Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
Dear Larry, I am pointing out that even a peer reviewed article *concerning* peer reviewed articles can contain erroneous data and conclusions.
One study, especially one which so strongly refutes practical experience, intuition, and previous research and which covers such a limited time frame, cannot be allowed to stand on its own. (Or two or three, in the case of clones and Korean nationalist interests).
Wait a month or so, watch for corrections, as in the case of the Oreskes article and the buzz in the appropriate professional circles.
The issue is not whether we're professionals, so my bachelor of science in environmental engineering signed by Ronald Reagan plus my decades of work with a US federal meteorology section aren't the problem.
This article says that the cause of recent global temperature increases is manmade CO2 and not fluctuations in solar activity. The journalists did not shown their numbers. We presented measurements refuting the idea.
The proceedings of the Royal Society are primarily intended for working professional scientists...but anyone who wants to pay can gain access. Comparing this publication to Times Select is disingenuous (and I'm being quite generous here). A fairer comparison is to Stratfor, or analytic journals intended for business professionals.
The abstract cannot be ignored. It is serious science.
Several errors in just those two sentences ...
Gee. And the “article puts to rest the whole sun-warming theory”, eh? And article written by, as larrylib so eloquently puts it, “by professionals.” Who are not “in it for the money or idealism” (unlike everybody else in the global warming crowd), but who do charge very high prices for their product. Gee. Who would have thought?
See, I understood that the EARTH’S magnetic field helped shield us from the SUN’S (and other star’s!) cosmic rays, (note that the earth’s magnetic field is reducing and moving as we apparently are swapping north magnetic poles again!), and that the cosmic ray-influence on cloud formation tracks very, very closely with measured temperatures over the past 30 years.
See, what the original sun-level studies measured (what MIGHT be measured in this study- we can’t tell because the greedy scientists won’t tell us!) was solar (visible) radiation, not solar & stellar cosmic ray radiation.
While CO2 levels don’t track (they precede temperature changes) temperatures at all. Even in the short terms trends, CO2 levels don’t track with temperatures: temps for 8 years have declined since 1998’s peak, but CO2 levels have steadily risen as India, Brazil, Indochina, and China continue to pollute.
Note that 1998’s peak matched a solar radiation/cosmic ray peak, but not anything else.
Do we have any graph that continues the plot from 1995 into the 2005-2006 time period?
CO2 has continued to rise, but temps have NOT risen since 1998’s peak.
First thing that came to my mind was that after several studies showed the sun to be a major factor (and human activity only a sidebar) the proponents of carbon offsets and general panic have laid all criticism 'firmly to rest' with one unattributed analysis.
Unfortunately, that's all the true believers need to restore their convictions.
A “scientific” study that took at least 4 months of “fact” finding and conclusion suddenly trumps everything like this study which recently came out:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
How does your climate pastor/priest/warlock/shaman/voodoo peddler respond to the hypocritical fact that CO2 rose rapidly for 30 years yet the earth’s temp. went down to the point that these same scientist you worship were scared of an ice age back in the 70’s?
Like some other poster said, Lockwood not a scientist, more like a government paid propagandist/hit man blinding ignoramuses with their degrees.
Tell me, does it take a person with a degree to tell you that the world is round and not flat?
Does it take someone with a degree to tell you that if you jump off the top of the Empire State building you likely will fall to the ground?
Apparently you are a professional. Most posters aren't.
This article says that the cause of recent global temperature increases is manmade CO2 and not fluctuations in solar activity
The article says that...but the research says only that solar activity is a very, very unlikely cause of global warming during the last 20 years.
The journalists did not shown their numbers.
They're journalists are writing for the general public, not scientists.
We presented measurements refuting the idea.
Yes, well...I'm sorry to say this but I question your credentials. You should be presenting your evidence at a scientific conference if you want to test it's validity. Did you look at the references in the abstract? Do you really believe that the authors weren't aware of your data and arguments?
the earth’s distance from the sun is always varying slightly, and that would increase aned decrease the solar input
CO2 does track temperature. Higher temperature forces outgassing of CO2 from the largest volatile resource of CO2 on earth - the oceans. The lag between temp change and CO2 outgassing from the bulk of the ocean is an average of 800 years (see my post 31 for a neat graph of this behaviour).
Its this ~ 800 yr lag which makes the picture so fuzzy. It was hot in 1200 AD, so CO2 from outgassing is peaking now!
But the ocean lag depends on ocean depth, so the CO2 "echo" from high temperatures in 1200 comes back over a range of centuries, not as a clear spike 800 years later. Very confusing and hard to read. And it renders 25 yr "snapshot" experiments more or less useless.
One question for you Larry
Has the earth gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past?
Yes or No?
Heh, heh. Only my broker knows.
Unless the reviewers considered the conclusion so desireable that they didn’t want to waste too much time on it. Reviewers are busy people.
There are better examples in support of your thesis. No evidence current at the time definitively supported Copernicus. Eddington supposedly provided proof of Relativity in 1922. It was later shown that he didn't, that the margin of error overwhelmed his data. And Einstein went to his death dissatisfied with quantum theory which has since been shown to be the best theory humanity's ever come up with (even though it's still not really understood by anyone).
So, yes, the results are provisional.
Peer review involves more than just having some others read your article. It means that others try the same experiment and see if they get similar results.
These guys are saying, “No need to bother with all that. Our research as settled all that, and there’s no need for anyone else to test anything.”
These guys are the only ones who are getting these results. That’s not science.
Bully for you!
Commit a little for me while you're at it willya? I'm retired from commerce now and free from the eeeevil influence of filthy lucre, but a few extra frogskins would sure come in handy at the first of the month now and then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.