PunBB

fingernailsonhull Wrote:St. Louis is supposed to be one of the (if not THE) hottest cities in the US today and tomorrow. Highs of 100 and 102 today and tomorrow before humidity. I'll be inside for every minute I can.

St. Louis regularly has some of the most uncomfortable summer weather in this country. That's no joke.

i lived in St.Louis for 4 years and playing double headers on Wednesdays all summer made me appreciate the finer tastes of a cold Natty light

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:This planet had seen fluctuations between periods of warming and periods of cooling long before man arrived. While human actions have added, and continue to add greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere, many feel these contributions are miniscule in the scope of this natural warming trend, and that the warming of the earth would be occurring with or without human contributions.

These "many," however, don't include any climate scientists who have actually worked with the data.

Can you provide the name of a single peer-reviewed paper disputing the concensus position on climate change?

Nope. 'Cos none has been published.

None that dispute "the concensus position on climate change" as you put it, since it is plain scientific fact that the earth has been gradually warming over the last 100 years. I

t's the role of human activity in the climate change, as I clearly stated, that has not been scientifically quantified.

Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection

I have an acute case of 'Maine Envy'.

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:None that dispute "the concensus position on climate change" as you put it, since it is plain scientific fact that the earth has been gradually warming over the last 100 years.

It's the role of human activity in the climate change, as I clearly stated, that has not been scientifically quantified.

Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection

What I call the consensus position is:
1 - global warming is a real phenomenon,
2 - the forcing agent is CO2,
3 - human activity accounts for the increased atmospheric CO2 forcing global warming.

I'd point to Oreskes 2004 paper finding that no peer-reviewed research rejected or doubted that position. (And before you cite Peiser, he has retracted most of his criticism, and the only articles he can still cite disputing the consensus position are in fact opinion pieces, not peer-reviewed research papers.)

If, in fact, the science supporting point 3 above is so shaky, why is there no serious debate in the scientific literature?

The closest thing I'm aware of to dispute on point 3 is a paper proposing that human activity only accounts for half the observed global temperature change. That's still significant -- especially given that CO2 emissions have a kind of delayed action on climate.

(P.S.: incidentally, what you've linked to is the publication of the Marshall Institute, a defense and energy think tank whose climate change work is funded in part by Exxon.)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf">http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052 ... 13-7-4.pdf</a><!-- m -->

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-...13-7-4.pdf

The paper proposes cosmic rays as the primary driver of global climate on the geological time scale. It does not propose that cosmic rays vice CO2 are responsible for recent climate change.

It does suggest that the climate models overstate the degree of warming that greenhouse gases could cause. That's not disputing the consensus position, however; that's where all the real debate is.

Actually, I'm sure that given enough time you will find at least one paper disputing the consensus. But the number of such papers (see comments re Peiser, who made the attempt in 2005) is very small; the consensus is in fact very broad. It's not controversial in the scientific literature. The debate there is about severity, mitigation, and so on.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The paper proposes cosmic rays as the primary driver of global climate on the geological time scale. It does not propose that cosmic rays vice CO2 are responsible for recent climate change.

Well, that's true -- but his point is that there is evidence to suggest that solar rays are the driver, whereas claims that tag GHGs as the driver are merely based on correlation and circumstance, not evidence.

Here is an article authored by Shaviv which explains his position in lay language, for those of us who find his technical paper a little hard to digest.

Anyway, skippy, the reason I remain skeptical is the intense political wrangling that accompanies the whole issue. There are notable scientists that fall into the "skeptic" category as well, and if that weren't the case, I might be less of a skeptic myself. Environmental issues like this "heat up" (pun intended) and the media blitzes the hell out of it, then masses of people react, put pressure on governments, governments are compelled to respond, and sometimes the whole scientific process gets warped in the process.

When I was starting school in the late 1970's, I remember being taught that the Earth was most definitely cooling, and the science of the day suggested that another Ice Age was imminent. It took all of about about 20 years for the science to completely flip on that notion.

Now, I'm not suggesting that increased human production of GHGs are aboslutely not responsible for the apparent change in global climate -- I'm just not going to buy in lock, stock, and barrel just yet, specifically because -- much like Shaviv attests -- there is still no evidence that pins the warming on CO2 and other GHGs; it's all correlation, suggestion, and theory at this point.[/b]

Well, the laziest way to undermine someone's argument (when citing research) is to attack the source, and not the substance. I gotta say, I love the first line on what appears to be Shaviv's personal web site:

"Welcome to ScienceBits
A random (and subjective) walk in science and physics in particular."

How well does that word cultivate his credibility?

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:There are notable scientists that fall into the "skeptic" category as well....

But as I have pointed out, they aren't disputing the consensus by publishing peer-reviewed research.

Which makes that an invalid appeal to authority.

Your complaint about political interference cuts both ways. At the end of the day, I choose to disregard the politics and go with the research.

Call me a skeptic about the whole "peer-reviewed paper" arguement, because in my brief experience in writing theory papers on international economics, alot of the peer review process entails tenured, egotistical academics telling you that you have to change your theory or disputing your statistics because it doesnt support the conventional wisdom and therefore can not possibly be published.

Made it to 100° F (38° C) here yesterday, breaking the record high for August 8 (99° in 1941). Supposed to be 100° again today, but it would need to reach 101° to break today's record.

Have any record highs been bested over the past few days where any of you live? I know its been blistering in the Carolinas (I think Raleigh hit 102° yesterday)....

Yes, I believe Raleigh ended up being more around 105 or something yesterday.