Study: No Publication Bias Found in Climate Change Research

[donsutherland1]

From Science:

Rarely do we encounter a scientific fact that stirs public controversy and distrust in science as much as climate change. However, the theory is built on honest reporting of facts. This emerges from a new study from Lund University in Sweden.

The study in question investigates whether there is a so-called publication bias within climate research, i.e. a statistically skewed distribution of the way various types of findings are presented in research journals. "Our study is a very large review of the publication record within climate change", says Johan Hollander, who is a researcher at Lund University's Faculty of Science in Sweden. The conclusion is that climate researchers do not conceal uncomfortable facts which could potentially disprove climate change.

https://scienmag.com/no-publication-bias-found-in-climate-change-research/

[blizzard1024]

This is because the people controlling what gets published has to be for the human-induced climate change narrative. 

If you don't prescribe to this and think natural variability has a larger impact than CO2 you simply don't get published. 

How can bias be even measured in any science? The way grant money is doled out and the "publish or perish" mentality leads to

a lot of bias in all science. If you don't show a significant problem you don't get funds. Its only going to get worse with

the lean Trump budgets in the near future....

 

 

[blizzard1024]

underestimated the pace of climate change? what??? The climate models are producing too much warming. what are you looking at?? 

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The main bias with climate projections so far is that they have underestimated the pace and impacts of climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. 

 

2:55 in..scientists not doing at good job communicating to the public the dangers of climate change very well.

 

 

Looks like a lot of this was based off of Hansen's paper in 2012 which received a lot of criticism....as opposed to a larger body of empirical evidence portrayed in the 2013 IPCC SREX report. I would say this is a misleading interpretation of climate science. There hasn't been any compelling evidence that the 2013 SREX report was overly conservative. Sure, the article cherry picked past projections of sea ice decline being too conservative, but then left out previous IPCC reports that showed much milder winters and decreased heavy snowfall (which they have since removed in more recent reports due to recent snowy winters and much colder temps in some of the mid-latitude bands).

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Did you watch that video clip? Seems like everyone that comes out with a paper trying to lowball or minimize climate change impacts ends up being incorrect. 

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/‘stadium-waves’-could-explain-lull-global-warming

The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Yeah but it's still cherry picking...I can go find a pile of literature that has "high-balled" or incorrectly forecasted impacts from global warming...from bad NAO/AO forecasts to decreased northern hemisphere snowfall/snow cover in winter to big increases in drought. The video is mostly anecdotel evidence which as we know, means very little in science.

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah but it's still cherry picking...I can go find a pile of literature that has "high-balled" or incorrectly forecasted impacts from global warming...from bad NAO/AO forecasts to decreased northern hemisphere snowfall/snow cover in winter to big increases in drought. The video is mostly anecdotel evidence which as we know, means very little in science.

Yes you can't really say much without a careful technical study of each individual prediction. In his defense, Rignot is most familiar with ice sheets and they have been going faster than projected.

[ORH_wxman]

59 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Models underestimating the impact of climate change isn't considered anecdotel or cherry picking. Not understanding that it may take science a while to catch up to all the potential future negative impacts of climate change doesn't leave much margin of error in making decisions now that will shape the future. We probably haven't even begun to comprehend what all the negative real world effects in the future will be of the present business as usual mindset.

If it isn't, then we should be able to provide a comprehensive peer reviewed study of all model projections of all impacts from climate change and show that they have been underestimated...not a video discussing only certain components of climate change that have been underestimated. If that's all we got, then yeah, it's anecdotal.

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We may have to come to the realization that the models may never adequately describe the full extent real world negative effects of climate change. Better to take the threat seriously now than to run the risk that the future climate may exceed our ability to adapt without great hardship.

I have accepted that premise long ago.

 

As for your second point...adaptation is almost certainly the path that is going to be taken. As long as our intelligence is insulted by proposals such as the Paris Agreement being passed off as something that will actually affect climate change, then we know it is not taken very seriously.

[Msalgado]

ORH, your last post is like saying a starving child isn't actually trying to get well nourished because all thy have to eat is gruel.  The Paris accord wasn't meager out of design but rather out of necessity due to inability to get more.  The US is largely to blame for that.

[ORH_wxman]

12 minutes ago, Msalgado said:

ORH, your last post is like saying a starving child isn't actually trying to get well nourished because all thy have to eat is gruel.  The Paris accord wasn't meager out of design but rather out of necessity due to inability to get more.  The US is largely to blame for that.

I haven't seen a single realistic proposal yet that would do real mitigation...but I admit maybe I missed it. Any of the policies such as EU20/20, EU INDC, or China INDC do basically nothing. Mostly trivial numbers in the hundreths of a degree Celsius.

