|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 26, 2009 3:00:53 GMT
Initially, I started this thread because I was having difficulty convincing Dan Hogan from ScienceDaily to publish research from scientist whose investigations have brought them to different findings from the Gore/IPCC political machine. After several discussions and email exchanges, Dan sent me the email below which highlights his mission for ScienceDaily. Since receiving this email, Dan and I talked at length about his views of what is driving global cooling proponents. The condensed version of our conversation is as follows: • Global Cooling Proponents have been bought by big oil • Global Cooling Proponents are anti-capitalist (socialist/communist) bent on dismantling the capitalist system • Global Cooling Proponents are hard core environmentalist who poses little evidence to support their position • Global Cooling Proponents are politically motivated (whatever flavor of the day brings) in order advance their cause • Global Cooling Proponents are religious fanatics whose baseless ranting has commingled religion and climate issues • Almost every respectable peer reviewed and published finding has verified AGW hypothesis Eventually (sooner rather than later), AGW will hit the proverbial brick wall and Dan Hogan, et al. will succumb to reality and have to deal with climate cooling and the inherent threat to mankind it will cause. In the meantime, we encourage scientist to post their research links here so main stream media has a place to research empirical climate analysis. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ What you see on ScienceDaily is the result of thousands of news releases submitted to us over the years by universities, government labs, or other established research organizations about various findings published in reputable scientific journals. You seem to imply that we're ignoring one side of a debate, but this is not true. We post anything that is based on real science -- whether it proves or disproves any particular belief we may personally have. What you see on the site is a reflection of the scientific community as a whole, not any sort of "bias" on our part. From all that I've been reading over the years, the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on the following: (a) global warming and global cooling have both happened in the past; (b) global warming and global cooling can be impacted by either natural or artificial factors, or a combination of both; (c) we appear to be in a period of global warming that's at least partly due to human activities. I'd be happy to post anything that either supports or refutes (a), (b), and (c) -- I really have no position on this! And in fact if you read through our archives, you'll see quite a lot of varied findings and opinions about various details relating to climate change. The links that you've shared with me have some intriguing information, but little context or indication of the reliability or authority of the data. Where are the recent peer-reviewed findings published in academic papers? Where are the corresponding news releases issued by university public affairs offices? Has any other legitimate news source covered findings that we have not? If we've missed something, please let us know. However, I can't just post something because it appears on someone's personal blog or discussion forum, where anybody can post anything. The information has to come from a more official source than that for us to use it. I'm no expert on climate change by any means, but I do listen to what the experts say. If our site reflects what the vast majority of them say about climate change, then please don't shoot the messenger! Just let us know if there are any experts we haven't heard from yet. Cheers, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Hogan, Editor & Publisher ScienceDaily -- Your source for the latest research news 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Web: www.sciencedaily.comEmail: editor@sciencedaily.com Phone/Fax: (240) 454-9600
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 26, 2009 4:08:32 GMT
What you see on ScienceDaily is the result of thousands of news releases submitted to us over the years by universities, government labs, or other established research organizations about various findings published in reputable scientific journals. You seem to imply that we're ignoring one side of a debate, but this is not true. We post anything that is based on real science -- whether it proves or disproves any particular belief we may personally have. What you see on the site is a reflection of the scientific community as a whole, not any sort of "bias" on our part. From all that I've been reading over the years, the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on the following: (a) global warming and global cooling have both happened in the past; (b) global warming and global cooling can be impacted by either natural or artificial factors, or a combination of both; (c) we appear to be in a period of global warming that's at least partly due to human activities. I'd be happy to post anything that either supports or refutes (a), (b), and (c) -- I really have no position on this! And in fact if you read through our archives, you'll see quite a lot of varied findings and opinions about various details relating to climate change. The links that you've shared with me have some intriguing information, but little context or indication of the reliability or authority of the data. Where are the recent peer-reviewed findings published in academic papers? Where are the corresponding news releases issued by university public affairs offices? Has any other legitimate news source covered findings that we have not? If we've missed something, please let us know. However, I can't just post something because it appears on someone's personal blog or discussion forum, where anybody can post anything. The information has to come from a more official source than that for us to use it. I'm no expert on climate change by any means, but I do listen to what the experts say. If our site reflects what the vast majority of them say about climate change, then please don't shoot the messenger! Just let us know if there are any experts we haven't heard from yet. Cheers, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Hogan, Editor & Publisher ScienceDaily -- Your source for the latest research news 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Web: www.sciencedaily.comEmail: editor@sciencedaily.com Phone/Fax: (240) 454-9600 SPAM
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 26, 2009 4:36:41 GMT
NO...This is not a SPAM message.
