change agenda WRT politicians.
Note this link
The White Mountains are located in the eastern-central California. Note that there is a rise in daytime temperatures and even a more pronounce rise at night.
And the temperatures keep rising after 2002.
The thing I notice first is that this scientific article uses the word alarmist in almost every paragraph.
Slant much?
Tris
Really? so when is New York going to be underwater. I want to buy land at higher elevations as a hedge against inflation.
Seriously, how many years do we have to listen to the doomsday predictions before we move on to the next crisis.
What doomsday predictions? Many, Many times me and others have told you that the effects will be bad but we could minimize them if we planned ahead and prepared for the coming disruptions.
In the past we also pointed out that guys like Lovelock (of the Gaia hypothesis) are the ones alarming people about a doomsday, but even the climate researchers do not respect him. But since many on the right even deny that there is a problem then not even preparations to adapt will be in place.
The “doomsday” will be self imposed and there was no need for that.
The people on the right don’t think it’s a problem because of basic common sense.
Technology has advanced exponentially throughout history. It will continue to do so in the future. We do not need to panic and buy into the Al Gore fright-fest because it will happen naturally with little effort on our part.
Quote:
Technology has advanced exponentially throughout history. It will continue to do so in the future. We do not need to panic and buy into the Al Gore fright-fest because it will happen naturally with little effort on our part.
This is one problem I have with the global warming lunatics. Why do the high priests of this cult (Gore, Clinton, etc.) carry on as if their own enormous energy use is unimportant?\Gore has several enormous mansions…including a beach house in California. He probably generate a carbon footprint equivilent to 3000 ordinary people. Clinton likes to fly around on private jets-not a good example for one who preaches the "green"life.:smack: