For anyone interested in the science behind CGMs [modified]
-
As you probably know CGMs dont model clouds and turn a 1 degree temp rise due to CO2 into a 4 degree rise due to the supposed positive feedback efect of increased water vapour. This study, which looks at albedo changes and humidity says different. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf[^]
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:24 AM
-
-
:) Thanks!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
-
As you probably know CGMs dont model clouds and turn a 1 degree temp rise due to CO2 into a 4 degree rise due to the supposed positive feedback efect of increased water vapour. This study, which looks at albedo changes and humidity says different. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf[^]
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:24 AM
-
A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply." Lordy, that's credible!
- F
So I guess you cant criticise the content then? :laugh: Anyway, since the AGWers have a stranglehold on scientific publications, as attested by Dr Jones' emails, scientific papers quesiotning GCD have to get out to the public anyway they can.
Fisticuffs wrote:
"security of the energy supply."
In fact this is not a mislaid sentiment given the comments of the UKs chief of electricity, who has said we will all have to get used to power cuts when the wind stops in the future. Yeah, OK, I would prefer a bit of energy supply security. Unless of course you actively support the idea of energy insecurity. Do you? :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Probably a link to the Magrathean Climate Model, which, being analog, provides a full simulation of the Earth's climate.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
And after all of that trouble modeling it, it'll be destroyed five minutes too early...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
So I guess you cant criticise the content then? :laugh: Anyway, since the AGWers have a stranglehold on scientific publications, as attested by Dr Jones' emails, scientific papers quesiotning GCD have to get out to the public anyway they can.
Fisticuffs wrote:
"security of the energy supply."
In fact this is not a mislaid sentiment given the comments of the UKs chief of electricity, who has said we will all have to get used to power cuts when the wind stops in the future. Yeah, OK, I would prefer a bit of energy supply security. Unless of course you actively support the idea of energy insecurity. Do you? :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
So I guess you cant criticise the content then?
Little mouse, you need to learn why peer review is important
- F
Still incapable of criticising the content, you resort to insults. And yes, peer review is important. Its a shame it wasnt applied to AR4 and the Hockey Stick.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Still incapable of criticising the content, you resort to insults. And yes, peer review is important. Its a shame it wasnt applied to AR4 and the Hockey Stick.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
fat_boy wrote:
And yes, peer review is important.
If you really believed that you wouldn't post articles that aren't peer reviewed Hint: you are not worthy of being considered a 'peer' of the scientific community
- F
Unfortunately peer review is not a guarantee of quality, for the two reasons I just mentioned, and equally, its lack is not an indication of lack of quality.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Unfortunately peer review is not a guarantee of quality, for the two reasons I just mentioned, and equally, its lack is not an indication of lack of quality.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
fat_boy wrote:
its lack is not an indication of lack of quality.
Sure it is. It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered to check it for accuracy.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
A non peer-reviewed "study"
Possibly not peer-reviewed, but a paper for the American Meteorological Society. There was a disparaging comment on it in Real Climate sometime in 2010. (Note: SPPI Reprint Series; i.e., originally published elsewhere.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
posted on their own website
Their[^] website? I think not.
Fisticuffs wrote:
by two unknown authors
William M. Gray is famous - more like bloody notorious, to some. You new to this game?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Lordy, that's credible!
Lordy, that's irrelevant. Is the science OK? That's all that matters.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn why peer review is important
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check. Lately, much criticism has been made of the statistical abilities of authors in 'Nature'. Their reviewers were, indeed, their peers in statistics, and consequently, mistakes were carried through into the published papers. What was needed was a superior, not a peer.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you really believed that you wouldn't post articles that aren't peer reviewed
But if that paper had been accepted for delivery to an audience of one's peers?
Fisticuffs wrote:
It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered been requested to check it for accuracy.
No it doesn't. But, were that so, that is not, of itself, a sufficient indication of lack of quality.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
A non peer-reviewed "study"
Possibly not peer-reviewed, but a paper for the American Meteorological Society. There was a disparaging comment on it in Real Climate sometime in 2010. (Note: SPPI Reprint Series; i.e., originally published elsewhere.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
posted on their own website
Their[^] website? I think not.
Fisticuffs wrote:
by two unknown authors
William M. Gray is famous - more like bloody notorious, to some. You new to this game?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Lordy, that's credible!
