Posted on 04/19/2008 11:56:23 AM PDT by RogerFGay
There doesn’t even have to be a direct cause and effect. The relationship can be indirect or even coincidental. Like for example, higher temperatures lead to more plant growth which in the short run absorbs CO2, and then leads to greater release of CO2 eventually.
It’s politics; not science.
You realize the debate is over ONE degree celcius, right? The US is considered to have the highest quality system in the world and yet only 13% are within 1 degree of accuracy. So how in the world can anyone say we have gone up .2 degrees, or .6 degrees? It’s like measuring microns with a ruler.
I'm currently in a debate in another forum with a flaming lib who has challenged me to find any peer reviewed article in a reputable technical journal that disputes the supposedly settled science of Global Warming and in particular the dominance of the human impact on climate change. We are currently focused on the list of scientists that are discussed in Lawrence Soloman's book "The Deniers".
I do know that it has been stated that a recent survey did indeed show that there were ZERO articles published in peer reviewed technical journals that were skeptical of the man-made Global Warming thesis.
So I hoping someone can point me to some relevant sources or verify that there are none.
Bumping this to see if Delacon can answer my question in Post #64
Of course there are plenty of peer-reviewed climate articles that pokes holes in the AGW thesis.
This statement: “I do know that it has been stated that a recent survey did indeed show that there were ZERO articles published in peer reviewed technical journals that were skeptical of the man-made Global Warming thesis.” ... is nonsense.
The #1 hole in the AGW thesis is the highly suspect use of positive feedback that magnifies the CO2 forcning by a factor of 4, due to ‘water vapor’ and ‘cloud cover’.
IPCC assessments themselves admit there is uncertainty around these models, yet these models drive the higher-range estimates for temperature change. Without them, all of Al Gore’s hyperbole would be wipde away.
Climate ‘skeptics’ like Lindzen of MIT and others are not really ‘deniers’, they believe there is a link. But they also believe that the effect is being exaggerated.
One guy who has greatly undercut the AGW estimates, by looking at the real impact of cloud cover and precipitation, is Roy Spencer:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update
“April 19, 2008 RESEARCH UPDATES:
(1) - Our latest article, “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Description”, has been accepted for publication in Journal of Climate. It uses a simple climate model to show how daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.
(2) - I have asked the editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society to consider publishing a paper I have written entitled, “Evidence for Internal Radiative Forcing of Climate Change”. I believe that this paper addresses the single most important issue neglected by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC): Natural climate variability generated within the climate system in the form of INTERNAL radiative forcing.
This paper is a generalization of our paper that has just been accepted for publication in Journal of Climate, and describes how mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. It also shows that a small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend. While this does not prove that global warming is mostly natural, it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability. (This paper is sure to be controversial, and it will be interesting to see how difficult it will be to get published.)”
you should also point your lib friend to the Wegman report:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
A bad reconstruction of temperatures by Mann et al. MBH98 was used by the IPCC and indeed used by Al Gore himself. It’s the infamous “hockey stick” graph.
McIntyre and McKitrick in several papers investigated and found out that MBH98 improperly centered the proxy data when doing statistical reconstruction. The result was that it had the effect of turning *any* data into a hockey stick. This was a very controversial claim, Mann et al., fought back and basically used ad hominem and other dismissive attack
The Wegman Report was a report ordered by Congress to look into this, since the hockey stick was a key part of the AGW proof-points and since this was politicized.
Here is what Wegman said, vindicating the McIntyre critique and debunking Mann:
“In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they
were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to
do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a
calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not
fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.
However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the
narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by
someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.
Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant
interactions with mainstream statisticians.”
McINtyre runs “climate audit” blog and you can keep up with his latest work there. He’s done even more good work - exposing a year 200 error in temperature records, exposing flaws in temperature adjustments, and keeping the climate scientists honest in a way that is stopping the unhealthy hijacking of science by teh climate alarmists.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
They’re exaggerating so much that the direction is wrong. It’s already getting cooler again.
Challenge the lib to provide any credible data showing that CO2 drives temperature. He can’t. And I mean actually observations that are not just short term coincidence. Models don’t count because they only presume what he’s trying to prove. Real data over time based on actual measurements of CO2 and temperature do not show the Al Gore correlation. This is the creepy thing about this Big Lie political stuff pretending to be science. The claim is absurd enough that of course there aren’t a bunch of studies set up to prove it wrong. It’s absurd, so the burden of proof is on him, not you.
Just don’t let him fool you into believing that the IPCC is a scientific institutions or that Al Gore’s rant has ever been peer reviewed by serious scientists. Al Gore claiming that all scientists agree with him is nonsense, and has absolutely nothing to do with serious debate on the subject. Al Gore is leader of a political movement, and that’s what you need to emphasize about the “lib” you are debating with and his position. It is not a scientific position that he takes. It is a political position supporting a political agenda. It is not science. It is not part of a serious scientific debate. It is politics. Al Gore is going down, and the person you are debating with and his position are going down with Al Gore.
BUMP!!
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.