New study shows recent cooling in opposition to climate model projections

[Wagmc]

post deleted

 

[Skyhunter]

E&E is not a peer reviewed journal.

Your citation is against forum rules.

 

[Poptech]

E&E is not a peer reviewed journal.

Your citation is against forum rules.

That is not true.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, IngentaConnect and SCOPUS
- http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf" (PDF)

 

[Wagmc]

Well, then, let's put it back in.

Loehle, Craig. 2009. Trend analysis of RSS and UAH MSU global temperature data. Energy & Environment 20(7): 1087-1098.

CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for between 16 and 23 years. This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50–70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001 and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60–70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.

emphasis mine.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

 

[WeatherRusty]

Graig Loehle = Heartland Institute = Politically Biased.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=389"

 

[seycyrus]

Graig Loehle = Hartland Institute = Politically Biased.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=389"

This bio does not indicate any bias.

 

[Skyhunter]

They are listed as a trade journal, not a science journal.

E&E is not a refereed science journal.

 

[seycyrus]

They are listed as a trade journal, not a science journal.

E&E is not a refereed science journal.

I see them listed as an academic journal!

Edit: I'm going to come back and ask exactly *how* you got so confused. You responded directly to his posting of a list. The number of items in his list that are categorized as a "trade publication" has got to be less than 3%.

Certainly there are none listed as trade journals with *Energy" as its first word, so you can't claim you read off the wrong item, by mistake.

 

[Poptech]

Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology

 

[WeatherRusty]

I must maintain proper etiquette, so I will merely suggest that you do some research into what the Heartland Institute is all about. Anyone affiliated with them has allowed political leanings to strongly influence their decision making. The front these people put up in the guise of legitimacy is very effective. As scientifically minded people, don't allow yourselves to fall for it.

 

[mheslep]

I must maintain proper etiquette, so I will merely suggest that you do some research into what the Hartland Institute is all about. Anyone affiliated with them has allowed political leanings to strongly influence their decision making. The front these people put up in the guise of legitimacy is very effective. As scientifically minded people, don't allow yourselves to fall for it.

These people? That's a smear in my opinion. Take Loehle's political inclinations into account in building skepticism if you like, but the way to refute this is on the basis of the contents of the paper.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is not listed in the ISI database and SCOPUS lists it as a trade publication.

 

[Poptech]

I must maintain proper etiquette, so I will merely suggest that you do some research into what the Hartland Institute is all about. Anyone affiliated with them has allowed political leanings to strongly influence their decision making. The front these people put up in the guise of legitimacy is very effective. As scientifically minded people, don't allow yourselves to fall for it.

The Heartland Institute is a nonprofit research and education organization to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. If you are associated with it you merely support these positions. None of which has to do with a science discussion.

 

[Poptech]

It is not listed in the ISI database and SCOPUS lists it as a trade publication.

EBSCO lists it as an Academic Journal and Peer-Reviewed.

http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf" (PDF)

 

[Skyhunter]

It is not listed with ISI Web of Knowledge. That is the standard for science journals.

EBSCO is a private company and can do whatever they want.

If a journal is not in the Science Citation Index it is not a refereed journal.

But you can argue the point with the mods here.

 

[Poptech]

It is not listed with ISI Web of Knowledge. That is the standard for science journals.

EBSCO is a private company and can do whatever they want.

If a journal is not in the Science Citation Index it is not a refereed journal.

But you can argue the point with the mods here.

Um no...

ISI is owned by Thomson Reuters a private corporation and they can subjectively choose to list whomever they want. There is no "standard".

Energy & Environment is refereed no matter how bad you don't want it to be.

 

[Skyhunter]

FYI Thomson Reuters Corporation is a publicly traded company. EBSCO is privately held.

SCI has been the standard for half a decade.

I had a thread locked here for using E&E as a source.

Argue with the moderators if you want. The editor of E&E has stated that she has a political agenda and will publish what others won't.

Even Roger Pielke regrets publishing in the journal back in the 90's because of how it has devolved.

 

[DaveC426913]

I had a thread locked here for using E&E as a source.

Argue with the moderators if you want. The editor of E&E has stated that she has a political agenda and will publish what others won't.

So have you reported the offending reference so the moderators can act on it?

 

[Poptech]

FYI Thomson Reuters Corporation is a publicly traded company. EBSCO is privately held.

Exxon is a publicly traded company. Which is irrelevant to a subjective listing.

SCI has been the standard for half a decade.

According to whom? You? Who determines what is "standard"?

I had a thread locked here for using E&E as a source.

Argue with the moderators if you want. The editor of E&E has stated that she has a political agenda and will publish what others won't.

Even Roger Pielke regrets publishing in the journal back in the 90's because of how it has devolved.

