F
friardchips
Guest
:tiphat:
The harmful gassing of the world comes from the direction of the IPCC.
A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
You mean they are on the Internet. And yes, it should be deemed newsworthy, since the MSM is completely biased when it comes to Climate Disruption (that’s the new term they are using now).
D
dvdjs
Guest
I mean that retractions are published in the journals, with a press release in cases of notoriety.
Btw, are you suggesting the the retractions are all about climate science? Look again.
J
josie_L
Guest
Again, I’m not denying the retractions, but how public is public, i.e., it’s not the every day person who has access, or can keep up with all the retractions and/or have the stamina to do so? However, if the media helped in pursuing a more neutral approach to AGW, than we’d all be the better for it.
I’m simply saying that the media is very slanted, and since the media seems to be the source people look to for information, then it behooves the media to act responsibly and creditably.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I realize what you are saying, but I don’t think that you have a legitimate point on the matter of retractions of scientific articles.
BTW, not one of the articles listed was about climate science.
I am not sure that we should expect a retraction of “Viral pathogenicity determinants are suppressors of transgene silencing in Nicotiana benthamiana” to make the evening news.
I wonder if even Breitbart, WND, Lifezette, or InfoWars picked up on this.
F
frobert
Guest
You are conflating media with science which is a logical fallacy,. I do not watch any main stream media nor do I indulge in winged blogs so I have no idea what of what you are referring to.
J
josie_L
Guest
I didn’t say all science, but when it comes to AGW, then yes, the media is much too willing to deny any evidence that might weaken it.
It is, in other words, very very biased reporting. And that is, of course, my opinion, but it’s based on watching/observing the media, which you have already stated you do not watch.
p.s. Have you ever heard of the term “watermelons”?
F
frobert
Guest
Best advice: don’t get your science from the popular media. Read and think for yourself.
Do not attribute unsubstantiated motives. Popular media, announces, publishes, televises, blogs, etc what they believe will attract the most people with little or no interest for truth, because people equal advertising dollars. It is also likely the media have ulterior motives in shaping their content to appeal to the biases of their core.
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Hello Lynn,
The real question is why this paper was counted as a citation of NIPCC in the first place.
This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Earth System Dynamics (ESD). The revised manuscript was not accepted.
On occasion, I’ve seen preprints cited in academic work, but I’ve never seen anyone claiming credit for being cited in a preprint, let alone for a paper that was rejected after review.
If you haven’t yet looked at the forward and preface to the NIPCC’s CRII, Physical Science, I recommend it. It’s quite enlightening.
As ever, Jesse
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Dear Ender,
Isn’t that how science works, though? Build a model, compare it to the real world, adjust the model, rinse and repeat.
In this case, the argument for PDO/ENSO influence is double-sided. First, there is the La Nina effect combined with a negative PDO, suggested as cause for the recently concluded hiatus. Then there is El Nino effect combined with a positive PDO.
I ran into the following paper as I was preparing this response.
Consecutive record-breaking high temperatures marked the handover from hiatus to accelerated warming
As the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) struggled back to its positive phase since 2014, the global warming returned back to a new accelerated warming period, marked by the record-breaking high temperatures in 2014. Intensified by the super strong El Niño, successive high records occurred in 2015 and 2016.
While no one should draw too much out of a few years results, the increases between 2013 and 2016 were simply jaw-dropping. At .32 ºC, this was the largest three-year change in the anomaly in the entire GISS dataset, which runs back to 1880. Readers are encouraged to pull down the numbers, load them into a spreadsheet, and check the results themselves.
Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month: TXT, CSV.
That much heat being released is a clear indication that that much heat had been stored.
Looking over the PDF you’re citing, the objection that it’s not peer reviewed is fairly mild. The question that kept coming into my head as I read was, “Who does this?”
The article begins with a list of endorsements. Who does this?
Academic papers are never prefaced by endorsements, if it’s appropriate to use the word in this context. Academics “endorse” a paper by citing its results and building on them in their own papers.
On occasion, citations are negative, illustrating flaws, as is almost certainly the reason why the withdrawn Wakefield article linking autism to vaccination has been cited so often.
It’s written in “Professor asked for four pages, but I’ve only got one” font. It’s not even copy edited. Between the all caps and other random capitalizations, along with bold-faced paragraphs, and pagination that cuts right through the footnotes, it’s nearly impossible to read. Honestly, it looks like it was written in Word. There’s not a hint the authors are acquainted with LaTeX. Who does this?
