Berkley Earth Project - urgent rebuttal needed from resident climate science experts Berkley Earth Project - urgent rebuttal needed from resident climate science experts - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Posts 41 to 50 of 52
  1. #41

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,749

    Default

    New paper published in a reputable journal (International journal of modern Physics). Conclusions are that temperature increases are natural:

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/upl...ow_natural.pdf

    This paper examines the UHI effect,and they conclude it's real, i.e. urbanisation exaggerates the warming trend. The global warming and it's rate of increase is within the natural variation of global temps.
    I'm alright Jack

  2. #42

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442

    Default

    It's not YOUR planet
    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

  3. #43

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,749

    Default

    It's being picked apart on Judith Curry's website, if you're really interested.
    Anyone can post a comment on Judith Curry's website.

    You could post any old garbage on her blog as a comment, and then come on here and say it's being picked apart on her website.


    and presumably this scientific paper is what you would classify as

    latest piece of tabloid/blog denier BS
    I think those following the debate will come to their own conclusions as to whether this was just propoganda.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 4th November 2011 at 12:58.
    I'm alright Jack

  4. #44

    Super poster

    ThomasSoerensen is too good to be a permie

    ThomasSoerensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Germania
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    It's not YOUR planet
    And it will be fine. Even if a few destrucive species are eliminated.
    "Condoms should come with a free pack of earplugs."

  5. #45

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.
    Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

    Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

    BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

    Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.
    I'm alright Jack

  6. #46

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlasterBates View Post
    Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

    Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

    BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

    Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.
    why the interest in the land temps anyway ?
    Most of the air is over water, and we should be measuring the water instead anyway.

    If you want to know how much heat is in your bathroom, you measure the water temp in the bath




    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

  7. #47

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.
    Oh dear good ol' Richard gets a right drubbing on Judith Curry's website

    Ludecke et al. respond | Climate Etc.

    Looks like he made some absurd allegations, and that he didn't really understand what they'd done.

    Rather pathetic rebuttal all in all.
    I'm alright Jack

  8. #48

    Super poster

    pjclarke 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,831

    Default

    Did you miss Tol's response to the response Whatever. I love a good fight, me. My prediction is that Tol or a.n. other will submit a comment to the journal laying out the flaws in the work. Meanwhile I liked this pithy comment:-

    The rise since 1975 is more clear, but no so much stronger that such trends would be rare in random time series. This superficial observation alone can tell that it’s impossible to conclude from that data alone, whether there’s any real linear or nonlinear trend in that temperature history. It’s absolutely non-surprising that a purely statistical model gives the result that the whole change can be due to some internal variability that hasn’t changed during that period ... The LL paper presents a statistical analysis that gives basically the result that I stated as obvious at the beginning of this comment, but it formulates the conclusion in a seriously misleading way. They find no proof on the role of the natural variability in the overall warming. The natural variability might equally well have gone in the opposite direction meaning that the AGW should be much stronger that generally thought. The paper is just a complex way of obtaining an intuitively obvious result combined with a seriously misleading way of drawing conclusions of these well known facts.
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

  9. #49

    Pilchard

    Cliphead has more data than eek

    Cliphead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    55°51'N, 04°12'W
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

    Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?

  10. #50

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliphead View Post
    Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

    Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?
    Yes. The sun has several intensity cycles, plus sunspots which can be erratic. In addition certain frequencies have differing effects on different particles or aerosols or layers.

    There is even a strong theory that cosmic radiation has an effect

    So, yes. It is definately being considered.



    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •