What consensus..........?

[Greatcloud]

E&E's review process is substandard at best. Peer review means more than just having someone else read it, it's a process where a paper is sent to highly regarded experts in the very specific field the paper relates to. This is supposed to be free from the political interests of the editors. Speaking of:



http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf

Do you know how many world wide proxies there are concerning the MWP ? It cannot be ignored.

Uh oh... that sounds like a broken review process to me...

You are being prejudiced they have a perfectly good peer review process.The papers are legitimate.

YOU'LL SEE............. when the Maunder hits. We may already be in it. Laugh if you want but keep an eye on the sun, and CO2 levels going down.

 

[[serious]]

CO2 levels going down? No.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

 

[Greatcloud]

CO2 levels going down its possible

CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

6 04 2008

Ads by Google
EcoSecurities USA
Developing and supplying carbon offsets for the voluntary market
www.ecosecurities.com



​

​

Source: NOAA http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
In the graph above, the black line is the seasonally adjusted value while the red is the monthly mean. This is based on data through March. May is normally the peak month. Here we see how Mauna Loa CO2 has lagged in its annual rise. The likely culprit: Pacific ocean cooling due to La Nina and increased solubility of CO2 in water.
This graph certainly supports the notion of the ocean’s importance in CO2 trends, something Roy Spencer did a guest post on CO2 and oceans here on this blog and was roundly criticized for it in some circles.
Given that May is normally the peak month for CO2, and because we still see a strong La Nina, the result could be a lower CO2 max in 2008 than 2007 for Mauna Loa. This has happened before in the 60s and 70s in the last cool PDO phase (lasting til 1977). Even if it stays even with last year’s level, this tells us a lot and sheds doubt on these ideas:

1. Anthropogenic accumulation (civilization is still producing CO2)
2. A CO2 residence time of several hundred years seems unlikely now
3. Giegengack’s thesis that if man stopped emitting CO2, the earth would emit more to compensate, the premise being that since man has for the first time “upset the balance” and is pressing CO2 into the earth, then once the balance is restored the earth will resume emitting it instead.
​

The global data plot below doesn’t show the same trend as Mauna Loa, so it appears that this CO2 dropoff at Mauna Loa is a regional effect due to Hawaii’s proximity to cooler ocean temperatures.

It will be interesting to see in the coming months what happens globally, should we see a drop-off or leveling of global CO2 in response to our quiet sun and La Nina, it will be difficult for AGW proponents to explain. Nature will indeed be the final arbiter of this debate.
We live in interesting times. Hat tips to Joe D’Aleo and Alan Siddon for portions of this post

 

[atomweaver]

This is the first paper on my second list

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf


The models are wrong but they will keep trying.

Greatclud, before anybody would be stupid enough to trust what you have to say about anything, you've got some 'splaining to do... You've been clearly shown to pad your reference lists with extraneous, non-peer reviewed articles, rapid communications, and , and articles whose content runs contrary to the assertions you make about them. If you hope to have any chance of salvaging a single ear on this forum, you need to clean up your entire list, post it again, and offer some reasonable explanation for your prior deplorable actions. Here, you start with the first article of your second post of references... I think we can safely assume that means the first post was total garbage. Thanks so much for wasting these good people's time. Now that you've shown how deceptive you can be in presenting on this topic, why would you expect anyone to give you another minute's worth of their precious time?

Until you clean up your image, you're wasting your time trying to convince anybody of anything. You simply lack the credibility... *shrug* Sorry, Greatcloud, but you dug your own hole in this matter.

 

[Greatcloud]

Agreed, Molal. Half of them don't even deal with his topic... the others do, but most don't support his assertions. Keep up the self-pwnage, Greatcloud.

Oh, and the periodical Energy and Environment is not peer reviewed...

I never said these peer reviewed papers all agreed with what I believe, just that they go against the mainstream on AGW.

The periodical Energy and Environment is peer reviewed, read my post on this.

Atomweaver I don't have to do what you say, everyone makes errors. You were wrong about the E E periodical not being peer reviewed. So pipe down and have some fun,I intend too.

 

[[serious]]

I never said these peer reviewed papers all agreed with what I believe, just that they go against the mainstream on AGW.

The periodical Energy and Environment is peer reviewed, read my post on this.

Atomweaver I don't have to do what you say, everyone makes errors. You were wrong about the E E periodical not being peer reviewed. So pipe down and have some fun,I intend too.

my posts are peer reviewed as well. I have my brother look at them. Given, this "peer review" is completely bogus, but if we remove any real meaning from the term I can claim my posts are "peer reviewed".

EDIT: and much of your list simply talks about other climate influences without ever even addressing AGW. the presence of a 1500 year cycle doesn't say ANYTHING about human impact on climate. That drops an entire group of papers you listed as completely irrelevant to the discussion. One of your papers said we couldn't discount the possibility that global warming could be worse than expected. When challenged to defend some of these, you went back and listed 3 papers, all by the same author.