The paper itself, released in 2016, is a response to EPA regulations from 2009. Who does this?
On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG)
Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and
costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the
time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated
on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions
have led to dangerously higher Global Average Surface
Temperatures (GAST).
My web-based spell checker highlights the above, suggesting, quite properly, that Green House should be spelled Greenhouse. I’d imagine even Word would catch that.
At some point, I had to stop and start googling it. It’s available, exactly as you’ve supplied it, spelling and formatting issues included, at The Heartland Institute. Apparently, these weren’t issues for them.
For a critical review that looks beyond the editing issues and lack of peer review, there’s the following, also not peer reviewed, as seems appropriate here.
Barmy bloopers from John Christy and co at WUWT seven years later
Too snarky for my taste, but it includes what you were asking for, reasons to reject its findings that go well beyond “it’s not peer reviewed.” An example follows.
Games with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) For ENSO they did something quite unique. The developed what they called the “cumulative MEI”.
In case you were wondering, no, that’s not a thing. What follows is a reverse engineering of the adjusted index, necessary as the actual calculation was never supplied (Who does this?), and a side-by-side comparison of actual MEI and the adjustment used by the authors.
As ever, Jesse
F
Faithdancer
Guest
The propaganda machine never stops working does it? Think of how many carbon emissions are caused by all this prattle about climate change.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
It seems it may have been published (I’ll check, since I know Rasmus), but I am going thru the list of the 123 in spare time, and so far I’ve found:
-many unpublished or just non-peer reviewed blog articles.
-many in non-sci jnls,
-many about CC denial (not about establishing GW or its impacts or mitigation solutions).
-many books or book chapters (which prima facie I don’t count unless I know they were peer reviewed and reputable); anyone can publish a book with bogus facts, etc, as long as the publisher thinks it can make money, and then there are the vanity presses).
-some in sci jnls that seemed to be about meta issues, such as scientific methods, and not to address CC sci, impacts, or solutions.
Even the ones in sci journals that appear scientific and addressing CC will need to be checked for how they use the NIPCC…perhaps to say it is hogwash.
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Dear Lynn,
The article has been revised, resubmitted, and published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, November 2016, Volume 126, Issue 3–4, pp 699–703.
Learning from mistakes in climate research
Needless to say at this point, but the NIPCC is used as an example of these mistakes.
The credential inflation is rampant here. Letters to the editor cast as peer reviewed refutations and blog references as citations.
Again, I recommend reading the preface and forward to Physical Science if you’re interested in gathering stronger material for a critique. They are quite forward about their intentions.
As ever, Jesse
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I may be interested later; I’m on another project now (unrelated to CC).
To be completely fair about those skeptics with greater knowledge, it seems there were some 2 or 3 instances in which their critique actually led to some improvements in climate science – nothing to detract from its main thrust and conclusions though.
And they do make mistakes. At one point some 10 or so years ago they thought they had disproved GW, but it turned out they should have used the Kelvin scale (with a true zero) instead of the Celsius scale for their stat method. Once they did that their refutation of GW fell flat.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that is how science works, but I was objecting to the claim that “it’s fairly well established that much, and perhaps most of the excess heat was taken up in the Pacific.” “Fairly well established” is more than the science will support.
Two points here: the first is the assertion that indeed there was a hiatus. Given the insistence (by some) that there never was a pause in the first place I appreciate this recognition of that fact.
Second, the description that we are entering “accelerated warming” doesn’t seem to account for what happened. The implication is that warming will continue to gradually increase, perhaps in a sawtooth fashion, but inexorably up. That, however, may not be the best description of the warming, which seems more stepwise. I guess we’ll see.
It certainly seems so. It doesn’t, however, necessarily suggest a mechanism, which is really what the controversy is all about.
The “who does this” objections are not without merit, and probably should raise flags. That said, the response to EPA actions does have merit. Given the impact of those regulations on industry, and with the change in the White House, providing reasonable grounds for rescinding those regulations is a very practical thing to do. It is also reasonable to consider whether a response to a government finding that was not itself peer reviewed in a scientific journal (I assume this) requires an official peer reviewed response.
OK, this is the type of response such a paper deserves. As far as the complaint that “the actual calculation was never supplied”, they said in the paper itself they would be happy to supply all of the data and calculations upon request, and as for the last “who does this” objection, I need only point to the Climategate emails to show the extent to which those pushing the AGW story went to prevent their calculations and data from ever seeing the light of day.
I appreciate the professionalism of your response.
Ender
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Hello Ender,
From your comments later in this post, it seems you accept the fact that heat was taken up in the Pacific, and that you have further questions about the mechanism by which “much if not most of the excess heat” was taken up. Before we consider mechanisms, I should clarify what I mean by “excess heat.”
“Excess heat” in this context is the difference between the heat delivered to the surface by known forcings and the heat necessary to account for the slower growth in surface temperatures during the hiatus, the period from 1998-2012 relative to the period from 1951-2012.
More simply, by “excess heat,” I mean the heat that didn’t go into increasing Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST).
CLIMATE CHANGE 2013, The Physical Science Basis, pp. 61-63.
Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one third to one half of the trend over 1951–2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04°C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11°C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in NH winter. Even with this ‘hiatus’ in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. {2.4.3, 9.4.1; Box 9.2; Table 2.7}
I will leave it to others to justify their claims that the hiatus indexed as …
warming hiatus, 61-63, 769-772, 798, 909
And examined in a reference listed for chapters 9, 11, and 13 …
Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, J. T. Fasullo, A. X. Hu, and K. E. Trenberth, 2011: Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Clim. Change, 1, 360–364.
… did not occur. With two or more gathered in agreement on its existence, it’s possible to discuss the nature of this observed hiatus. Three causes were considered.
This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}
Though current models when AR5 was released in 2013 could adequately account for hiatus periods prior to the most recent, this was not true for the period from 1998-2012.
Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade).
Though evidence available at the time was inconclusive about where the excess heat was going, it was well established that excess heat was being absorbed by the climate system.
Owing to sampling limitations, it is uncertain whether an increase in the rate of subsurface–ocean heat uptake occurred during the past 15 years. However, it is very likely that the climate system, including the ocean below 700 m depth, has continued to accumulate energy over the period 1998–2010.
Internal variability was responsible for perhaps half of the hiatus.
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
So half and half, with ocean uptake as the prime suspect for internal variability; and volcanos and their released aerosols the prime suspect, along with the solar cycle, for reduced external forcings. I’ve seen some argument that there’s a significant Atlantic component to internal variability, too, but none that it’s more substantial than PDO/ENSO, hence “much if not most.”
And that’s all the space I’m allowed in a single reply.
As ever, Jesse
P
Poptech
Guest
Multiple strawman arguments:
- No claim was made that the article being refuted was based on climate science.
- No claim was made that refuting the article refutes anything else but the article.
- No skeptic is trying to refute that the climate changes.
Where does the article claim that someone denies the climate changes?
Who here does not believe that the climate changes?
I take it you are new to this debate as most of those citing the IPCC are not in the field of climate science.
Does volume of citations determined the scientific validity of a paper?
P
Poptech
Guest
DeSmogBlog is an unreliable site.
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
J
josie_L
Guest
But do you think that people have the time to do this with everything else that’s going on in this world? Either way, the media should be a neutral source/fount of information (although a little bias is to be expected), unfortunately that is not the case.
Although I get what you’re saying, it’s not always feasible.
P
Poptech
Guest
It is not an opinion paper but a scientific review of the scholarly literature the IPCC almost completely ignored.
Actually their scientific reports have 283 citations and I consider hundreds of citations extensive.
100 - NIPCC - Policy Summary: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (2008)
100 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered (2009)
_32 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered (2009)
__5 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered (2009)
_18 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
_17 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered II (2013)
__2 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (2013)
__6 - NIPCC - Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts - Summary for Policy Makers (2014)
__3 - NIPCC - Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming (2015)
Citations are a measure of popularity not scientific validity. It is obvious the IPCC reports are more popular but that does not make the NIPCC reports scientifically invalid.
Do these papers have “merit” because they are frequently cited?
2550+ times cited - RETRACTED: Wakefield et al. (1998)
2450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Fukuhara et al. (2005)
1600+ times cited - RETRACTED: Reyes et al. (2001)
1450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Voinnet et al. (2003)
1300+ times cited - RETRACTED: Nakao et al. (2003)
1250+ times cited - RETRACTED: Brigneti et al. (1998)
1200+ times cited - RETRACTED: Rubio et al. (2005)
1100+ times cited - RETRACTED: Jobb et al. (2004)
If volume of references have no bearing on something being a scholarly work then the IPCC reports are not a scholarly work. You have failed to show how the NIPCC reports are not scholarly works or have been ignored.
Reports that are cited hundreds of times are not ignored.
- Status