Cheeznado Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15373071 This is solely for those who think the planet is not warming at all, regardless of cause. Case closed on that point IMHO. Human caused/large contributor? Probably IMHO, but that is another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The study has been very transparent and spearheaded by a self described skeptic. I kinda wish they would had waited until the papers got through peer review. It'll be pretty hard for other skeptics to come out against this study, seeing how excited they all were that this study would debunk any warming. http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15373071 This is solely for those fe who think the planet is not warming at all,m regardless of cause. Case closed on that point IMHO. Human caused/large contributor? Probably IMHO, but that is another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The study has been very transparent and spearheaded by a self described skeptic. I kinda wish they would had waited until the papers got through peer review. It'll be pretty hard for other skeptics to come out against this study, seeing how excited they all were that this study would debunk any warming. You obviously haven't been following these clowns as long as I have. They are already inventing ways to discredit this work. That is what deniers do. They will NEVER accept the earth has warmed nearly 1C no matter how much evidence is compiled. They will do anything to distract from the central issues. Anthony Watts via WUWT: Also I know that I’ll be critcized for my position on this, since I said back in March that I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process. http://wattsupwithth...iew/#more-49601 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yeah I've read his bit about this...i can agree that waiting until peer review was completed would had been optimal...but like i said, this one will be a hard one to spin....the study was partially funded by the Koch brothers...next you'll see skeptics claiming that Muller was a closet liberal with a hidden warming agenda... You obviously haven't been following these clowns as long as I have. They are already inventing ways to discredit this work. That is what deniers do. They will NEVER accept the earth has warmed nearly 1C no matter how much evidence is compiled. They will do anything to distract from the central issues. Anthony Watts via WUWT: Also I know that I’ll be critcized for my position on this, since I said back in March that I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process. http://wattsupwithth...iew/#more-49601 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 This thread is an excellent example of why it is important to differentiate between the different types of skeptics. Certainly not all (I would argue most) skeptics believe the world hasn't been warming. Only the hardcore deniers of warming deserve the label "denialist". Just as only those AGW activists who help spread worst-case scenario alarmism deserve the label "alarmist". Another point that could be lost in the battle cries: this study shows that there are certainly skeptics out there willing to embrace the truth, whatever it may be. Which should be the attitude of all involved in the debate/study of climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 this one will be a hard one to spin....the study was partially funded by the Koch brothers...next you'll see skeptics claiming that Muller was a closet liberal with a hidden warming agenda... It is remarkable how the scientists still managed to produce a fact that was already confirmed by levels and levels of data, even though it was funded by the Koch Brothers...! Then again, maybe a study's conclusions are not based off of its funding sources... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yeah I've read his bit about this...i can agree that waiting until peer review was completed would had been optimal...but like i said, this one will be a hard one to spin....the study was partially funded by the Koch brothers...next you'll see skeptics claiming that Muller was a closet liberal with a hidden warming agenda... Half the comments on his blog are already saying that. I don't think it matters at all if they release this pre-review as long as it ends up getting reviewed. A lot of major findings and projects are released pre-review, discussed publicly, and then published in the journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Half the comments on his blog are already saying that. I don't think it matters at all if they release this pre-review as long as it ends up getting reviewed. A lot of major findings and projects are released pre-review, discussed publicly, and then published in the journals. Very true, especially with high impacts studies such as this, and nobody can argue that this study was anything but completely transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I think that there is good evidence that points to the fact that Global Warming has occured over the past 150 years. The question is not whether the planet has heated up some over the last 150 years. It is whether Global Warming is man-made or not. There simply is not a lot of evidence that points to Global Warming as being man-made. In fact, there is more evidence that points to natural causes than to AGW. ETC ETC ETC Your post is completely off-topic. You don't like the findings of this study so you are mucking up this thread with your pet theories were are utter rubbish and which I have debunked dozens of times already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The study has been very transparent and spearheaded by a self described skeptic. I kinda wish they would had waited until the papers got through peer review. It'll be pretty hard for other skeptics to come out against this study, seeing how excited they all were that this study would debunk any warming. You can bet if the result was different, some here would be quick to point out it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Very true, especially with high impacts studies such as this, and nobody can argue that this study was anything but completely transparent. Concluding that the world has been warming is high impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Your post is completely off-topic. You don't like the findings of this study so you are mucking up this thread with your pet theories were are utter rubbish and which I have debunked dozens of times already. No, my post is completely on topic. This thread has to do with a Climate Change Study that found the Earth was warming, and I replied that this was not in question. What I then said was that what is in question is that the Anthropogenic Forcing is to blame. I then provided evidence for this assertion. You have not debunked my argument "dozens of times" so it is a complete straw man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Concluding that the world has been warming is high impact? Corroborating GISS and HadCRUT which have come under serious fire in political and pseudo-scientific circles is definitely high-impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I think most thought it was warming. The question always is it natural or man made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Corroborating GISS and HadCRUT which have come under serious fire in political and pseudo-scientific circles is definitely high-impact. Yes, this one certainly has come under fire from you. Regardless of the source, most reasonable skeptics had no doubt that the world has warmed the past 100+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 you're right. hence my statement of disappointment. You can bet if the result was different, some here would be quick to point out it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 No, my post is completely on topic. This thread has to do with a Climate Change Study that found the Earth was warming, and I replied that this was not in question. What I then said was that what is in question is that the Anthropogenic Forcing is to blame. I then provided evidence for this assertion. You have not debunked my argument "dozens of times" so it is a complete straw man. This thread is about whether the earth is warming. This isn't a thread to discuss your pet theories about what is causing warming. Your comments should be deleted. Your rubbish argument rests entirely on OLR data and ISCCP cloud data which have absolutely zero long-term validity and the agencies which publish them have specifically said not to use them for long-term analysis. But that doesn't stop you. You don't care if data is shoddy as long as it supports your pet theories. The ISCCP cloud data is just one of MANY cloud data sets... none of which are believed to be very accurate but all of which contradict each other. You select ISCCP because of all these crappy data sets, it's the one that supports your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Concluding that the world has been warming is high impact? Yes, I imagine that this paper will have a significant impact factor, based on acceptance through peer review. Impact factor is how a scientist's research impact is essentially judged, is it based on how often a paper is cited by other authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You can bet if the result was different, some here would be quick to point out it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Of course I would. If the results were different than GISS/HadCRUT you can bet that it would be because it contained errors which would be found in peer-review. So yes, of course I would point out that it hasn't been through peer-review and that it would likely be rejected by peer-review. And because I actually take the time to read these studies and understand the science involved, I could probably point out exactly what errors were being made and exactly why it would be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You don't care if data is shoddy as long as it supports your pet theories. The ISCCP cloud data is just one of MANY cloud data sets... none of which are believed to be very accurate but all of which contradict each other. You select ISCCP because of all these crappy data sets, it's the one that supports your position. If anyone honestly believes that whether the Earth has warmed or not is still in debate, then they can believe that. But the scientific evidence tends to differ on that. The Cloud datasets agree that albedo has decreased over the past 30 years, and has added more energy to Earth's Energy Budget than CO2 has since 1790. I'm not sure why you are so agressive tonight, since I have not attacked you personally, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If anyone honestly believes that whether the Earth has warmed or not is still in debate, then they can believe that. But the scientific evidence tends to differ on that. The Cloud datasets agree that albedo has decreased over the past 30 years, and has added more energy to Earth's Energy Budget than CO2 has since 1790. I'm not sure why you are so agressive tonight, since I have not attacked you personally, at all. Your posts are fine, just out of place, I'd suggest moving your initial post out of this thread, and start a new one which you can post your thoughts and people can comment on them, this thread is addressing the recently released study by Muller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yes, this one certainly has come under fire from you. Regardless of the source, most reasonable skeptics had no doubt that the world has warmed the past 100+ years. I don't question the general conclusion of HadCRUT. Only some very minor details which become important in the short-term if you have rapid short-term arctic warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Of course I would. If the results were different than GISS/HadCRUT you can bet that it would be because it contained errors which would be found in peer-review. So yes, of course I would point out that it hasn't been through peer-review and that it would likely be rejected by peer-review. And because I actually take the time to read these studies and understand the science involved, I could probably point out exactly what errors were being made and exactly why it would be rejected. Well that certainly is the wrong way to approach science. Basing the validity of conclusions on previous assumptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Your posts are fine, just out of place, I'd suggest moving your initial post out of this thread, and start a new one which you can post your thoughts and people can comment on them, this thread is addressing the recently released study by Muller. Thank you for your kind response. I shall do that, appreciate the suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yes, I imagine that this paper will have a significant impact factor, based on acceptance through peer review. Impact factor is how a scientist's research impact is essentially judged, is it based on how often a paper is cited by other authors. Fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see on the impact then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't question the general conclusion of HadCRUT. Only some very minor details which become important in the short-term if you have rapid short-term arctic warming. As long as the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the globe (which AGW theory says it should continue to do), those differences become magnified and will influence the longterm trend. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see on the impact then. Frankly, we just need to really wait until everything gets through peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If anyone honestly believes that whether the Earth has warmed or not is still in debate, then they can believe that. But the scientific evidence tends to differ on that. The Cloud datasets agree that albedo has decreased over the past 30 years, and has added more energy to Earth's Energy Budget than CO2 has since 1790. I'm not sure why you are so agressive tonight, since I have not attacked you personally, at all. I am not being aggressive. I am pointing out that you are off-topic and that the data you are is not intended for the purpose you are using it for. The publishers of that OLR and ISCCP data specifically say not to use it for long-term trends. But you just continue to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 As long as the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the globe (which AGW theory says it should continue to do), those differences become magnified and will influence the longterm trend. Right? Yes slightly. But it's been a much bigger issue over the last 12 years because the arctic has warmed 5X faster than the rest of the globe. In the long-term the ratio is more like 2X so it is less of an issue. I'd guess that if you infilled HadCRUT's arctic it would bump the long-term trend up maybe .05C/century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Well that certainly is the wrong way to approach science. Basing the validity of conclusions on previous assumptions? No it is not based on a previous assumption. It is based on the fact that GISS and HadCRUT are already rock solid proof of .7-.9C of warming. That's not an assumption. That is evidence. If somebody said the sky is green I would reject that and predict that it would fail to pass peer-review not because I assume the sky is blue but because I have ample proof that the sky is blue. Likewise, if somebody said the earth is not warming I would reject that and predict that it fails to pass peer-review not because I assume the earth is warming, but because I have ample proof the earth is warming. The fact that the earth has warmed is a basic unshakable observation at this point, no different than the observation that the sky is blue. The only reason anybody would ever find something much less than this is that they had made a mistake. From a scientific perspective, this study is completely redundant. It's only high impact from a PR standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.