University of Wollongong Study confirms natural emission is responsible for 90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity.

[BethesdaWX]

pick the 3 global warming points you are most confident about. present your ideas and the supporting research.

Ok, just so you are aware, they will be:

1) That ENSO is driven by the Magnetic Sun

2) That CO2 has not correlated to temperature as a driver throughout the geological past

3) That clouds are a much more important aspect of climate than CO2.

I will back all my claims up with peer reviewed evidence.

[BethesdaWX]

actually it is done--I've posted the guidelines from that journal proving that.

and as all of the data and methodology is open access so anyone can weigh in on it, what is there to be so affronted by.

It is not against the Journals guidlines, but presenting non-peer reviewed data to congress+the media blitz/press conference/release as some sort of relevation, when it really isn't, is not morally acceptable in climate science, especially given AGW is a scientific hypothesis by the scientific method.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty,

You are wrong. There is no 'establishment' science, there is no 'settled', here in climate science, at least if you follow the scientific method, and there is plentiful countering evidence and hypothesis. Have have backed myself up with peer reviewed literature constantly, would you like to see some? If so ask to see it, and do not drum up false claims and accusasions as is common with your side of the debate. It shows weakness on your own part.

I have responded to your claims, which you can't seem to respond to, in that the total additions to the energy budget due to CO2 influence needs to be compared to the entire planetary energy budget, not just the thermal portion...it is all sourced by the sun...who would argue this that is not the case? Can you not see why all the energy given to the Earth System by the Sun would need to be taken into account?

And the fact that one theory can explain the flatlining in temps to the exact year, while the other cannot, is also something you haven't responded to.

I can not respond to something I know little about. The only places I have heard of your hypotheses is from you and the skeptic/denier sites you reference.

I don't know that there is a meaningful part of Earth's energy budget appart from what it recieves in solar electromagnetic radiation and what it radiates away to space as thermal radiation. Yes the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field surge to and envelope the Earth. The Earth's interior generates a magnetic field. The two fields interact causing some electrical phenomina and heating of the ionosphere. I don't think this interaction has much to do with the global surface temperature however and if it does it must be very minor.

You have shown supposed correlations, but no demonstrated causive mechanisms. You have admitted as much, yet you hold up your hypothesis as if it should be considered as seriously as any other, including AGW.

[BethesdaWX]

I can not respond to something I know little about. The only places I have heard of your hypotheses is from you and the skeptic/denier sites you reference.

There are no denier sites I know of that actually discuss this stuff, WUWT has before but it is not a denier site. Really, you can't be a denier of a hypothesis by the scientific method, you can be a skeptic or a believer.

I don't know that there is a meaningful part of Earth's energy budget appart from what it recieves in solar electromagnetic radiation and what it radiates away to space as thermal radiation. Yes the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field surge to and envelope the Earth. The Earth's interior generates a magnetic field. The two fields interact causing some electrical phenomina and heating of the ionosphere. I don't think this interaction has much to do with the global surface temperature however and if it does it must be very minor.

All the kinetic, thermal, and electric energy in the climate system originated from the Sun. Think of all the winds, storms/cyclones, moving jets/weather patterns, constant lightning, ocean waves/ripples, convection, etc, all over the world. That is all part of the kinetic budget, and it is sizable, and ALL of it results from the GHE...the global lightning budget and wind budget being the largest portion of the kinetic budget.

That has to be taken into account with the thermal portion too, to get the TOTAL energy budget, which is what CO2's forcing should be compared to in order to get an estimate of sensitivity.

You have shown supposed correlations, but no demonstrated causive mechanisms. You have admitted as much, yet you hold up your hypothesis as if it should be considered as seriously as any other, including AGW.

I have theorized causations that I have not gone into yet, obviously I have no direct proof of anything. So it is my hypothesis, by the scientific method. AGW is also a hypothesis, as is the big bang theory.

[BethesdaWX]

it's only not "morally acceptable" because you disagree with the findings. there is nothing moral about it--that is irrelevant. and if it were unethical, it woild not be allowed.

No. You don't media blitz and lecture congress on non peer reviewed science, plain and simple. Once you press release a paper it is rarely published.

[donsutherland1]

Samples vs coverage...

Spatial instrument coverage is lacking in some areas. The goal of the study was:

The Berkeley Earth mathematical framework allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. The Berkeley Earth averaging process presented is extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining the expected spatial relationships.

To achieve that goal, one would need to design and utilize a representative sample. The following paper describes how the framework was developed:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf

It also notes that a future paper will be forthcoming that analyzes a dataset based on data from more than 39,000 stations. That dataset would be more than five times larger than the NOAA dataset.

If one is looking for more than a sample, that paper will be based on what probably amounts to the most extensive coverage feasible. My guess is that the sampling, which appears rigorous, will prove representative of the findings based on coverage. I expect some statistically insignificant differences, but believe the sample will not be statistically different from the analysis of the population of data. Unfortunately, that paper is still in the future.

[BethesdaWX]

proof?

You're joking, right?

[BethesdaWX]

Spatial instrument coverage is lacking in some areas. The goal of the study was:

The Berkeley Earth mathematical framework allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. The Berkeley Earth averaging process presented is extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining the expected spatial relationships.

To achieve that goal, one would need to design and utilize a representative sample. The following paper describes how the framework was developed:

http://berkeleyearth...ing-process.pdf

It also notes that a future paper will be forthcoming that analyzes a dataset based on data from more than 39,000 stations. That dataset would be more than five times larger than the NOAA dataset.

