Global warming

[David Rodale]

Duck and dodge? On the contrary, I'm not advocating peer reviewed research as the only place for discussion, nor would I say that there is no place outside it for debate and asking questions. What I take issue with are statements like these:



Peer reviewed research should not just be dismissed on the basis of a dissenting blogger. And if the dissent has real merit, then such dissent should be publishable. Our understanding of climate, hurricanes, global warming, will be better for it.

I expect far more climate scientists check in with the Web of Science on a regular basis than read the climate blogs.



That sounds fine to me. However, such questions do carry more weight when asked in peer reviewed journals. As the AGW skeptical community appears to be growing in number and capability, I hope that they will choose to engage the scientific community in more formal ways. Climate research will be all the more robust for it. And who knows, in a few years time Oreske's test could give quite different results...

Was Oreske's essay peer reviewed? Please cite if so. I dare say it was not,

 

[Pipirr]

I don't know if it was peer-reviewed. It was an essay, and seeing as a lot of the essays that Science publishes are invited, perhaps it was just scrutinised by the editors.

Whatever, I made no claims about the quality and usefulness of it. But I wouldn't be surprised if an updated key word search on the Web of Science using her methodology, would now show some different results.

 

[mhaze]

Found it.

This is the study I was thinking of that is recent; that may really affect the hurricane-GW hypothesis and certainly affects the AGW modeling.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1140746
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?

Frank J. Wentz,* Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn, Carl Mears Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.

​

What does this mean? Some guesses (mine)

• Models underestimate movement of air masses
• Cloud cover the four types of clouds is higher than predicted
• Transfer of moisture to the poles is higher than predicted
• Cloud cover at the poles is higher than predicted
• Feedbacks are all wrong (but we already knew that).
• A lot of published articles may have wrong presumptions

How about the issue of the ratio of "greenhouse effect" due respectively to CO2 versus water?

 

[David Rodale]

I don't know if it was peer-reviewed. It was an essay, and seeing as a lot of the essays that Science publishes are invited, perhaps it was just scrutinised by the editors.

Whatever, I made no claims about the quality and usefulness of it. But I wouldn't be surprised if an updated key word search on the Web of Science using her methodology, would now show some different results.

It is odd that Science welcomed her essay without peer review, yet refused to publish others in disagreement. You may not make any claims to its veracity, but that essay was published just in time and used as "evidence" (coincidence?) for the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change, and is parroted on every AGW scripted response weblog.

Peer review may be the desirable methodology in science, but it can be and is being abused to promote political agendas. Based on their public statements and willingness to rush pro AGW articles to publication, it appears Science would publish Dr. Seuss if it supported their views.

The Oreske essay was no more than an opinion piece.

Would Science publish the following? I think not. You are correct in surmising there are results directly contradicting hers however:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

 

[mhaze]

It is odd that Science welcomed her essay without peer review, yet refused to publish others in disagreement. You may not make any claims to its veracity, but that essay was published just in time and used as "evidence" (coincidence?) for the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change, and is parroted on every AGW scripted response weblog.

Peer review may be the desirable methodology in science, but it can be and is being abused to promote political agendas. Based on their public statements and willingness to rush pro AGW articles to publication, it appears Science would publish Dr. Seuss if it supported their views.

The Oreske essay was no more than an opinion piece.

Would Science publish the following? I think not. You are correct in surmising there are results directly contradicting hers however:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

Let's apply Oreske's logic to prove a different fantasy consensus.

Hypothetical consensus to be proven or disproven.

Aliens cause global warming.
​

Oreske's words from her paper ...

"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position".

"75% either explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position".

​

Looks like Oreske can prove aliens cause global warming.

But, you say, that's ridiculous. Show us your work. Name the 928 papers and show the paragraphs that prove out your numbers. No answer. No archived data. No web based database accessible to independent researchers.

"But it's published in Science".

 

[ConspiRaider]

Let's apply Oreske's logic to prove a different fantasy consensus.


Hypothetical consensus to be proven or disproven.

Aliens cause global warming.​

Oreske's words from her paper ...

"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position".​

"75% either explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position".​

Looks like Oreske can prove aliens cause global warming.

But, you say, that's ridiculous. Show us your work. Name the 928 papers and show the paragraphs that prove out your numbers. No answer. No archived data. No web based database accessible to independent researchers.

