EXTREME PRECIPITATION: Climate change is increasing the number of extreme precipitation events across the Northern Hemisphere--as well as doubling the risk of floods like the one in the U.K. in 2000.
Image: Courtesy of Climateprediction.net
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In autumn 2000 devastating floods swept through England and Wales, inundating homes, swamping roads and rail lines, and requiring the evacuation of more than 11,000 people. That fall was the wettest in the region since records began in 1766, and the subsequent flooding caused billions of dollars in damage. Now climatologists suggest that climate change doubled the odds of such catastrophic flooding in 2000.
"Greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity have affected the odds of floods in England and Wales," says physicist Pardeep Pall of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), who led the research published February 17 in Nature. "The odds of a flood occurring in the autumn of 2000 likely increased by double or more." (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.)
Such inundations are becoming more common, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, among other disaster statistics keepers. In fact, according to reinsurer Munich Re, extreme floods have tripled globally since 1980. The reason may well be climate change caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases—now roughly 390 parts per million, up from 280 ppm in the 1700s.
Warmer atmospheric air means more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, exacerbating the problem. What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events—defined in North America as more than 100 millimeters of rainfall (or the equivalent in snow or freezing rain) falling in 24 hours—according to new research also published February 17 in Nature that examines such events in the Northern Hemisphere.
"We expect a widespread increase in heavy precipitation due to greenhouse gas warming leading to a moister atmosphere," explains climatologist Gabriele Hegerl of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. That's because water vapor increases by roughly 7 percent for every degree Celsius of warming in the lowest level of the atmosphere—or, more simply put, warmer air means warmer water, which means more of it in the form of vapor. That vapor still coalesces into clouds, raindrops and snowflakes, which is why basic physics suggests that more water vapor results in more rain. That's exactly what the study found for the first time. "Our study shows that the heaviest [precipitation] events have increased in magnitude, meaning that rare events are becoming less rare," notes climatologist Francis Zwiers of the University of Victoria in British Columbia.
Hegerl, Zwiers and their climatologist colleagues at Environment Canada examined daily records from more than 6,000 weather stations around the globe of rainfall, snowfall and other precipitation stretching from 1951 to 1999. In each year of that period, they determined how extreme precipitation had been. By compiling the information from all these years and comparing it with the precipitation patterns predicted by computer models of the climate, the scientists noted a similar pattern emerging in the real-world data. What's more this pattern could not be explained by natural climate fluctuations, suggesting that human-induced climate change is the culprit behind an increase in downpours and blizzards in the last 50 years of the 20th century—at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
"There are characteristic patterns of increase and decrease, for example, in response to an El Nino event," which is a cyclical climate event marked by warming waters in the western Pacific Ocean that has global impacts, Zwiers says. "That's not the kind of change we saw." Instead a human fingerprint emerged from the data pattern. More worryingly, the actual increase in rain, snow and sleet were larger than predicted by the computer models.
The study marks the first time that human influence on the climate has been demonstrated in the water cycle, and outside the bounds of typical physical responses such as warming deep ocean and sea surface temperatures or diminishing sea ice and snow cover extent.
To attribute any specific extreme weather event—such as the downpours that caused flooding in Pakistan or Australia, for example—requires running such computer models thousands of times to detect any possible human impact amidst all the natural influences on a given day's weather. "It is a reasonable question: is human influence anything to do with this nasty bit of weather we're having?" explains physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, who helped oversee the English flooding study. "Answering it isn't easy."
So, the U.K. team also called on tens of thousands of volunteers who ran a climate model thousands of times on their personal computers in the background as part of the climateprediction.net Web site. After six years of running such simulations, the verdict is in: Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations as a result of burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests increased the risks of flooding in two out of three model runs by more than 90 percent.
The bad news is that such record-breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid. "The human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," Zwiers notes. "It is therefore reasonable to expect that precipitation extremes will continue to intensify," although how much is still a mystery, largely thanks to an unclear understanding of the atmospheric impact of how tiny flecks of pollution in the atmosphere—known as aerosols to scientists and comprising materials ranging from soot to sulfur dioxide.
As for whether the world's recent extreme weather was made worse by human influence, that answer likely won't be available for years—and only if a research effort similar to the one that analyzed the 2000 U.K. floods is undertaken. "The human impact in this is still an open question," Zwiers says.
But the U.K. Met Office (national weather service), the U.S.'s National Center for Atmospheric Research and other partners around the globe aim to change that in the future by developing regular assessments—much like present evaluations of global average temperatures along with building from the U.K. flooding risk modeling efforts—to determine how much a given season's extreme weather could be attributed to human influence. "We will develop that science further so that we can provide regular and scientifically robust evidence on how the odds of these phenomena are changing," says climate modeler Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office.