If one is looking for more than a sample, that paper will be based on what probably amounts to the most extensive coverage feasible. My guess is that the sampling, which appears rigorous, will prove representative of the findings based on coverage. I expect some statistically insignificant differences, but believe the sample will not be statistically different from the analysis of the population of data. Unfortunately, that paper is still in the future.

Well I look forward to the paper. I hope Muller knows about the modeled 'tropospheric hotspot'.

[donsutherland1]

Well I look forward to the paper. I hope Muller knows about the modeled 'tropospheric hotspot'.

Unless I'm mistaken, BEST is examining surface temperature data. The project is not dealing with atmospheric temperatures or modeling related to atmospheric temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

Unless I'm mistaken, BEST is examining surface temperature data. The project is not dealing with atmospheric temperatures or modeling related to atmospheric temperatures.

Oh of course you're right, but if by some chance BEST is right and all other sources are incorrect in the temp trend, the atmospheric profile [warmer at the surface, flatter in the LT] will resemble that of increased shortwave radiation influx to the surface

[PhillipS]

No. You don't media blitz and lecture congress on non peer reviewed science, plain and simple. Once you press release a paper it is rarely published.

You are totally wrong about research and press releases. Publicity (which includes press releases) may not be mentioned in your comic books but it is an integral facet of real-world research. Have you ever of the website EurekaAlert? Here is how the site describes itself:

EurekAlert! is an online, global news service operated by

AAAS, the science society

. EurekAlert! provides a central place through which universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research can bring their news to the media. EurekAlert! also offers its news and resources to the public. EurekAlert! features news and resources focused on all areas of science, medicine and technology.

This site has been around for years so this is not a new phenomenon. Publicity is how research organizations attract top students and faculty, it is how they impress the private donors who fund a lot of seminal research, and it is how institutions maintain their visibility.

If you think that publicity somehow taints research, or isn't 'business as usual' at a research institution then you have never been involved in real research.

[Vergent]

You are totally wrong about research and press releases. Publicity (which includes press releases) may not be mentioned in your comic books but it is an integral facet of real-world research. Have you ever of the website EurekaAlert? Here is how the site describes itself:

EurekAlert! is an online, global news service operated by

AAAS, the science society

. EurekAlert! provides a central place through which universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research can bring their news to the media. EurekAlert! also offers its news and resources to the public. EurekAlert! features news and resources focused on all areas of science, medicine and technology.

This site has been around for years so this is not a new phenomenon. Publicity is how research organizations attract top students and faculty, it is how they impress the private donors who fund a lot of seminal research, and it is how institutions maintain their visibility.

If you think that publicity somehow taints research, or isn't 'business as usual' at a research institution then you have never been involved in real research.

Actually, BX is closer to the truth on this one.

Prior publication Science will not consider any paper or component of a paper that has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere. Distribution on the Internet may be considered prior publication and may compromise the originality of the paper as a submission to Science. Please contact the editors with questions regarding allowable postings.

Prior press coverage Reports of the main findings of a paper in the mass media may compromise the novelty of the work and thus its appropriateness for Science. Authors are free to present their work at scientific meetings but should not overtly seek media attention or give copies of the figures or data from their manuscript to any reporter, unless the reporter agrees to abide by Science's press embargo. If a reporter attends an author's session at a meeting and writes a story based only on the presentation, such coverage will not affect Science's consideration of the author's paper.

http://www.sciencema...nfo.xhtml#prior

EuricaAlert and Science daily report about papers when they are published.

[PhillipS]

Actually, BX is closer to the truth on this one.

[/size]

http://www.sciencema...nfo.xhtml#prior

EuricaAlert and Science daily report about papers when they are published.

I will have to disagree with you on this one, at least about Bethesda being closer to the truth. Bethesda was claiming that publicizing research is somehow unethical or unprofessional. That press releases and media attention taint the research results and is a reason to reject the findings. He was referring to the BEST project's findings which refute his pet hypothesis. His assertion was nonsense, and when asked by Wxtrix to support his claim he was not able to.

I was trying to show that research publicity is far from being unethical. In fact it is the accepted norm for real-world research. And I agree with you that publicity usually stats after papers are published, or at least after they pass review and are accepted for publication.

Science is a for-profit journal and their policy reflects their desire to attract and keep paying readers by offering fresh research papers. Nothing wrong with that. So we may not see any of the BEST reports published in Science, but I have no doubt that we will see all of them published.

[Vergent]

I will have to disagree with you on this one, at least about Bethesda being closer to the truth. Bethesda was claiming that publicizing research is somehow unethical or unprofessional. That press releases and media attention taint the research results and is a reason to reject the findings. He was referring to the BEST project's findings which refute his pet hypothesis. His assertion was nonsense, and when asked by Wxtrix to support his claim he was not able to.

I was trying to show that research publicity is far from being unethical. In fact it is the accepted norm for real-world research. And I agree with you that publicity usually stats after papers are published, or at least after they pass review and are accepted for publication.

Science is a for-profit journal and their policy reflects their desire to attract and keep paying readers by offering fresh research papers. Nothing wrong with that. So we may not see any of the BEST reports published in Science, but I have no doubt that we will see all of them published.

Sorry, I had not read the whole thread. Having been a science documentary film maker, I am very aware that findings are closely held secrets, there is a total "press embargo". The only exception is a session at a conference, that gets reported on as was the case for the ESAS methane.