"But it's published in Science".

Hey -

First, discover that scientists are now predicting the polar cap summer melt by 2030. How much you want to bet they'll adjust that to occur even sooner? $105,000? I'll take that bet.

Another thing. The 10-pager I mentioned previously that ran in Scientific American. Did you go to the library, check out that issue and read it? And what is your basis for denial after having read it?

Another thing: We've had 2 hurricanes now, Category 5. How many more do you think we'll have this fine season?

 

[mhaze]

Hey -

First, discover that scientists are now predicting the polar cap summer melt by 2030. How much you want to bet they'll adjust that to occur even sooner? $105,000? I'll take that bet.

Another thing. The 10-pager I mentioned previously that ran in Scientific American. Did you go to the library, check out that issue and read it? And what is your basis for denial after having read it?

Another thing: We've had 2 hurricanes now, Category 5. How many more do you think we'll have this fine season?

Hi conspir -

Where did you run off too? I thought we were going to discuss scripts based on GW. Like, the northwest passage, Canada and Norway squaring off, etc. Too bad two days after we had that chat the subject ran as a skit on Cobert Report. But there is lots of good material left.

Hurricanes at the North Pole? Polarcanes?

New ocean currents in the Pacific and Hurricanes hitting Hollywood?

We are used to them over here so they are not quite so scary.

But in LA, they would be really a fright. What would you guys do?

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's apply Oreske's logic to prove a different fantasy consensus.

Hypothetical consensus to be proven or disproven.

Aliens cause global warming.
​

Oreske's words from her paper ...

"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position".

"75% either explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position".

​

Looks like Oreske can prove aliens cause global warming.

But, you say, that's ridiculous. Show us your work. Name the 928 papers and show the paragraphs that prove out your numbers. No answer. No archived data. No web based database accessible to independent researchers.

"But it's published in Science".

That's not the case at all.

Numerous research is going on into areas of science relevent to global warming. The point was that none of this research throws up anything to contradict the findings of the IPCC.

If the research they were doing was into alien life, and it came up with nothing every time, then that would be a comparable situation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hey -

First, discover that scientists are now predicting the polar cap summer melt by 2030. How much you want to bet they'll adjust that to occur even sooner? $105,000? I'll take that bet.

I'll take any action you can't handle.

After all, the trend is towards it getting closer and Science is conservative. The retreat in consensus from 2100 to 2040-ish has been pretty precipitate. And there are enough 2030 outliers to suggest that it hasn't stopped yet. Not much room for retreat left, but I reckon there'll be some.

 

[mhaze]

That's not the case at all.

Numerous research is going on into areas of science relevent to global warming. The point was that none of this research throws up anything to contradict the findings of the IPCC.

If the research they were doing was into alien life, and it came up with nothing every time, then that would be a comparable situation.

Have I misrepresented Oreske? If so, it was unintentional.

Oreskes, defined "consensus" quoting as follows from IPCC (2001)

"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents .... that absorb or scatter radiant energy ... most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
​

By this measure I agree with the first premise and disagree with "most" in the second. But then she says "most...is likely to have" so there is some capeldodging possible there. I would go for 5-30% warming due to manmade factors, not that my opinion matters one bit.

She was supposedly looking for agreement in the 928 papers she reviewed, right? Oreske's words from her paper ...

"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position".
"75% either explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position". (whatever implicitly agreed means...)
​

Okay, let's audit the work of Oreske.

1. Show us your work.
2. Name the 928 papers and show the paragraphs that prove out your numbers.
3. No answer.
4. No archived data.
5. No web based database accessible to independent researchers.

Well, no way to audit that bit of work!

Quoting from Monckton's excellent criticism of Oreskes

There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps - if any - we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.
​

Consensus has been claimed on many aspects of climate science based on Oreske's work - very inappropriately - and on many political tax schemes. We are seeing consensus claimed in the popular media and in ill informed but educated people on such things as droughts, hurricanes, and sea level.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quoting from Monckton's excellent criticism of Oreskes

There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps - if any - we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.
​

Consensus has been claimed on many aspects of climate science based on Oreske's work - very inappropriately - and on many political tax schemes. We are seeing consensus claimed in the popular media and in ill informed but educated people on such things as droughts, hurricanes, and sea level.