 

Regardless, the overall path still stands that adaptation will be our route most likely.

[chubbs]

We've actually made  a fair bit of progress recently on the energy front without any significant global carbon policy or pricing. We can either: 1) retrench, 2) continue to make slow steady progress, or 3) accelerate. With a true cost of carbon of roughly $30 per ton and increasing yearly, option #3 actually has the lowest long-term cost and option #1 the highest.

 

IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016

18 March 2017

Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat for a third straight year in 2016 even as the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency. The data signal a continuing decoupling of emissions and economic activity. This was the result of growing renewable power generation, switches from coal to natural gas, improvements in energy efficiency, as well as structural changes in the global economy.

Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%.

In 2016, renewables supplied more than half the global electricity demand growth, with hydro accounting for half of that share. The overall increase in the world’s nuclear net capacity last year was the highest since 1993, with new reactors coming online in China, the United States, South Korea, India, Russia and Pakistan. Coal demand fell worldwide but the drop was particularly sharp in the United States, where demand was down 11% in 2016. For the first time, electricity generation from natural gas was higher than from coal last year in the United States.

With the appropriate policies, and large amounts of shale reserves, natural gas production in the United States could keep growing strongly in the years to come. This could have three main consequences: it could boost domestic manufacturing, supply more competitive gas to Asia through to LNG exports, and provide alternative gas supplies to Europe. IEA will explore US and natural gas prospects in details in the next World Energy Outlook 2017.

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%. There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

[Jack Frost]

On March 22, 2017 at 10:41 AM, chubbs said:

We've actually made  a fair bit of progress recently on the energy front without any significant global carbon policy or pricing. We can either: 1) retrench, 2) continue to make slow steady progress, or 3) accelerate. With a true cost of carbon of roughly $30 per ton and increasing yearly, option #3 actually has the lowest long-term cost and option #1 the highest.

 

IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year even as global economy grew in 2016

18 March 2017

Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat for a third straight year in 2016 even as the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency. The data signal a continuing decoupling of emissions and economic activity. This was the result of growing renewable power generation, switches from coal to natural gas, improvements in energy efficiency, as well as structural changes in the global economy.

Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%.

In 2016, renewables supplied more than half the global electricity demand growth, with hydro accounting for half of that share. The overall increase in the world’s nuclear net capacity last year was the highest since 1993, with new reactors coming online in China, the United States, South Korea, India, Russia and Pakistan. Coal demand fell worldwide but the drop was particularly sharp in the United States, where demand was down 11% in 2016. For the first time, electricity generation from natural gas was higher than from coal last year in the United States.

With the appropriate policies, and large amounts of shale reserves, natural gas production in the United States could keep growing strongly in the years to come. This could have three main consequences: it could boost domestic manufacturing, supply more competitive gas to Asia through to LNG exports, and provide alternative gas supplies to Europe. IEA will explore US and natural gas prospects in details in the next World Energy Outlook 2017.

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%. There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

 

So temperatures have remained flat as well.  Or have they?  Wait, there is much scientific literature that demonstrates that CO2 lags temperature change.  Or does it cause it?  No, water vapor (clouds) is the major green house gas component by far.  And that feedback loop is positive...no, I mean negative.  Maybe neutral.  What about the sun?  Pay no attention to the sun.  The sun has no impact on earth's climate.  Well, maybe a little, just no where near the gas that all human's exhale (CO2), which by the way, is essential to plant growth and life on earth as we know or refuse to know it.

Any one who does not absolutely believe the science is settled should be put in jail.  Let's pass legislation.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL      

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

So temperatures have remained flat as well.  Or have they?  Wait, there is much scientific literature that demonstrates that CO2 lags temperature change.  Or does it cause it?  No, water vapor (clouds) is the major green house gas component by far.  And that feedback loop is positive...no, I mean negative.  Maybe neutral.  What about the sun?  Pay no attention to the sun.  The sun has no impact on earth's climate.  Well, maybe a little, just no where near the gas that all human's exhale (CO2), which by the way, is essential to plant growth and life on earth as we know or refuse to know it.

Any one who does not absolutely believe the science is settled should be put in jail.  Let's pass legislation.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL      

Nice try but no bingo. Better luck next time.

[Jack Frost]

 

Bingo?  AGW "scientists" prefer Monopoly!   

[Jack Frost]

From the cited article

"Hollander investigated 120 research articles published in the field of climate research between 1997 and 2013."

Wow, 120 articles.  That must be the entire lexicon of AGW research in that 16 year period.  Thank God for exhaustive studies like this one!

Don, do you have the link to the actual study?  Probably wouldn't take all that much time to read the actual 120, much less the study itself....