Let's face it, copying lists that you obviously haven't read is an incredibly weak argument.

 

[Greatcloud]

QFT.



GC, do you think discussions about peer-reviewed articles count as peer-reviewed articles, themselves? Just wondering...



I looked at the quoted paper, above, chosen from your list. Here is the full article;

http://www.clim-past.net/3/569/2007/cp-3-569-2007.pdf

It doesn't deal with AGW, at all. It deals with past periods of oceanic forcing cycles. What's more, in their conclusion section, we find this;
The 1,500 year cycle is an anti- AGW stance.


Originally Posted by Debret, et al

By re-visiting well-known series from the North Atlantic Ocean, wavelet analysis reveals that the Holocene millennial
variability is composed of at least three periodicities.
Our results strongly suggest that two wavelengths are directly
forced by solar activity (1000 and 2500-year cycles)
whereas the third one (1600-year cycle, dominant during
5000–0 years) may correspond to oceanic internal forcing.
Our results, based on a purely mathematical approach are
not able to provide any additional explanation on the origin(
s) of this oceanic variability, which may result from atmospheric
water transport (Broecker et al., 2001) or a persistent
internal salt oscillator (McManus et al., 1999) or perhaps
an orbital modulation of the mechanisms driving millennial and
centennial-scale climatic change through the Holocene
as suggest by Turney et al. (2005). They nevertheless rule
out thestrictly external climate forcing due to variations in
solar output through a linear process.
​

"Strictly" meaning the sun also is a forcer not just ocean variability.

Bold emphasis mine. This article refutes your "GW through solar factors" position, GC. Genius... post an article that refutes your position, and lie about its content. Great job.

You must not have read or comprehended the anti-AGW theme.

How many more articles in your cut-n-paste are you likewise lying about?

I do not lie- Greatcloud

 

[Greatcloud]

You post supposed peer-reviewed articles supporting your claim, when a cursory review finds that you are just populating lists with articles that mostly have nothing to do with the topic you claim they support. Address your distortions from previous posts, or recognize that you have lost any and all credibility.

Here's the next article from your list;


On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides


As the Hydrological Sciences Journal home page table of contents tells us, this entry is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, it is a rapid communication;

Remarks: Please visit/cite the peer-reviewed version of this article: As you can clearly read there is a peer reviewed version of this article this is a modified peer reviewed version.

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/toc/hysj/53/4?cookieSet=1

...basically, a "letter to the audience", delivered in a journal. You're 3 for 3 in terms of unreliability, Greatcloud. Tell us, again, why anyone should trust your cut-n-pastes?

These are peer reviewed you just have to get the paper in its full version.

 

[Greatcloud]

In our continuing series, here is Greatcloud's third reference from Post #22;


Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Abstract—Compilation of climatically sensitive deposits (chiefly evaporites, calcretes, coals, bauxites, kaolins [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]and kaolinites, tillites, dropstones, glendonites and cool-water marine sediments, palms, as well as crocodilians etc.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]through twenty-seven Phanerozoic time intervals enables one to revise the contemporary paleogeography in a [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]manner consistent with the climatic information. We also take account of some of the available biogeographic [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]information. Comparison of the changing Phanerozoic global climatic gradients based on geological evidence [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]with the previously published models of Phanerozoic atmospheric CO2 based on geochemical assumptions [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]indicates that either the assumptions on which the geochemical models are based are erroneous or that atmo- [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]spheric CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We prefer the former possibility. [/FONT]
You can't read it says the models are bogus which I support.
End quote--

Bold emphasis mine, the author's don't support Greatcloud's position.

You're now 4 for 4, Greatcloud.

You have tried to cherry pick and be dishonest now do you see where you are wrong ?

 

[atomweaver]

These are peer reviewed you just have to get the paper in its full version.

Greatcloud, you apparently don't even know what is, or is not, peer reviewed...

I took your reference, (Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)

I looked up the table of contents of Hydrological Sciences Journal, volume 53, issue 4, pages 671 to 684, at the Journal's homepage;

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/toc/hysj/53/4?cookieSet=1

the Table of contents is the exact same as what is found at the top of the full text article that you are saying is peer reviewed. Here is that table of contents. Please note the start page of the Rapid Communication matches your reference link;



IAHS
IAHS Guidelines for authors
New IAHS books
HSJ vols 1-47
Subscription to HSJ
HSJ accepted papers
Username Password Register or Athens Login Forgotten your password? View my basket
Browse Search My Profile Activate Help Home >
List of Issues >
Table of Contents

Hydrological Sciences Journal/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques

Volume: 53 | Issue: 4

Prev | Journal Home | Next Issue

Trouble viewing articles as PDF?
Email this link Add to my alerts What is RSS?
Contents
Indicator:

= Free Access

= Full Access

= Partial Access

= No Access

Rapid Communication


On the credibility of climate predictions / De la crédibilité des prévisions climatiques
Authors: D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis and A. Christofides Page start: 671

View Header/Abstract View PDF article (997K) View references


Scientific papers


Data time-step dependency of conceptual rainfall–streamflow model parameters: an empirical study with implications for regionalisation / Dépendance à l'intervalle de temps des paramètres d'un modèle conceptuel pluie–débit: étude empirique avec implications pour la régionalisation
Authors: Ian G. Littlewood and Barry F. W. Croke Page start: 685

View Header/Abstract View PDF article (942K) View references





Using complementary methods for improved flow forecasting / Utilisation de méthodes complémentaires pour des prévisions d'écoulement améliorées
Authors: Demetris F. Lekkas Page start: 696

View Header/Abstract View PDF article (675K) View references





Prediction of daily flow duration curves and streamflow for ungauged catchments using regional flow duration curves / Prévision de courbes de débits classés et de débit fluviatile pour des bassins versants non jaugés à l'aide de courbes de débits classés régionales
Authors: Yusuf M. MohamoudPage start: 706

View Header/Abstract View PDF article (238K) View references





Influence of landscape aggregation in modelling snow-cover ablation and snowmelt runoff in a sub-arctic mountainous environment / Influence de l'agrégation paysagère dans la modélisation de l'ablation du couvert neigeux et de l'écoulement de fonte nivale dans un environnement montagneux sub-arctique
Authors: Pablo F. Dornes, John W. Pomeroy, Alain Pietroniro, Sean K. Carey and William L. QuintonPage start: 725

View Header/Abstract View PDF article (461K) View references


snip


i.e. no peer review, hombre. The peer reviewed content starts on page 685...

 

[atomweaver]

On Energy and Environment;

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html

Please, do let us know when E&E cleans up its peer review process enough to scrape its way up to the bottom of the ISI 6000 listing...

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

On Energy and Environment;

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html

Please, do let us know when E&E cleans up its peer review process enough to scrape its way up to the bottom of the ISI 6000 listing...

Nice LINK, it seem that the Energy and Environment editor is not a scientist and chooses papers to publish on their political merit, i.e. do they back up her personal views.

“I’m definitely a political scientist,” says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer-Christiansen. A reader in geography at the University of Hull (U.K.), Boehmer-Christiansen describes her doctoral work as covering international relations, but says she consults others before publishing any studies in her journal. “My science is A-level chemistry, physics, one year of geography at university, and a bit of math.” She adds that her husband has a Ph.D. in physics.

I would like to know who she consults before publishing?

Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN is not a scientist, does no science, indeed she does no research, her position within Hull University is one of emeritus reader, meaning she holds no position other than honorary.

 

[Vene]

Geography? Since when is that a science? At best it's a social science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

On Energy and Environment;

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html

Please, do let us know when E&E cleans up its peer review process enough to scrape its way up to the bottom of the ISI 6000 listing...

Oh my! And the editor of this "scholarly" journal appears to come dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law:

“I’m definitely a political scientist,” says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer-Christiansen. A reader in geography at the University of Hull (U.K.), Boehmer-Christiansen describes her doctoral work as covering international relations, but says she consults others before publishing any studies in her journal. “My science is A-level chemistry, physics, one year of geography at university, and a bit of math.” She adds that her husband has a Ph.D. in physics.

She says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming. Citing her upbringing in what was then East Germany, she states, “I was born in the Nazi era with one set of consensus, then brought up by the communists where there was also strong consensus. So just by nature, I’m very suspicious.” (ibid)

Now assuming I did my admittedly cursory count of GreatCloud's journal article listings correct GreatCloud appears to rely on Energy and Environment 32 out of 85 times for a run rate of 38% reliance on E&E.

Considering that as of 2005:

According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals.(SOURCE)

I did a quick "WorldCat" search (my first!) and could only find it in 38 libraries...so at least it's grown in the past 3 years... (but then WorldCat may not count everything everywhere, I've not used it before and know very little about it).

That's pretty impressive. Considering that, despite the fact that E&E is out there and sweeping the world to provide such wide-spread knowledge the vast majority of climate scientists seem to feel that AGW is real.

But one shouldn't simply attack the messenger, but rather the message. This is merely a simple "back-of-the-envelope" statistical analysis.

 

[[serious]]

E&E's review process is substandard at best. Peer review means more than just having someone else read it, it's a process where a paper is sent to highly regarded experts in the very specific field the paper relates to. This is supposed to be free from the political interests of the editors. Speaking of:

The journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?"