Monckton is a nutter, pure and simple. Once again we have earnest amateurs taking on the science, while being completely ignorant of what is actually going on. He is completely misrepresenting what she did. He derides her for her research when she is not a climate scientist, when he isn't one either. What she did was search through the papers produced, on climate, and see if anything came up that contradicted the accepted scientific stance an climate change. Nothing she found did.

She did not claim that scientists know exactly how much it will warm by, exactly what can be done to mitigate the changes, exactly what the effects will be. You would think this was an earth shattering revelation, but it's nothing of the sort, since the IPCC has spelled that out from the start.

 

[mhaze]

Monckton is a nutter, pure and simple. Once again we have earnest amateurs taking on the science

Well, the earnest amateurs Monckton and Oerkes taking on each other.

I note that you don't disagree with me that Oerkes work is not verifiable.

Moot point since Shultz 2007 has nailed the lid on the consensus-coffin.

There is no consensus.

Was there once? Maybe, I don't know. Doubt it, though.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, the earnest amateurs Monckton and Oerkes taking on each other.

I note that you don't disagree with me that Oerkes work is not verifiable.

Moot point since Shultz 2007 has nailed the lid on the consensus-coffin.

There is no consensus.

Was there once? Maybe, I don't know. Doubt it, though.

Oreskes was doing what she is qualified to do, researching science itself. Monckton is a nutter, with no qualifications to do anything other than be paraded around by deniers as an authority on something.

Schulz does nothing more than say they don't endorse global warming, which is, once again, not what they would do. Each piece of science will be looking at a particular area of science, even one glacier, perhaps. It is only possible via a process such as the IPCC to look at the big picture. Oreskes was trying to find if there was anything that invalidated what the IPCC is saying, she didn't find anything. Shulz has found pretty much the same thing, only he's putting a different spin on the finding.

 

[a_unique_person]

Benny Peiser tried the same trick before.

This seems likely to be a rerun of Benny Peiser's effort. (Peiser said that 34 of Oreskes' abstracts rejected the consensus. Eventually he downgraded the number to just one. I've sent off an email to see if I can get a copy of the paper, but in the mean time we can check some stuff.

Chasing down Benny Peiser.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.

— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

So long Benny, and thanks for that.

 

[mhaze]

Benny Peiser tried the same trick before.

Chasing down Benny Peiser.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

So long Benny, and thanks for that.

So AMP, have you figured out what consensus science really is? Politics.

 

[a_unique_person]

There is no such thing as 'consensus science'. That's just an invention from the denier camp.

 

[bobdroege7]

The recent warming is shown by the historical record to not be outside the bounds of natural variation. Since only the "unprecedented recent warming" that causes the "A" to be added to the "GW", in the absence of "unprecedented warming", the AGW hypothesis falls.

Of course the current warming is not outside the historical record as the historical record varies between snowball earth and near complete absence of ice and sea levels high enough to flood the North American continent creating an inland sea.

So I conclude that you would admit no AGW until all the earth's ice has melted.

 

[mhaze]

Of course the current warming is not outside the historical record as the historical record varies between snowball earth and near complete absence of ice and sea levels high enough to flood the North American continent creating an inland sea.

So I conclude that you would admit no AGW until all the earth's ice has melted.

Funny, I like that.

But you know I was discussing the 1500 year cycle (Minoan, Roma, Medieval) with a few degrees C difference.

 

[Megalodon]

I note that you don't disagree with me that Oerkes work is not verifiable.

Of course it isn't... Both University and public libraries are guarded at gunpoint by the International Marxist Man in Black, and they don't allow anyone in.

The work is not only verifiable, it would be extremely easy to prove wrong, using exactly the same database. You know, publicly available papers.

 

[mhaze]

Of course it isn't... Both University and public libraries are guarded at gunpoint by the International Marxist Man in Black, and they don't allow anyone in.

The work is not only verifiable, it would be extremely easy to prove wrong, using exactly the same database. You know, publicly available papers.

Which is more or less what Shutle 2007 did; there is no consensus, get over it.

With all due respect, I'm not interested in discussing the (admittedly) circular arguments about consensus, they don't seem to lead anywhere interesting.

The actual science does. Back to it.