That is because you need to do better research than Wikipedia. EVERY journal has a political agenda, there is no such thing has a non-biased source. What gets published or not in a journal is based on the whims of the editors. Too many people are idealistic and naive.

 

[Poptech]

It does on a forum heavily monitored for quality content based on legitimate peer reviewed science.

E&E is a legitimate peer reviewed journal

Heartland Institute

$561,500 Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects. ExxonMobil donated $119,000 in 2005, its biggest gift to Heartland since 1998.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf"

So? If I am a member of the NRA doe that mean my science is now funded by them? Obviously not. So unless you can prove the science was funded by them you have nothing. The Heartland institute considering him an expert does not make him even associated with them.

Wait I just realized you used Sourcewatch (which is edited like Wikipedia) to determine that Craig Loehle was "associated" with the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute lists scientists it "considers" experts not ones that work for it.

Lesson #1 do not rely on Sourcewatch or Wikipedia as primary sources.

 

[mheslep]

...According to whom? You? Who determines what is "standard"?

The moderators here set the standard, and they do a lot of work keeping this forum out of the noise.

 

[Poptech]

The moderators here set the standard, and they do a lot of work keeping this forum out of the noise.

So it does not matter if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal then but rather if the moderators approve of it. That is not a standard.

 

[Phrak]

The IPCC is used as a source. It resides the domain of government diplomates with national interests in mind.

 

[WeatherRusty]

E&E is a legitimate peer reviewed journalSo? If I am a member of the NRA doe that mean my science is now funded by them? Obviously not. So unless you can prove the science was funded by them you have nothing. The Heartland institute considering him an expert does not make him even associated with them.

Wait I just realized you used Sourcewatch (which is edited like Wikipedia) to determine that Craig Loehle was "associated" with the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute lists scientists it "considers" experts not ones that work for it.

Lesson #1 do not rely on Sourcewatch or Wikipedia as primary sources.

I did not use Sourcewatch. He is a member of the Heartland Institute as is clearly evident by his bio posted on their webpage which I cited. I will never trust the science of a researcher clearly associated with a political group (think tank) known to be part of a disinformation campaign in opposition to climate change science. Their "experts" list reads like a who's who of climate change skepticism.

 

[D H]

I will never trust the science of a researcher clearly associated with ...

That is the association fallacy.

 

[Andre]

If you don't trust the science of a researcher, challenge the science, not the researcher. If the science is done correctly, better evalutate why you did not trusted him in the first place?

 

[WeatherRusty]

This discussion demonstrates the effectiveness of the contraian movement in obfuscating the science of climate change. The only thing this study seeks to do is raise doubt as to the reliability of climate modeling and by inference the level of certainty held by the mainstream climate science community.

It's target audience is not the scientific research community, how many new refereed studies are made freely available to the general public without subscription?

The final sentence given in the Summary:

"This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy."

 

[seycyrus]

...the science of climate change...

Why does the word "science" have a new meaning whenever it is thrown together with the words "climate change" ?

Somehow, it takes on a different meaning, not held to the same standard.

 

[seycyrus]

...

"This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy."

That's a pretty tame and neutral statement. Certainly such data must be investigated.

What's wrong? Can't the "science" of climate change handle anything besides overwhelming praise and gratification?

 

[Skyhunter]

If you don't trust the science of a researcher, challenge the science, not the researcher. If the science is done correctly, better evalutate why you did not trusted him in the first place?

Why bother. I am here to learn, and only have so much time to devote to reading, digesting, and discussing climate change science.

If the research is valid it would be published in a reputable journal.

 

[seycyrus]

Why bother. I am here to learn, and only have so much time to devote to reading, digesting, and discussing climate change science.

Wait, you don't have time to look at the data, but you have plenty of time to peruse the lists of your "acceptable" sources?

Sorry, don't believe it.

 

[DaveC426913]

At some point in the formation of one's opinions, one must leave some amount of the science to the scientists. Short of going out into the field and taking ice core samples onesself, one must at some point, trust without verifying.

 

[WeatherRusty]

Here is access to the source data...have at it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global"

 

[seycyrus]

Here is access to the source data...have at it.

What part of that contradicts the study the opened this thread? How are the discrepancies resolved?

 

[WeatherRusty]

It is not meant to contradict the study. It is just the data.

You can use the second link to view the trends in the satellite data (Troposphere & Stratosphere) as determined by NOAA and the NCDC.

The OP study, if I read it correctly, attempts to overlay and correlate the satellite data with some not as of yet determined causal agent producing a suspected 50-70 year oscillation, and then project all that into the future to predict future cooling.

This is then, I suppose, expected to negate the effects of radiative forcing of the climate system, which is the backbone of AGW providing the scientific basis for anticipated warming of the oceanic/atmospheric system.