Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Westwall]

What do you mean "finally". Do you have any evidence that peer-review wasn't working properly before?



The paper wasn't published, it was accepted for publication. Those are two very different steps of the publication process. A paper can be accepted, conditional to the satisfaction of the reviewers doubts or complaints. That is the time where a second look at the data might reveal problems not detected before.



As far as I saw the authors think that it might be problematic for the analysis, but the publication is still on hold and not withdrawn. Probably there will be a re-analysis followed by re-writing and re-submission. Never pretty, and always awkward.

And this, boys and girls, is why you don't throw your paper around before it is in press...

Because climatology has been corrupted by the "pal review" problem for far too long. I agree with you 100% that before papers get released to the press they should be very well reviewed beforehand. This will be a very good lesson for them to do so in the future.

In the past they could release pretty much anything they wanted and no one
was able to challenge their results. Now there is a mechanism to challenge the sometimes poorly done papers that have afflicted climatology. Now, finally, I hope we will get some real good studies being done.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The world "rapidly" warmed during the Holocene Thermal Maximum too. The fisheries did very well. Mammalian life did very well. Allmost all life did very well. This is well shown in the paleo record. Recently glaciers have retreated in Alaska and Greenland and massive trees were uncovered from that time. Life does very well when it is warmer.

This has been shown repeatedly in the paleo record. Your meme of rapid heating killing everything isn't borne out by the empirical data.

Are you saying that because going from 12 to 15 was good that implies going from 15 to 18 is also good?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Because climatology has been corrupted by the "pal review" problem for far too long.

Can you provide a timeline in climatology with a dozen of typical papers corrupted by "pal review"? It just looks like you are repeating something without basis you heard elsewhere.

 

[bit_pattern]

the sometimes poorly done papers that have afflicted climatology. Now, finally, I hope we will get some real good studies being done.

I'm assuming that you're talking about some of the poorly done papers by people like Scarfetta, Spencer, Soon & Balunias, Linzden etc that have tried to pass of poorly done papers in rags like Energy & Environment, right?

 

[Westwall]

Are you saying that because going from 12 to 15 was good that implies going from 15 to 18 is also good?

So far, there has not been a global average temperature that was too high. The HTM was 6 degrees C warmer than today, some studies put it at 9 C. The poles were at least 4 C warmer than today. The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived.

What empirical evidence do you have that shows the current warming trend is bad?

 

[bit_pattern]

So far, there has not been a global average temperature that was too high. The HTM was 6 degrees C warmer than today, some studies put it at 9 C. The poles were at least 4 C warmer than today. The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived.

What empirical evidence do you have that shows the current warming trend is bad?

Putting the veracity of your figures aside for a moment (although a source would be appreciated, I don't believe for a second they refer to global averages) its still a complete straw man, except in the most extreme scenarios the problem if AGW isn't that areas would be left uninhabitable to mammals (although not outside realms of possibility, as MacDoc has already shown), the question isn't whether a warmer globe is good for life in general but rather whether it will be conducive to support the hallmarks of human civilisation, things like mass agriculture. Good for life doesn't mean good for humans

 

[aleCcowaN]

So far, there has not been a global average temperature that was too high. The HTM was 6 degrees C warmer than today, some studies put it at 9 C. The poles were at least 4 C warmer than today. The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived.

What empirical evidence do you have that shows the current warming trend is bad?

Your temperatures make no sense, unless your "at least" is a bogus reference. It is well known that every variation in the average temperature of our planet translates into a narrower variation in the tropical zones and a much ample variation in the polar regions.

I suspect you're simply making your phrases up; they just sound like advertising "The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived." No sources, short phrases, rounded numbers, false certainty, punch line ending, everything thought based of effect: the typical anatomy of bull.

 

[Westwall]

Oh absolutely!, a poorly done study is a poorly done study no matter who the author is. Mathematics seems to be an issue with climatologists no matter which side of the aisle they're on.

How about you? What's your philosophy as regards poorly done papers?

I'm assuming that you're talking about some of the poorly done papers by people like Scarfetta, Spencer, Soon & Balunias, Linzden etc that have tried to pass of poorly done papers in rags like Energy & Environment, right?

 

[Westwall]

Your temperatures make no sense, unless your "at least" is a bogus reference. It is well known that every variation in the average temperature of our planet translates into a narrower variation in the tropical zones and a much ample variation in the polar regions.

I suspect you're simply making your phrases up; they just sound like advertising "The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived." No sources, short phrases, rounded numbers, false certainty, punch line ending, everything thought based of effect: the typical anatomy of bull.

Not at all. You'll notice I differentiated the temps in the polar regions from the rest during the HTM because we have a pretty good handle on what the real temperatures were.

The PETM is a little problematic in that we know it was significantly warmer, but we don't know the exact extent to which it was.

As far as my assertions for warmth being good for the planet i suggest you start with a review of

http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2011/the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum/

and then let google be your friend. There is ample, significant evidence that the PETM was a beneficial period for almost all life on this planet.



