Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not forget the huge financial incentives. A derivative market on carbon trading makes our current derivative market appear tiny. That's saying alot.
I propose injecting tons of previously sequestered Carbon back into a planetary atmosphere to study the effect on atmospheric temperature and climate. Do any of you know where I can get funding?
I propose injecting tons of previously sequestered Carbon back into a planetary atmosphere to study the effect on atmospheric temperature and climate. Do any of you know where I can get funding?
Yea! We can turn the earth into a science experiment!
Might take too long for most of the results to come out, though.
It's a fair point on the peer review. Definitely a bad step not to have that hurdle cleared before going public, and it decreases my assessment of his credibility.
That's not to say that I'm convinced that global warming doesn't have a significant man-made driver. I suspect it does - fair amount of data out there to suggest this to be the case other than Muller - but I can't unequivocally prove that, of course. The big problem is that we will only be certain when looking back after many, many years...and by then, if we are contributing to it, it will be way too late to do anything about it. My guess is that it's already too late now.
I didn't have a problem with him going public to open review, rather I had a problem with him going public to promote the "conclusions" of his paper (which he has hit the pavement running with as you can see in all of his media interviews). I think the new paper from Watts did the right thing, he went public, but his push has been to have public review (as have many scientists who have used his site as a testing ground for their papers). The result is that many people out there are finding things that need reworking, adjustment, correction, etc... which in the end will provide a very solid paper during the journal review and further the goal of understanding in that study.
As for the whole CAGW thing, there has been too much politics in the science and it has gotten in the way of proper discovery and understanding. You can't understand something when you force observations to fit a previously established assumption, it contradicts scientific purpose.
So we can expect Watt to publish his paper in a reputable peer reviewed science journal very soon, right?
Soon? No idea on timeline, it is going open public review right now so they can iron out any issues with the paper before it goes through the traditional process. Skeptical research tends to have a lot more hoops to jump through than supporting consensus research, they don't get free passes so they have to dot every "i" and cross every "t", otherwise the political issues of the journals dismiss it. Nothing wrong with a journal being so strict, but as I said, supporting consensus research often didn't have these hangups (though this may be changing due to the number of research journals such as Science, Nature, etc... that have been caught with their pants down allowing garbage through which was retracted after the public got a hold of it).
It's a fair point on the peer review. Definitely a bad step not to have that hurdle cleared before going public, and it decreases my assessment of his credibility.
That's not to say that I'm convinced that global warming doesn't have a significant man-made driver. I suspect it does - fair amount of data out there to suggest this to be the case other than Muller - but I can't unequivocally prove that, of course. The big problem is that we will only be certain when looking back after many, many years...and by then, if we are contributing to it, it will be way too late to do anything about it. My guess is that it's already too late now.
I dont think there is much question at all that CO2 has caused some warming. The physics are quite simple. We know the rise in CO2 causes some warming. We even know about how much. Anthony Watts' just released paper speaks to the issue of North America. Another paper came out a few weeks ago (peer reviewed) that cut the total warming of the planet in half from .8C to about .41C and that number is actually slighly below what we would expect from the amount of CO2 we have seen.
The issue isnt have we seen warming connected to CO2. The questions are,
Is this warming unprecidented? MWP and Roman WP and Miocene WP suggest no.
Will this warming from CO2 cause forcing that leads to a warming spiral? All the models say it will. None of the models have been right and we have not seen one shread of evidence that suggests forcing. none.
On vertually every point brought up by those who suggest that the warming will be catistrophic in nature, we have seen the opposite result.
They say more flooding >> we have seen NO RISE in flooding
They say more hurricanes >> we have seen a decrease in hurricans even while technology allows us to see more of them.
They say more Tornadoes>> we have seen a decrease in tornadoes even while technology allows us to see more of them.
So we can expect Watt to publish his paper in a reputable peer reviewed science journal very soon, right?
One thing you can be sure of, the paper will be more than peer reviewed. It will go thru the wringer. It will be reviewed and he will supply all the data (Unlike the Michael Mann/Keith Briffa/Phil Jones/Jim Hansens of the world...
That's not how it works. If he wants to gain credibility with his paper, he must submit it to a refereed science journal like EVERYONE ELSE. He appears to believe that he is special because he has a pundant web site masquerading as a science site. That's not how it works either.
a couple of points.
first, Watts is a published scientist. He understands the peer review process and is working with men like Roger Pielke Sr. who have hundreds of peer reivewed papers to their name. You can be sure the peer review process is underway.
Second, you are making a demand of Watts (go thru peer review) that you dont make of Muller. His paper that he released this week has NOT been peer reviewed. In fact, it is a paper that is very little different from the paper he just got rejected from the peer review process.
Oh and Muller's BEST data is in part based on Watts' work... only the Watts work was incomplete when Muller used it.
Great, then we can expect Watt's paper to be published in a reputable peer reviewed science journal very soon, RIGHT?
You realize, of course that Watt has a BS. in broadcast meteorology, and is not actually a climate scientist, right?
So you have retreated to the position of "Watts doesnt have a degree in climate so he cant talk about climate?" really?
Well just so we are very clear. The Watts paper is not a paper on Albedo or PDO or AO or dark particulates or even on Warming Theory. The paper is on the WEATHER of North America and in particular on the temperature record. THAT is very much within Mr. Watts disipline. Meterology really is a science within the scope of what we are talking about and Mr. Watts is well qualified.
Oh and Mr. Watts has co-authors of this paper that are PhDs in climatology... so your point is pointless.
Great, then I eagerly await publication of his paper, and seeing how it is received by his "peers".
I know who Christy is. He and Roy Spencer are buddies. McIntyre has a B.S. in Math, and has repeatedly been shown wrong on many of his claims. For instance, his claim to have found a mistake with the "hockey stick" amounted to a fraction of a percent, and had no effect whatsoever on the validity of the graph. And yet his pundants at Wattsupdoc are still sticking to their mantra that it was refuted.
LOL! Even MULLER said McIntyer broke the hocky schtick....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