I have had a battle raging with the editor from Science Daily to get them to publish both sides of the Climate debate. Almost ALL that they publish is bent toward global warming and what I am asking in this forum is for the scientist who visit and post here is to send their scientific reports to Science Daily for publication. Science Daily is run by scientist for scientist and they are a VERY respected forum.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 26, 2009 6:18:06 GMT
You could ask Nils-Axel Morner for comment - if they have a problem with his credentials you'll know you're fighting a losing battle. You're in a difficult position if not being disingenuous - the agw view has prevented research and papers on a large scale so peer review isn't something easy to get unless one toes the line. Read around the web - there are a number of former IPCC disgruntled scientists. Contact some of the names who are publishing on the web because they can't get published in journals where agw is the new religion. Mind you it does seem to be changing - snow & ice on the windows seems to make people wonder. While you may not publish blog posts or even papers from blog writers, you could contact such for references from whom you could get proper research papers. Andrew Bolt here in Australia, & Jennifer Marohasy are a couple who might provide you with leads. Roger Pielke Snr could probably fulfill your requirements as a scientist. If you're serious, you'll do the research - as a story it's got it all - corruption at high levels, a fake Nobel prize, a Hollywood-style movie full of half- & mis-truths for propaganda, billions of dollars at stake & the possibility of high-level conspiracy to conceal the truth from the public. if you're being serious...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 26, 2009 14:16:44 GMT
What you see on ScienceDaily is the result of thousands of news releases submitted to us over the years by universities, government labs, or other established research organizations about various findings published in reputable scientific journals. You seem to imply that we're ignoring one side of a debate, but this is not true. We post anything that is based on real science -- whether it proves or disproves any particular belief we may personally have. What you see on the site is a reflection of the scientific community as a whole, not any sort of "bias" on our part. From all that I've been reading over the years, the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on the following: (a) global warming and global cooling have both happened in the past; (b) global warming and global cooling can be impacted by either natural or artificial factors, or a combination of both; (c) we appear to be in a period of global warming that's at least partly due to human activities. I'd be happy to post anything that either supports or refutes (a), (b), and (c) -- I really have no position on this! And in fact if you read through our archives, you'll see quite a lot of varied findings and opinions about various details relating to climate change. The links that you've shared with me have some intriguing information, but little context or indication of the reliability or authority of the data. Where are the recent peer-reviewed findings published in academic papers? Where are the corresponding news releases issued by university public affairs offices? Has any other legitimate news source covered findings that we have not? If we've missed something, please let us know. However, I can't just post something because it appears on someone's personal blog or discussion forum, where anybody can post anything. The information has to come from a more official source than that for us to use it. I'm no expert on climate change by any means, but I do listen to what the experts say. If our site reflects what the vast majority of them say about climate change, then please don't shoot the messenger! Just let us know if there are any experts we haven't heard from yet. Cheers, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Hogan, Editor & Publisher ScienceDaily -- Your source for the latest research news 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Web: www.sciencedaily.comEmail: editor@sciencedaily.com Phone/Fax: (240) 454-9600 The problem is that research that could show falsification of the AGW hypothesis will not get funding. Whereas research claiming to prove the AGW hypothesis not only gets funding but gets a free-pass on poor experimental design and skewed statistics; with no action taken against the researchers even when these faults are shown. Look at the 'hockey stick' debacle. IF the AGW hypothesis is proved false by events this could result in a backlash that will be to the disbenefit of science and research as a whole. For example, the Nobel prize system will be totally discredited as will several major 'peer reviewed' journals. As Acolyte says: " If you're serious, you'll do the research - as a story it's got it all - corruption at high levels, a fake Nobel prize, a Hollywood-style movie full of half- & mis-truths for propaganda, billions of dollars at stake & the possibility of high-level conspiracy to conceal the truth from the public." Note that in the UK 'An Inconvenient Truth' lost a legal case that led to education departments being required to highlight several major UNtruths to the pupils in schools in which it was shown.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 26, 2009 15:38:54 GMT
NO...This is not a SPAM message. I have had a battle raging with the editor from Science Daily to get them to publish both sides of the Climate debate. Almost ALL that they publish is bent toward global warming and what I am asking in this forum is for the scientist who visit and post here is to send their scientific reports to Science Daily for publication. Science Daily is run by scientist for scientist and they are a VERY respected forum. If you had introduced your now stated purpose for the post, the SPAM reply would not have been made. It appeared to be a drive-by post. On the one hand you say Science Daily is bent toward global warming, but at the same time is VERY respected. Which is it? They shouldn't be "bent" toward either side, but they obviously are. Peer review has become a political tool by leaving the fate of research in the hands of a few anonymous individuals who may or may not be objective in their decisions. Further, the buck stops at the editors desk; if he/she is inclined to reject a paper based purely on their cursory review (and personal/company views), it never reaches 'peer review'. Science Daily by their own admission have no interest in scientific contributions outside the orthodoxy of "reputable scientific journals" (hockey stick anyone?), whatever that means. The recent Santer et al paper is another example of garbage making the Big Box Mart status at Science Daily. The most recent Antarctic warming is another. The list is long. Yet, who recalls Miskolczi's paper reported in Science Daily? Or the fact that Spencer's satellite data was black balled from publication because it disagrees with the views of the "reputable science journals" misson statement. How many articles can one recall reported in Science Daily concerning land use change and its affects on local and regional climate? The "reputable science journals" have already boxed themselves in a corner and are now more political (consensus) than science based. Of course it is never about retaining or gaining more income from government funding....nah, scientists are inhuman, free from the seduction of securing their retirement with a perpetual crisis related to global warming.
|
|
beatk
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by beatk on Jan 26, 2009 16:44:06 GMT
One place to start looking for the other side of the AGW issue is Senator Inhofe's EPW site: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6The site states: The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The site then lists with reference to their work or positions over 650 expert scientists. There ought to be something in there for Science Daily to publish and distinguish the journal as an objective scientific publication, a rarety these days (not just in climate science but also in pharmacology for instance, money and politics have seriously corrupted these fields). There appear to be at least three reasons for Science Daily to want to publish the other side of the climate issue, even at the risk of alienating the establishment: 1. To differentiate the publication as an objective one. Also the struggle currently ongoing between the AGW position and the skeptics and the policy implications on national and global levels resulting from this struggle are truely important news that could use more educated reporting and thereby ultimately benefit the media doing so. 2. To help salvage the reputation , credibility and status of science, if/when the AGW bubble bursts the damage to the scientific community will be huge. 3. To foster real scientific progress by giving a voice to the (perceived) minority positions on the climate issue, remembering that all or most scientific progress requires the abandonment of the established majority positions (which historically the scientific community itself, the church for many centuries and the government more recently, have resisted with often overwhelming might on their side)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 26, 2009 18:36:56 GMT
The reference by beatk is a good one. Below is a "Zotero"-generated bibliography of other items posted by Mike Morano from Inhofe's office. Sorry they are not yet annotated or even well-selected or organized.