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf Uh oh... that sounds like a broken review process to me...
Reason for Editing:
Posting Message - Please Wait
To delete this message, check the appropriate option below and then click the 'Delete this Message' button.
Deletion Options
Do Not Delete Message
Delete Message
Physically Remove Message
Reason for Deletion (this will be PMed to the poster):

since the editor came up again, I figure this bears repeating. When editors let their political agenda dictate what they publish, they are NOT putting out a proper journal. I mean, this isn't even something we just see in her actions, she openly says it!

 

[thaumaturgy]

since the editor came up again, I figure this bears repeating. When editors let their political agenda dictate what they publish, they are NOT putting out a proper journal. I mean, this isn't even something we just see in her actions, she openly says it!

Speaking as one who used to be a peer reviewer for 2 scientific journals, I can honestly say that political agenda should never play a role. If it were to play a role it is no longer science but politics.

Likely the editor of any given journal doesn't have that much input on how things are reviewed, but the editor should be silent on following, "even a little", political agendas.

It is a huge red flag for someone to say what she is quoted as saying. And she has only herself to blame for throwing up that flag.

If Peer Review is to have any value whatsoever in scientific references, politics plays NO ROLE. The value of the science is all that matters.

 

[Greatcloud]

since the editor came up again, I figure this bears repeating. When editors let their political agenda dictate what they publish, they are NOT putting out a proper journal. I mean, this isn't even something we just see in her actions, she openly says it!

Editors are allowed to guide the content to reflect what they believe,its called free speech. You are free to read it or not.

E&E is a peer reviewed publication you may not like it but its true.

Atomweaver I am waiting for an apology for misreading the papers you said did not support my views.

This thread is about consensus not weather you like an editor or not.

 

[atomweaver]

Editors are allowed to guide the content to reflect what they believe,its called free speech. You are free to read it or not.

E&E is a peer reviewed publication you may not like it but its true.

E&E; Political scientists "reviewing" oil geologists and economists, doing papers on atmospheric science. That's some wicked bizarre ideas about what constitutes a 'peer' you've got there, Greatcloud... On my next JACS submission, I'll ask if my auto mechanic can be on my review panel. That'll go over well...

Atomweaver I am waiting for an apology for misreading the papers you said did not support my views.

I owe you nothing, nor do you owe me anything. But, if you're interested in a clean slate, we can do that. I'll give your reference list a second look, right after you clean it up, and remove the non peer reviewed content (like the rapid communications, letters to the editor, discussion letters, un-reviewed online submissions, etc). That'll give you an opportunity to check one last time that they say what you think they say. All priors will be water under the bridge...

This thread is about consensus not weather you like an editor or not.

The dissection of your "consensus dispute" was done and gone a long time ago. You posted the Leipzig Declaration of 80 scientist dissenters, only 20 of whom were from a field relevant to GW, compiled in the 90's, padded thickly with oil scientists. It was pwned in 2003;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change#Signatures_2

Seriously, do you honestly think a list of 20 people who disagree with the mainstream constitutes a significant dispute against the consensus view? Why is that list so vanishingly tiny? I could find more mathematicians who would willingly dispute that 1+1 always = 2... Come on back when the Leipzig list is signed by tens of thousands, and then you might have the start of something...

 

[Greatcloud]

E&E; Political scientists "reviewing" oil geologists and economists, doing papers on atmospheric science. That's some wicked bizarre ideas about what constitutes a 'peer' you've got there, Greatcloud... On my next JACS submission, I'll ask if my auto mechanic can be on my review panel. That'll go over well...



I owe you nothing, nor do you owe me anything. But, if you're interested in a clean slate, we can do that. I'll give your reference list a second look, right after you clean it up, and remove the non peer reviewed content (like the rapid communications, letters to the editor, discussion letters, un-reviewed online submissions, etc). That'll give you an opportunity to check one last time that they say what you think they say. All priors will be water under the bridge...



The dissection of your "consensus dispute" was done and gone a long time ago. You posted the Leipzig Declaration of 80 scientist dissenters, only 20 of whom were from a field relevant to GW, compiled in the 90's, padded thickly with oil scientists. It was pwned in 2003;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change#Signatures_2

Seriously, do you honestly think a list of 20 people who disagree with the mainstream constitutes a significant dispute against the consensus view? Why is that list so vanishingly tiny? I could find more mathematicians who would willingly dispute that 1+1 always = 2... Come on back when the Leipzig list is signed by tens of thousands, and then you might have the start of something...

How about 9,021 PHd's and over 31,000 scientists

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here are 197 experts in the field of climate or related fields

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How about 9,021 PHd's and over 31,000 scientists

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here are 197 experts in the field of climate or related fields

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

this is so tiring. do you not realize that the results of conference of climate scientists such as IPCC and the BODY of the literature is much more indicative of the presence of a consensus than silly petitions or lists of scientists that will ultimately add up to less than a percent?