New Paper: CO2 Plays Insignificant Role In Global Warming

Gill · 10-06-08, 01:11 PM

A new peer reviewed paper is about to be published that shows that CO2 had little to do with changes in global temperatures over the past 40 years. David Douglas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, and John Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, claim that El Nino/La Nina have been the primary forces for changes in global temperatures. The primary area of the world that has experienced warmer temperatures has been in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics. If CO2 was causing global temperatures to warm, higher temperatures would be better distributed throughout the globe.

Abstract:

Quote:

The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

The key to the abstract is the final few words. Any warming that has occurred is consistent with CO2 forcing with NO FEEDBACK. The outlandish temperature rises predicted by Hansen and the IPCC are based solely on atmospheric temperature feedbacks of 2.0 + degrees. The actual rise in temperature of about 0.7 C over the past hundred plus years is consistent with CO2 forcing that has no significant feedback mechanism. Therefore, the findings of this paper are consistent with actual real world events.

Heretic · 10-06-08, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

If your list is full of citations to nothing more than Nexus Magazine and Energy and Environment, I'll be greatly disappointed.

Nailed it!

Gill · 10-07-08, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heretic

Nailed it!

Quote:

Ad hominem: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Thanks for providing a perfect example.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't get to choose which peer reviewed publications are acceptable. Just because a publication publishes papers critical of your position, does not make the publication irrelevant.

Very intellectually lazy. Can't you do any better, like actually address the findings in the paper. Oh yeah, I forgot... this paper attacks your cult beliefs so it must be discredited at all costs.

Heretic · 10-07-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Thanks for providing a perfect example.

No problem. I aims to please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't get to choose which peer reviewed publications are acceptable. Just because a publication publishes papers critical of your position, does not make the publication irrelevant.

No, of course not. The ISI does that with their Journal Citation Reports. Unsurprisingly, E&E isn't even listed.

Had Christy really wanted to be taken seriously, he would have submitted his work to a far more reputable journal, or at the very least one dedicated to climate science and not social science like he did.

Very intellectually lazy, indeed. I guess we'll just have to see if this paper finally puts those uppity elitist government scientists in their place when its finally published.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Can't you do any better, like actually address the findings in the paper.

I'll get to it when you finally find that NASA link or list of skeptic journal articles I asked for over a week ago.

jfuh · 11-11-08, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heretic

I'll get to it when you finally find that NASA link or list of skeptic journal articles I asked for over a week ago.

Dont' be disappointed, I've been asking for 2 years now and all I get is either continued non-refereed citations or out of context lies by omission.

American · 11-11-08, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heretic

No problem. I aims to please.

No, of course not. The ISI does that with their Journal Citation Reports. Unsurprisingly, E&E isn't even listed.

Had Christy really wanted to be taken seriously, he would have submitted his work to a far more reputable journal, or at the very least one dedicated to climate science and not social science like he did.

Very intellectually lazy, indeed. I guess we'll just have to see if this paper finally puts those uppity elitist government scientists in their place when its finally published.

I'll get to it when you finally find that NASA link or list of skeptic journal articles I asked for over a week ago.

He'll probably be out tonight looking for their addresses so he can shoot them.