• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

BenBurch said:
GreyICE, *all* of those papers are from CO2Science and are not peer-reviewed papers... Unless by "peer" you mean somebody who is also a denier...
Click to expand...

Unless you can prove this statement, epic fail.

I'm looking at an abstract on Wiley (full article behind paywall, might be able to get at it tomorrow from work). The paper is from the BOREAS, which is peer reviewed.

Speaking of poor skepticism...... :id:

These papers must have really struck a nerve, I guess..........
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
Unless you can prove this statement, epic fail.

I'm looking at an abstract on Wiley (full article behind paywall, might be able to get at it tomorrow from work). The paper is from the BOREAS, which is peer reviewed.

Speaking of poor skepticism...... :id:

These papers must have really struck a nerve, I guess..........
Click to expand...

I haven't read them either, but I see where the links go... And I know that rag.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
I probably can read the paper when I get to work next week. I'm interested in how "chance" was defined, given that anyone can show some forecasting skill by using climatology.

I could forecast snow in any random 3-day period during winter in my home state (Colorado) and have a high probability of being correct. And the probability of particular weather events is not evenly distributed throughout a season. I've been told, for example, that there is a higher probability of extreme cold in the western Great Plains in the first 2 weeks of December than for other 2-week periods in winter.

The Sun causes variability, but it does not necessarily follow from tis that it is causing the trend.

Common sense would lead me to think that if this guy had any real skill, he would be raking in gazillions of dollars from governments, energy companies, investors, and anyone else who could benefit from long-range weather forecasts. At the very least, he'd be famous.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for giving thoughtful replies, I'm very interested to hear more of your views on this SWT, when you have the time.

PC is "famous" in the UK at least, if you do a search of his name on google or utube videos you see him on some GW media debates on ABC, SKY and BBC news.

I first heard of him recently after NASA told us of the "magnetic ropes" linking the Sun and the Earth and I was looking for explanations, when PCs name came up with his SWT.
 
Personally I think Corbyn's apparent above chance success at forecasting the weather based on solar variability is fascinating, and well worth further study, but I don't see what it has to do with climate change. We know solar variability has short term (over years, maybe occasionally decades) effects on the weather, but we also know it has no long term underlying cumulative effect over longer periods - well, unless you're talking very long periods indeed (billions of years). The effect of a steady increase in CO2 may be smaller over periods of years or decades but it's cumulative, and hence has more effect on climate over longer periods.
 
Haig said:
The New Scientist link to “Climate change: A guide for the perplexed” was good and makes it difficult for a layperson to chose which scientist is right in the climate debate. I’m still not back in the AGW camp and here’s why I’m still not sure:

Piers Corbyn, MSc (astrophysics), ARCS FRAS FRMetS, WeatherAction Long Range weather & climate forecasters...
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia article on Piers Corbyn lists several successes for his technique and a larger number of failures. Being Wikipedia its accuracy is questionable but I will note a few things:
As Pixel42 states - he is predicting weather (local and over years) not climate (global and over decades). So whatever he is doing has nothing to do with this thread.
If he is the only reason that you have doubts about AGW then you actually do not have doubts about AGW - you have doubts about weather forecasting.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
And in any case you were caught posting as proof papers you have never even read. Sorry, I thought you were better than MHaze.
Click to expand...

And red-handed..oh-noes! :jaw-dropp

Any comments or critiques about the summaries of those papers that were posted in my original link would be of value to the current discussion.

Specifically how they might diverge from the conclusions contained in the actual papers, since I am certain that you would not dismiss said papers without having read them, right?
 
Warmer on the Run Alert!

BenBurch said:
And in any case you were caught posting as proof papers you have never even read. Sorry, I thought you were better than MHaze.
Click to expand...
Spoken one wheezing breathe after quoting Sourcewatchy!
 
BenBurch said:
GreyICE, *all* of those papers are from CO2Science and are not peer-reviewed papers... Unless by "peer" you mean somebody who is also a denier...
Click to expand...

Alright, in order, as best as I can determine:

Rohling et. al. (2003) -- Published in Climate Dynamics, which is peer-reviewed. Cannot get through paywall.

Dahl-Jensen et. al. (1998) -- Published in Science, as a report. I don't know if "reports" are peer-reviewed or not, but I know Science is peer-reviewed. Reprint available here.

Wagner and Melles (2001) -- Published in BOREAS, which is peer-reviewed. Couldn't get past a paywall on this one either.

Lassen et. al. (2004) -- Published in The Holocene, which is peer-reviewed. Once more, stymied at the paywall.

Chylek et. al. (2004) -- Publised in Climatic Change, which I think is peer-reviewed (couldn't find out for sure on their website). Paywall again, sigh.

Taurisano et. al. (2004) -- Published in Geografiska Annaler, Series A; couldn't find out about peer-review, but they do have a page charge for color pages (not b/w). Paywall again.

Hanna and Cappelen (2003) -- Published in Geophyscial Research Letters, which I don't think is peer-reviewed. Paywall again.


Comiso et. al. (2001) -- Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. This is a peer-reviewed journal. Paywall prohibits full article access.

Laidre and Heide-Jorgensen (2005) -- Published in the journal Biological Conservation, which I believe is a peer-reviewed journal. Full text is available.

So that about does it for the primary references on the page that I posted.

I dunno, but it seems like for the most part some good, peer-reviewed work has been besmirched here.

:confused:
 
BenBurch said:
GreyICE, *all* of those papers are from CO2Science and are not peer-reviewed papers... Unless by "peer" you mean somebody who is also a denier...
Click to expand...



Mmm...mmm...mmm....

Those words look absolutely delish!

:boxedin:
 
So, you've still not read the papers? And have no idea at all if the summaries that rag created of what they mean are really what those papers say?

You see, this is the point here. CO2Science is funded by an energy concern. They have an axe to grind and there are some very specific allegations that they grind that axe at the expense of distorting their reporting.

Now, at first, I assumed these were just CO2Science's own "papers" as the links were dead, but be that as it may, they are just not reliable interpreters of papers on this subject and you HAVE to read the papers and understand them with a professional's understanding of the science to really know the extent to which they prove the point that they are proffered to prove.

You at least have to READ them if you want to use them as some sort of proof, even if you are a layman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom