- #31
seycyrus
Skyhunter said:
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.
New study shows recent cooling in opposition to climate model projections
- Thread starter Wagmc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Climate Cooling Model Projections Study
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the validity of a recent study suggesting a cooling trend in global temperatures, which appears to contradict existing climate model projections. Participants debate the credibility of the journal Energy & Environment, where the study was published, and the implications of political affiliations of the authors on the scientific content of the study.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants assert that Energy & Environment is not a peer-reviewed journal, while others argue it is indexed in various databases and thus qualifies as a peer-reviewed source.
- A participant cites a study by Craig Loehle claiming a statistically significant cooling trend over the past 12 to 13 years, suggesting that this contradicts climate model predictions.
- Concerns are raised about the political bias of the Heartland Institute, which is associated with Craig Loehle, and its potential influence on the study's findings.
- Some participants emphasize the need to evaluate the content of the paper itself rather than the affiliations of its authors.
- There is a discussion about the standards for what constitutes a legitimate scientific journal, with references to the ISI database and the Science Citation Index.
- Participants express differing views on the reliability of various sources and the implications of funding sources on scientific research.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the credibility of the journal Energy & Environment or the implications of political affiliations on scientific research. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the cooling trend and the reliability of the cited study.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include unresolved questions about the definitions of peer review and the criteria for journal credibility, as well as the influence of political affiliations on scientific discourse.
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.
- #32
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 24,324
- 8,517
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.
- #33
WeatherRusty
- 38
- 0
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"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global"
Last edited by a moderator:
- #34
seycyrus
WeatherRusty said: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?
- #35
WeatherRusty
- 38
- 0
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.
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.
- #36
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,215
- 61
As some users have correctly stated, the journal is not considered a reputable source.
Similar threads
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 13 ·