"Synthesis:

It is clear that the PETM affected different groups of organisms and habitats in a range of ways. Many species simply expanded their ranges into higher latitudes, and mammals and plants were able to move into new continents. Microorganisms in the oceans’ surface waters experienced few negative impacts during the PETM, whereas benthic foraminifera underwent severe extinctions. Tropical plants did well during the warming, perhaps because they were already adapted to warm conditions. The higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide throughout the PETM decreased the nutritional value of plant material, however, leading to a temporary decrease in the size of some herbivorous insects and mammals. Feeding intensity among herbivorous insects also increased.

Research on the PETM continues. The discovery of other, smaller magnitude, rapid greenhouse warming events (called hyperthermals) in the millions of years following the PETM provides further opportunities to examine the response of organisms to global climate change. It is also essential to determine which effects were temporary (dwarfing in mammals and insects, and the Apectodinium range expansion, among others) and which left a permanent signature on life (benthic marine extinctions and the evolution of new plant species in the tropics). Also pressing is the need to study the impacts of the PETM in other regions. Most of our knowledge of changes in the terrestrial realm comes from Wyoming. Although this is an especially rich, detailed and well researched fossil record, we currently have little knowledge of how representative these patterns are for the rest of the world."

 

[bit_pattern]

.

How about you? What's your philosophy as regards poorly done papers?

My philosophy is that the scientific method works & that the system of review successfully weeds out poorly done (or even well done but still wrong) papers, they either get falsified or they stand. And there is simply no credible evidence that climate papers have been done any more poorly than any other field, the vast majority of climate papers have been sound, despite the noise in the media & the blogosphere to the contrary.

What's your philosophy on the idea that a warmer earth might be good for life but not for human civilisation? I'm particularly interested in our staple food crops which have evolved to thrive in temperate zones & what happens when those zones start to shift into areas of much poorer soil quality. How for you think we'll go about feeding 10 billion + people?

 

[Westwall]

My philosophy is that the scientific method works & that the system of review successfully weeds out poorly done (or even well done but still wrong) papers, they either get falsified or they stand. And there is simply no credible evidence that climate papers have been done any more poorly than any other field, the vast majority of climate papers have been sound, despite the noise in the media & the blogosphere to the contrary.

What's your philosophy on the idea that a warmer earth might be good for life but not for human civilisation? I'm particularly interested in our staple food crops which have evolved to thrive in temperate zones & what happens when those zones start to shift into areas of much poorer soil quality. How for you think we'll go about feeding 10 billion + people?

The scientific method works when it's allowed to work. Denying publication of studis that refute the "consensus" put forth by the AGW supporters and labeling sceptics as "deniers" and calling for their persecution is flying in the face of the scientific method as I'm sure you'll agree.

That point aside, the average temp of the USA is around 14.1 C. The temp of Brazil is 21.5 C. They don't seem to have a problem growing tremendous amounts of food, more than enough to feed their burgeoning population.

Next?

 

[bit_pattern]

The scientific method works when it's allowed to work. Denying publication of studis that refute the "consensus" put forth by the AGW supporters and labeling sceptics as "deniers" and calling for their persecution is flying in the face of the scientific method as I'm sure you'll agree.

No I do not.

A. The denier tag applies to the bloggers & media commentators (can apply to contrarian climate scientists who commentate in the media & make claims not supported by the research they publish) who deny evidence. Real climate scientists don't deal in opinion anyway, their results either support the 'sceptical' POV or they don't. And there is precious little research that does, outweighed significantly by the fatuous opinion that passes for evidence by deniers.

B. The allegations you refer to are completely unfounded & have been demonstrated as such in at least three independent inquiries.

Proving once again the axiom that it takes moments to create misinformation but years to debunk, evidenced by the fact we are STLL debunking claims made over three years ago

That point aside, the average temp of the USA is around 14.1 C. The temp of Brazil is 21.5 C. They don't seem to have a problem growing tremendous amounts of food, more than enough to feed their burgeoning population.

Next?

Food of much lower nutritional & protein value. Wheat makes up a huge proportion of the world's calories, they don't grow much wheat in Brazil, do they?

 

[SezMe]

You were asked about the "rate of warming leading to both the PETM and the HTM". This is the pertinent part of your reply....

The world "rapidly" warmed during the Holocene Thermal Maximum too.

... which is entirely meaningless as you implicitly acknowledge by your use of quote marks.

Could you please answer the question.

 

[Megalodon]

The world "rapidly" warmed during the Holocene Thermal Maximum too.

Really? Please remind me of the rate of warming leading to the HTC.

This has been shown repeatedly in the paleo record. Your meme of rapid heating killing everything isn't borne out by the empirical data.

I don't remember writing anywhere that rapid heating would kill everything. I remember asking you questions that you obviously can't answer... maybe you should re-think your position.

 

[Megalodon]

Because climatology has been corrupted by the "pal review" problem for far too long.