Already, it is becoming clear that burning fossil fuels and clearing forests are having an impact on the atmosphere, which is rebounding to the detriment of the humans behind those activities. "One of the problems people find with climate change is it's a victimless crime…nobody's particularly affected by small changes in global average temperatures," Allen notes. "Extreme weather is what actually hurts people."
See what we're tweeting about
96 Comments
Add CommentJake Says: ccording to the The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project - which reviewed records from 1871 to the present there is no evidence of an intensifying weather trend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently Jake did not read the story. From the article:
"Such inundations are becoming more common, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, among other disaster statistics keepers. In fact, according to reinsurer Munich Re, extreme floods have tripled globally since 1980."
Who are we to believe? The published peer reviewed researchers, insurance companies and disaster relief organizations or some anonymous dude on the Internet?
Jake Says: Bogus "science."
Jake Translated: Any facts that he does not like are declared "bogus" on sight.
Jake Says: There must be some sort of "hockey stick" trick with the choice of 1951 as the start date.
Yes, that is it: All fact that discomfort Jake and his fellow travelers are frauds.
Facts Like:
Warmer temperature leads to more water vapor in the air, which lead to stronger precipitation events.
Maybe if Jake lights a votive candle to Saint Ayn Rand and Apostle Rand Paul those nasty facts will go away. Begone Laws of Thermodynamics. Make way for Free Market Physics.
Trent - good call.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's quite funny to watch stupid fools like Jake go trumpeting off their little tirades, which generally amount to "I don't really know, and a fat drug addicted high-school dropout complained really loudly, so I believe him."
Meanwhile, Lloyds of London, who has been insuring practically everything on the planet for as long as there's been insurance, understands and has begun adjusting its underwriting for the empirical fact that weather is more hazardous now than it was even 30 years ago. I wonder who knows more on the topic, the multi-trillion insurance industry with a vested interest in their bottom line which is tied to risk analysis, or a moron radio host with a political agenda (and his financial backers, who have a vested interest in their bottom line - which is a multi-trillion dollar industry built around using the air as a fee-free dumping ground)?
T
Yet another abuse of Science. Blaming every change of weather on human activity is now the default position. It is no surprise because it gives the real reasons a complete pass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that climate is changing. Like the previous million years on earth the climate goes in cycles. Now it is warming slightly with some more exaggerated weather around the world. But urban planning, or rather the lack thereof is a HUGE contributory factor in the flood damage we are experiencing.
Building shack cities, or rich villas, on mud hillsides; building huge estates in flood plains where there is now nowhere for the rain to go in an especially heavy storm. Walling off rivers, stopping them from naturally widening their banks.
Usurping controversial science only brings all of science into disrepute.
The sea levels will rise over the next 100 years. And that would be out of the ordinary since the last ice age? On the 100 yr. average the seas rise approx. 3 ft/century. We cannot stop the oceans from rising if that is the direction nature has intended. I have read and analyzed the data on geologic/paleoclimatologically based science papers for years and what is happening to the oceans and to the world's climate systems are all in the normal parameters. The AGW proponents are more religiously involved in their cause than scientifically. The largest shame is that they are so prevalent throughout academia, which is perversly dumbed down, that the general public no longer has the intellectual curiosity to follow the research and discover the fallacy of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Howard B,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But urban planning, or rather the lack thereof is a HUGE contributory factor in the flood damage we are experiencing."
How does poor urban planning increase the intensity and amount of snow or rainfall?
"Usurping controversial science only brings all of science into disrepute."
The science is only controversial if you have been duped by fossil fuel propaganda. Why you clowns think the Law of Conservation is optional is still a puzzle to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMbschro Says: The sea levels will rise over the next 100 years. And that would be out of the ordinary since the last ice age.
Trent: Yes. If actually concerned yourself with the science you would know this. The sea level stabilized several thousand years ago and has started to rise again.
Mbschro: We cannot stop the oceans from rising if that is the direction nature has intended.
Trent: Except that it human activity that is responsible. Repeatedly saying that the Earth is getting warming because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age is not an explanation for anything. You need a mechanism to explain the warming not a slogan.
Mbschro: I have read and analyzed the data on geologic/paleoclimatologically based science papers for years and what is happening to the oceans and to the world's climate systems are all in the normal parameters
Trent: This is an awfully vague assertion. What are these normal parameters you speak of? What should be concerning us now is the fact that a lot of our cities and and agricultural areas are near the sea. What the sea level was like 20,000 years ago is immaterial to where human reside and raise food now.
Mbschro: The largest shame is that they are so prevalent throughout academia, which is perversly dumbed down, that the general public no longer has the intellectual curiosity to follow the research and discover the fallacy of it.
Trent: Will the pot please say hello to the kettle.
Trent, The cliff is getting closer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not reply further because your ilk will descend further and further into the personal attack mode vs. fact.
I amused that our so self-proclaimed "skeptics" never ever address the evidence for man made induced warming. Why is that? I think it is because they do not know what the evidence is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is that evidence?
1. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms. This is a direct falsification of the solar hypothesis. Increased solar activity should result in all of the layers of the warming. A prediction made in 1967.
2. Nights warming faster than days. Again, another falsification of the Solar Hypothesis. Do I need to explain this one? This feature of AGW was predicted back in 1896.
3. The higher latitudes and particularly the Arctic region warming faster than the lower latitudes. This is again another falsification of the Solar Hypothesis. Think about this people: Where does a good portion of the Sun shine consistently reach the Earth? That is right the Tropics. While the lowering of the albedo (snow and ice melt) and the lack of water vapor in the Arctic means that CO2's effect will be most pronounced here. A prediction made in again in 1896.
4. The observed decline in the amount of infra red heat escaping out to space at the wave lengths that CO2 captures and re-emits it. A decades long decline observed by satellites since the 70's.
5. Another prediction made back in 1989 was that the thermosphere should shrink and contract. Once again a prediction made and recently observed.
Now their is plenty more evidence for human induced warming but I thought that this is enough to chew on for now. All of this evidence is a matter of empirical fact and no matter how many conspiracies of geophysicist you spin out of whole cloth that evidence remains.
I am happy to provide links for the peer reviewed science upon request.
@mbschro,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am endlessly amused when you and your fellow travelers claim rudeness for a discontinuation of a conversation moments after calling people who do not share your delusions: "religious", "dumbed down" and lacking "intellectual curiosity". The hypocrisy simply knows no bounds among you lot does it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How does poor urban planning increase the intensity and amount of snow or rainfall?"
Poor urban planning does not increase rain, but it seriously reduces the land's ability to absorb it. Allowing large house building schemes inside flood plains results in huge areas of land being covered in concrete roads, paths, houses. Thus the soil is no longer there to absorb the rain and feed it into local rivers. Instead the rain goes into the drains which are totally undesigned for this kind of surge and the result is chronic flooding. The water has no where to go. Also building of walled barries along rivers stops the river expanding and contracting in it's normal way.
In places in Australia, the US and South America there has been totally uncontrolled growth in building of wealthy homes as well as shanty towns on the sides of hills that are not rock based but soil based. heavy rains are unable to be absorbed by the soil in an even way and thus result in landslides.
31,487 American scientists alone have signed a petition opposing AGW,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisincluding 9,029 with PhDs.
More than 1,000 international dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Howard, you should add these links to your post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/
They both back up your post.
@Howard B,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Poor urban planning does not increase rain,..."
Thanks for that admission.
"In places in Australia, the US and South America there has been totally uncontrolled growth in building of wealthy homes as well as shanty towns on the sides of hills that are not rock based but soil based. heavy rains are unable to be absorbed by the soil in an even way and thus result in landslides."
We are not talking about landslides but extreme precipitation events. Why would you not expect more floods when you have more water vapor in the air? Did you read the article?
Here is a debunking of both the petition and Poptech's list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeet The Denominator
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=571
After noting that the Petition Project only requirement is that the signer has a B.S in science and that you have some 31 million people who have a B.S degree in the U.S that means:
"Numerator, meet The Denominator! 31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099. Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate"
Then of course we have the objection that someone who has a B.S degree in nursing is not qualified to judge geophysics.
And the Poptech list. The author of the linked article uses the same criteria as Poptech and does a Google Scholar Search and finds that:
"Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him."
Reading that thread is total win. Poptech shows up and tries to reduce the denominator and the commentators point out to him that you got to reduce the numerator too if we use the same criteria, much hilarity insues.
And in comment #556 Poptech says:
"I have no interest in debating the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list."
Game, set, match .
Please, let us have some facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 We are STILL in an ice age - just a warm, perhaps warming phase.
2 Where is the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is my understanding that one good volcano releases more CO2 than 4000 years of man-made pollution. And there are about 20+ active volcanoes at present, world wide. There is the suggestion that CO2 is released by global warming, not the cause of it. To the best of my knowledge, neither hypothesis has been tested. The only evidence so far is a computer model. It is interesting that according to information I have here, the designer of that model had joined the global cooling brigade. In the past, CO2 levels have been about 20 times the present level of 380 parts per million, yet the temperature was not that much warmer.
3 For the umpteenth time, please read "Textbook of gravity sunspots and climate" by Frederick Bailey (ISBN 9 780955 120213) which gives a detailed analysis of both the present CYCLE of climate change, and some very interesting mathematical proofs.
@Zebluon Joe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1 We are STILL in an ice age - just a warm, perhaps warming phase."
Which explains nothing. You are mouthing slogans you have heard others say. You need a mechanism to explain the warming. A mechanism that is being observed and attributable.
"Where is the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?"
Here you go:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The link take you to a history of the science that explains that CO2 has been a known greenhouse gas since the mid-19th century.
"It is my understanding that one good volcano releases more CO2 than 4000 years of man-made pollution."
Your understanding is a lie. I say we go and see what the vulcanologist have to say:
From the United States Geological Survey:
"Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."
"The only evidence so far is a computer model"
This is blatantly false. I list in comment#10 a partial list of real world evidence accompanied with the year those predictions were first made.
Will everyone please note that our so called "skeptics" are very fact adverse and not one will actually address the substance of the article or facts that have been presented to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a parallel conversation on global warming and climate change, you might be interested in my blog site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.tomsglobalwarmingrant.blogspot.com
Why is the fact that beef cattle farming and dairy cattle are contributing to more greenhouse gases than all the cars and industries combined? It seems that beef and dairy are our sacred cows!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the fact that beef cattle farming and dairy cattle are contributing to more greenhouse gases than all the cars and industries combined? It seems that beef and dairy are our sacred cows!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Vendicar Decarian,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismbschro: On the 100 yr. average the seas rise approx. 3 ft/century.
Vendicar: Only on planet Conservadopia
LOL!
Maryu,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's work through this. There is carbon in the air. Plants take carbon out of the air. Animals eat plants and release carbon into the air. Is there any carbon that animals release that has been out of the air for very long? No. Therefore, there is no net difference produced by cows.
Can you understand that there would be a difference between the above process and humans removing carbon from underground and adding it to the air?
@Maryu,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaryu Says: Why is the fact that beef cattle farming and dairy cattle are contributing to more greenhouse gases than all the cars and industries combined? It seems that beef and dairy are our sacred cows!
It is not a fact. The EPA says:
"The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html#fossil
Yeah, I was going to point out that, for instance, Venice would have been high and dry a few hundred years ago if mbschro were right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article, David. Though of course, I am still sorry to keep hearing the bad news, which is hardly a surprise to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suffered a mysterious ear problem during our 106-degree days in the Northeast, and the effects linger to this day.I fear that as summers become more severe and winters harsher, I won't be alone in suffering everything from sinus trouble to respiratory failure to God knows what else. I worry about my parents growing old in a string of 115-degree summer days ...
We can't have enough stories out there like this.
Note, would like to add I was actually responding to the last line: "Extreme weather is what actually hurts people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the subject of flooding, I am glad to finally see the link conclusively made.
MBSCHRO says sea levels have been rising three feet per century. If so, why isn't Venice Italy (which has been a very active seaport since the 1400s) roughly 20 feet under water?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre the scientists of China particularly inept? How about those of India and Russia? Or other developing nations? Do they uniformly believe their countries would be better served by cutting back on rapid economic growth aided by burning fossil fuels? Strangely no.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of great facts here. Bravo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a look at the debate from the political perspective.
If AWG is correct then one could logically argue for a serious reduction in our world-wide fossil fuel consumption. This would of course have a serious effect on the bottom line of fossil fuel producers and suppliers. This is understandably scary for the Republican party as the oil industry is a MAJOR contributor to conservative campaigns. Conservatives see AWG as a direct assult on their power base. And guess what. Their right. It is.
Then Dems can read the righting on the wall as well as anyone else so, understandably, they pile on. But just because the Dems are whacking conservatives over the head with AWG deosn't make them wrong. Them Dems have all four limbs and their teeth clamped on to the issue and their not going to let go because THEY ARE RIGHT. The science is on their side this time. Now, I wish that all the left wanted was to save the world (and they do, just like most sensible people) but they really like the fact that the required reductions in fossil fuel consumption is going to take the conservatives out at the knees. And, I must admit, so do I.
All this makes the right quite pissed. But, all they can do is pour money into public relation campaigns. Which is something they're particularly good at due to their alliance with the people who've been studying the effect of advertising on the American consumer for going on about 100 years now.
In short, all the AWG deniers are falling for is a commercial that is falsely telling you that their box of laundry soap will make your cloths cleaner than the other guys.
Trent.......keep telling the truth.