“.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :..” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802a-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789. “.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :..” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=77efca98-802a-23ad-4aa3-8511828b7ef6. “.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :..” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7. “ICECAP.” icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/un_blowback_more_than_650_international_scientists_dissent_over_man_made_gl/. Morano, Marc. “ Democrats Call Largest Tax Increase -- A ‘Big Tax Cut!’ .” Government. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, June 3, 2008. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=509dea32-802a-23ad-42ef-729d220328a8&IsPrint=True. ---. “Fact Check on Boxer's Climate Tax Bill Claims.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page : epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=77efca98-802a-23ad-4aa3-8511828b7ef6. ---. “'Global Warming Will Stop', New Peer-Reviewed Study Says.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, April 30, 2008. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F&IsPrint=True. ---. “Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008.” Blog. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page , July 18, 2008. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802a-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789. ---. “Inhofe Opening Statement: An Update on the Science of Global Warming and its Implications.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4b486f26-802a-23ad-4b32-f7ef47ce6468&IsPrint=true. ---. “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7. ---. “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, August 20, 2007. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8&IsPrint=True. ---. “Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study .” Government. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, January 21, 2009. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6&IsPrint=True. ---. “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” ICECAP, December 15, 2008. icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/un_blowback_more_than_650_international_scientists_dissent_over_man_made_gl/. Morano, Mark. “Climate Bill ‘A Gargantuan Boondoggle’ – ‘Hurricane’ Boxer – ‘Super Bowl for Lobbyists’ – Round Up.” Inhofe EPA Press Blog, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=55b8a39f-802a-23ad-4b9f-ec424cc93425&Issue_id=&IsPrint=True. (The following may duplicate some items above.)“Referencing:.” “This post includes annotated links to contrary research and opinion..” “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8&IsPrint=True. “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F&IsPrint=True. “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=509dea32-802a-23ad-42ef-729d220328a8&IsPrint=True. “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6&IsPrint=True. “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=55b8a39f-802a-23ad-4b9f-ec424cc93425&Issue_id=&IsPrint=True. “U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page.” epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4b486f26-802a-23ad-4b32-f7ef47ce6468&IsPrint=true.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 26, 2009 18:47:25 GMT
Thank you beatk. I forwarded your link to Dan Hogan at Science Daily. I'll let you know when/if I receive a response back.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 26, 2009 20:08:59 GMT
Thank you billalexander. Through one of your links I sent Dan Hogan the following paper: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfmConclusion Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful. In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 27, 2009 0:31:21 GMT
billalexander, I sent this report to Science Daily as well. HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM Stephen E. Schwartz June 2007 Accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf7. Discussion, conclusions, and implications The findings of the present study may be considered surprising in several respects: (1) The relatively small effective heat capacity of the global ocean that is coupled to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the five-decade period for which ocean heat content measurements are available, 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1 (0.44 G J m-2 K-1), equivalent to about 150 m of the world ocean, and the correspondingly low effective planetary heat capacity C, 16.7 ± 7.0 W yr m-2 K-1 (0.5 ± 0.2 G J m-2 K-1). (2) The short relaxation time constant of global mean surface temperature in response to perturbations , 5± 1 years; and (3) The low equilibrium climate sensitivity s-1 inferred from (1) and (2) as s−1 /C, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(Wm-2), equivalent to equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 T2= 1.1 ± 0.5 K. This value is well below current best estimates of this quantity, summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2007] to be "2 to 4.5 K with a best estimate of about 3 K and ... very unlikely to be less than 1.5 K". This situation invites a scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation in the present study. Is the effective heat capacity that is coupled to the climate system, as determined from trends in ocean heat content and GMST, too low, or too high? For a given relaxation time constant , a lower value of C would result in a greater climate sensitivity, and vice versa. As noted above previous investigators have used similar considerations to suggest different values for C, in one instance substantially greater than the value reported 17 here (20 - 50 W yr m-2 K-1) and in one instance with a range of a factor of 20, (3.2 - 65 W yr m-2 K-1) that encompasses the value determined here. Examination of Figure 4 suggests that it would be hard to justify a slope less than about 8 W yr m-2 K-1. Perhaps a more fundamental question has to do with the representativeness of the data that comprise the Levitus et al. [2005] compilation. In this context it might be noted that Willis et al. [2004] reported an heat uptake rate in the upper 750 meters of the ocean, based on satellite altimetry as well as in-situ measurements, of 0.86 ± 0.12 W m-2, a factor of 7 greater than the Levitus et al. [2005] average for 1958-1995; a greater heat uptake rate would result in a greater effective ocean heat capacity and a lower climate sensitivity. However in a subsequent publication a year later Lyman et al. [2006] reported a rapid net loss of ocean heat for 2003-2005 that led those investigators to estimate the heat uptake rate for 1993-2005 as 0.33 ± 0.23 W m-2, a value much more consistent with the long-term record in the Levitus et al. [2005] data set. The previous instances of several-year periods of net loss of heat from the ocean exhibited in the Levitus et al. [2005] data and shown in Figure 2 suggest the necessity of evaluating the effective heat capacity based on a long-term record. Is the relaxation time constant of the climate system determined by autocorrelation analysis the pertinent time constant of the climate system? Of the several assumptions on which the present analysis rests, this would seem to invite the greatest scrutiny. A possible explanation for the short time constant inferred from the autocorrelation analysis might be that the autocorrelation is dominated by short term variability, such as that resulting from volcanic eruptions, and that the thermal signal from such a short perturbations would not be expected to penetrate substantially into the deep ocean. Two considerations would speak against such an explanation. First, the autocorrelation leading to the 5-year time constant extended out to lag times of 15 years or more with little indication of increased time constant for lag time greater than about 5-8 years (Figure 6). Also, recent studies with coupled ocean atmosphere GCMs have shown that the thermal signal from even a short-duration volcanic event is transported into the deep ocean and can persist for decades [Delworth et al., 2005; Gleckler et al., 2006 a,b]; such penetration of the thermal signal from a short duration forcing would suggest that the autocorrelation of GMST over a decade or more would be representative of the longer time constant associated with the coupling to the deep ocean and not reflective simply of a short time constant associated with the ocean mixed layer. Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models. It might also prove valuable to apply the present analysis approach to the output of global climate models to ascertain the fidelity with which18 these models reproduce "whole Earth" properties of the climate system such as are empirically determined here. Ultimately of course the climate models are essential to provide much more refined projections of climate change than would be available from the global mean quantities that result from an analysis of the present sort. Still it would seem that empirical examination of these global mean quantities – effective heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity – can usefully constrain climate models and thereby help to identify means for improving the confidence in these models. The empirical determinations presented here of global heat capacity and of the time constant of climate response to perturbations on the multidecadal time scale lead to a value of equilibrium global climate sensitivity of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), where the uncertainty range denotes a one-sigma estimate. This sensitivity together with the increase in global mean surface temperature over the twentieth century would imply a total forcing 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2; although the central value of this range is fairly close to the total greenhouse gas forcing over this time period, 2.2 W m-2, this result is consistent with an additional forcing over the twentieth century of –0.30 ± 0.97 W m-2. The rather large uncertainty range could be consistent with either substantial cooling forcing (-1.3 W m-2) or substantial warming forcing (+ 0.7 W m-2), with aerosol forcing a likely major contributor. Because of the short response time of the climate system to perturbations, the climate system may be considered in near steady state to applied forcings and hence, within the linear forcing-response model, the change in temperature over a given time period may be apportioned to the several forcings. The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to 2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004]. Acknowledgment. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program (Office of Science, OBER) under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 27, 2009 21:54:01 GMT
I need more credible reports, any help is appreciated. Most of the links above do not contain published research papers.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 28, 2009 1:20:00 GMT
I need more credible reports, any help is appreciated. Most of the links above do not contain published research papers. Ask them if they reported this paper: met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdfDid they report on this? Others did: www.spacedaily.com/2006/090112183735.ojdq7esu.htmlSee, much science is discussed and revealed in blogs. The hockey stick is a zombie that continually resurfaces from the grave. Do the "reputable journals" scrutinize them during so-called 'peer review'? No. Has it been thoroughly trashed and found to be barf mulch? Yes. Now we have Santer et al 2008 which claims climate models correctly predict tropospheric warming. It is garbage, but did manage (surprise surprise) to get published in a "reputable journal", and no doubt Science Daily reported it. Over at ClimateAudit it was a hot topic. Well, let us wait and see if Science Daily reports Steve McIntyre's refutation of Santer published in a "reputable journal". www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991Sorry, I don't buy their "we are not biased" statement. Further, what is the definition of a "reputable journal"? Did Science Daily report the errors in GISS temperature records found by bloggers? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 28, 2009 1:45:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Jan 28, 2009 2:03:32 GMT
|
|