You again assert it, but show no evidence beyond catchphrases from the denialist eco-chamber. Again, do you have any evidence that the peer-review system was not working before? Remember that letting through papers that you ideologically disapprove of is not evidence.

In the past they could release pretty much anything they wanted and no one was able to challenge their results.

Really? Any evidence that their peers where not able to question the results? Any evidence that the paper went through for any other reason than being solid scientific works?

Now there is a mechanism to challenge the sometimes poorly done papers that have afflicted climatology.

They're closing down E&E? Don't worry, it didn't count as a scientific journal anyhow.

Now, finally, I hope we will get some real good studies being done.

I have the feeling you mean "studies I agree with". It apparently will not happen, unless you re-think your position and face reality.

 

[Megalodon]

So far, there has not been a global average temperature that was too high. The HTM was 6 degrees C warmer than today, some studies put it at 9 C. The poles were at least 4 C warmer than today. The PETM was at least 6 C warmer. Life thrived.

You realize that you just said that the HTM (during an Ice Age) was warmer than the PETM, don't you?

You realize how crazy that sounds, don't you?

What empirical evidence do you have that shows the current warming trend is bad?

Habitat loss due to shift of climatic zones polewards and upwards. Your turn... are you going to answer any of the questions posed to you?

 

[Megalodon]

The scientific method works when it's allowed to work. Denying publication of studis that refute the "consensus" put forth by the AGW supporters and labeling sceptics as "deniers" and calling for their persecution is flying in the face of the scientific method as I'm sure you'll agree.

Really... any evidence that refusal of papers "refuting" the consensus was done by any reason except that they are piss-poor studies?

That point aside, the average temp of the USA is around 14.1 C. The temp of Brazil is 21.5 C. They don't seem to have a problem growing tremendous amounts of food, more than enough to feed their burgeoning population.

Really? The climatic zones are migrating polewards, which means that the cereal belts both in the US and Russia will stop having the conditions to grow cereal. The places that will start having conditions to grow cereal lack the topsoil to do so. How are you going to square that circle?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not at all. You'll notice I differentiated the temps in the polar regions from the rest during the HTM because we have a pretty good handle on what the real temperatures were.

Good try but your above paragraph doesn't change the fact that your temperatures -thus your assertions- make no sense. Our planet's climate works that way, and denialists used to have no problem to acknowledge that.

If you don't get it yet, you "differentiated" them and they don't match.

The PETM is a little problematic in that we know it was significantly warmer, but we don't know the exact extent to which it was.

As far as my assertions for warmth being good for the planet i suggest you start with a review of

http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2011/the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum/

and then let google be your friend. There is ample, significant evidence that the PETM was a beneficial period for almost all life on this planet.



"Synthesis:

It is clear that the PETM affected different groups of organisms and habitats in a range of ways. Many species simply expanded their ranges into higher latitudes, and mammals and plants were able to move into new continents. Microorganisms in the oceans’ surface waters experienced few negative impacts during the PETM, whereas benthic foraminifera underwent severe extinctions. Tropical plants did well during the warming, perhaps because they were already adapted to warm conditions. The higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide throughout the PETM decreased the nutritional value of plant material, however, leading to a temporary decrease in the size of some herbivorous insects and mammals. Feeding intensity among herbivorous insects also increased.

Research on the PETM continues. The discovery of other, smaller magnitude, rapid greenhouse warming events (called hyperthermals) in the millions of years following the PETM provides further opportunities to examine the response of organisms to global climate change. It is also essential to determine which effects were temporary (dwarfing in mammals and insects, and the Apectodinium range expansion, among others) and which left a permanent signature on life (benthic marine extinctions and the evolution of new plant species in the tropics). Also pressing is the need to study the impacts of the PETM in other regions. Most of our knowledge of changes in the terrestrial realm comes from Wyoming. Although this is an especially rich, detailed and well researched fossil record, we currently have little knowledge of how representative these patterns are for the rest of the world."

Besides the fact of your link including temperatures that are logical -not like yours that are upside down-, by sleigh of hand, you switched from the Holocene to Paleocene-Eocene, that is, years before present multiplied by five thousand. When you are caught that way, it's good to change the disguise of bishop Usher for some other like a British scientist's from the nineteenth century.

Your attempt to misrepresent the knowledge of most people participating in this thread is duly noted. That's done in the typical fashion of vocational denialists, which anyway fails to hide that Google is their only source. The ability to do snow jobs -and the ethical relaxation that comes with it- is somewhat natural. The ability to select a proper set of concepts and parameters to develop an argument has to be trained by education. Stop trying to pass the first for the latter.

 

[BenBurch]

Some of you have been here long enough to recall that I predicted this;

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/19/1242227/scientists-turn-air-into-petrol

Nucs or windmills plus this process (or one very similar) = the future.

 

[Megalodon]

Some of you have been here long enough to recall that I predicted this;

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/19/1242227/scientists-turn-air-into-petrol

Nucs or windmills plus this process (or one very similar) = the future.

If this somehow works in a large scale, these people will be rich be beyond their wildest dreams...