Lordy, that's irrelevant. Is the science OK? That's all that matters.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn why peer review is important
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check. Lately, much criticism has been made of the statistical abilities of authors in 'Nature'. Their reviewers were, indeed, their peers in statistics, and consequently, mistakes were carried through into the published papers. What was needed was a superior, not a peer.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you really believed that you wouldn't post articles that aren't peer reviewed
But if that paper had been accepted for delivery to an audience of one's peers?
Fisticuffs wrote:
It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered been requested to check it for accuracy.
No it doesn't. But, were that so, that is not, of itself, a sufficient indication of lack of quality.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
its lack is not an indication of lack of quality.
Sure it is. It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered to check it for accuracy.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered to check it for accuracy.
You talking about Manns Hockey stick and AR4? ;P Of course it can also mean that no one was asked. In my job, lack of code review is not an indicator of lack of quality. The quality is principly derrived form the ability of the producer. Reviewers can, if there are problems, correct them, but only if they exist. So, here is your chance, why not review the document and see if you can find any errors? :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence
Well said. Of course it means it should be tightened. Lets hope the IPCC can do better next time, because quite frankly, AR4 was a joke.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published.
Its presence is because someone well versed in climatology (William M Gray: Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and Barry Schwartz: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colarado - each Author and/or Co-author of many peer reviewed papers on climate and weather, modelling and forecasting) thought it was worth presenting to the American Meteorological Society's Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. And that the AMS thought it worth accepting. Armed with feedback from the conference, the scientists can improve on what has already been done (a new data-analysis technique, a new data set is suggested), and either takes the research in another direction, expands on the work, or, if far enough along, incorporates the feedback while preparing a paper for publication. It is here that the formal review process starts. - AMS literature on their peer-review processes. Since Gavin Schmit assures us that: The NCEP reanalysis used by Gray has very severe non-climatic trends in water vapour (because of the change of the observing network), and these are not repeated in any of the more modern reanalyses (ERA-40 even, or the Japanese version etc.) Thus the whole analysis appears to be based on correlations of non-climate influences and thus hardly likely to have much importance for anything. it may be that Gray and Schwartz are reworking using a new re-analysis; or that they are pursuing their research in another direction; or that Gray (at 80 odd) has finally got pissed off and retired.
Fisticuffs wrote:
in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility, instead of the knee-jerk A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply."? Took 5 minutes to determine the paper's provenance via "Google University".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility.
I
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published.
Its presence is because someone well versed in climatology (William M Gray: Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and Barry Schwartz: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colarado - each Author and/or Co-author of many peer reviewed papers on climate and weather, modelling and forecasting) thought it was worth presenting to the American Meteorological Society's Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. And that the AMS thought it worth accepting. Armed with feedback from the conference, the scientists can improve on what has already been done (a new data-analysis technique, a new data set is suggested), and either takes the research in another direction, expands on the work, or, if far enough along, incorporates the feedback while preparing a paper for publication. It is here that the formal review process starts. - AMS literature on their peer-review processes. Since Gavin Schmit assures us that: The NCEP reanalysis used by Gray has very severe non-climatic trends in water vapour (because of the change of the observing network), and these are not repeated in any of the more modern reanalyses (ERA-40 even, or the Japanese version etc.) Thus the whole analysis appears to be based on correlations of non-climate influences and thus hardly likely to have much importance for anything. it may be that Gray and Schwartz are reworking using a new re-analysis; or that they are pursuing their research in another direction; or that Gray (at 80 odd) has finally got pissed off and retired.
Fisticuffs wrote:
in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility, instead of the knee-jerk A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply."? Took 5 minutes to determine the paper's provenance via "Google University".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility.
I
ict558 wrote:
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility,
Again: the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance. If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it. Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education. An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field. Meteorology is not climatology. Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar? (edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility,
Again: the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance. If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it. Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education. An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field. Meteorology is not climatology. Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar? (edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance.
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it.
As a retired professional, I check the credentials of the authors, and if they have a body of peer-reviewed papers in the subject being addressed, it is worth my time to deal with it.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field.
Too compartmentalised a view of scientific research. Many climate scientists obtained their doctorates in other (but "related") disciplines. Research is "education in the actual field".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Meteorology is not climatology.
True - and yet they now are less clearly distinct than once they were.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar?
Creationism? I thought you were a very busy professional! ;P And, yes, it does sound familiar. The most extreme blogs that I read are Real Climate and Watts Up With That. (My only bias being that I find the moderator on WUWT to be less condescending in tone, and more permissive of opposing views, than that of RC. Zealots' comments are a pain, whichever side they support.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
(edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
Thank you for imparting y