I wish I owned Fox. I'd program the conservatives to be nice. And to, once a week(on Sundays of course)
hit themselves in the head with a hammer.
Cheers everyone.
Tod
Please read some back issues (c1997, March).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCore drilling done at Lake Eyre, Australia gave climate patterns for about 6,000 years.
Conclusion? The period from 1830 to 1970 had NO normal weather extremes. Things are about to go back to normal. As an example, in New Zealand, we have had five so-called 100 year floods in the area of the Taieri Plains in the last 15 years. Best guess? Under long term patterns, they are merely 5 year floods.
And how long is it since the Thames froze in London? Am I hearing 1830?
Also, the Canterbury Plains (NZ) are called flood plains. But NO recorded floods over the plains in the period since white settlement began, c1820. When will the weather go back to normal, and the plains be flooded again? Only one near try, and that was just a few months ago.
Well said Joe. The AGW people do what they always do - regurgitate the tablets of stone handed down by their Moses, and insult anyone who questions them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW theory is built on unproven science, data that has been destroyed by scientists who lied about it and who have taken over the peer review process as well as having challenging scientists fired.
There is hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into work done by AGW protagonists while independent scientists cannot get grants for their work. AGW presents computer models as proof instead of independent tested proof. They use proxy science instead of real science.
The earth is changing. The climate is changing. There is no proof whatsoever that man is influencing climate and it is astonishingly arrogant to believe man even can.
That SciAm supports AGW in such an unquestioning manner is forever a blemish on it's reputation. What we need is open debate with data and evidence open to independent verification. But that is not going to happen.
Just wondering Howard, what is it that you think is fundamentally wrong with Planck's Law?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about Stefan-Boltzmann?
The measured IR absorbance of CO2?
Or, maybe you think that the increase in CO2 is not caused by fossil fuel burning, despite the isotope signature of the increase matching that of fossil fuels.
Can you identify which, if any, aspect of global warming science you think is wrong?
@Howard,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI presented in comment#9 five different ways of attributing climate change to human activity. Why is it you think you are free to ignore the evidence?
"..., data that has been destroyed by scientists who lied about it..."
What data? Name it. Please provide primary sources for this assertion. What is not acceptable is blogs, editorials, or other fact free screeds.
"...and who have taken over the peer review process as well as having challenging scientists fired."
Who has been fired for this reason? Again primary sources only please.
"AGW presents computer models as proof instead of independent tested proof."
Again you are severely misinformed. I have presented some of the evidence in comment #9. That you and your colleagues refuse to address the evidence is telling.
And science does not operate by proofs.
@Zebulon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich part of "extreme precipitation events have increased" do you not understand? Could be that you are refusing to read the article?
Trent WTF are you talking about? Rob did not use the same criteria I did, my criteria is not searching Google Scholar for the search words 'climate change' (no quotes) in any context, including papers on climate control systems in automobiles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not reduce the denominator I proved it to be absolutely meaningless by irrefutably demonstrating it to be based on erroneous results,
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html
In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.
Conclusion:
No meaningful conclusion can be drawn regarding the number of peer-reviewed papers supporting AGW theory using numerical result totals from Google Scholar searchs due to the inclusion of erroneous results. Thus no meaningful comparison of these results can be made to the list of 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm.
Please get your facts straight.
As for me not wishing to futilely "debate" the "science" at that site does not mean I believe the papers to be scientifically invalid only that it would be a pointless exercise there.
The only Hilarity that in sued was everyone learning that Rob lied about "perusing" 200 pages (an impossibility on Google Scholar) and he was counting papers on climate control systems in automobiles and then them denying it.
No, not floods, more snow. Especially in Atlanta.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@PopTech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent WTF are you talking about"
I am talking about the fact that you do not care for the scientific validity of your list, the fact that you do not care one wit if your papers contradict one another, or that some of those "papers" are actually editorials and that scientist on your list vehemently dispute your listing of their work on your list.
Anyone of those transgressions are damming in of themselves. The lot of them should serve to give notice to those interested in the science that your are interested in propaganda not reality.
All Rob did is apply your standards using Google Scholar. You got owned. Admit it.
Trent, that is incorrect. Please stop misstating my position. I do not care to debate the papers scientific validity at that site. I personally care about their validity and do not believe them to be invalid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy standards are that the paper must be peer-reviewed and support a skeptic's argument against AGW Alarm.
So I have no idea why you keep making false statements.
Very few are editorials which can be peer-reviewed in certain journals, these few would be found in the socio-economic sections.
I do not discriminate between competing skeptical theories that are mutually exclusive. The list is not a unified theory but a resource for all of them. Please stop creating strawman arguments about the list.
No scientist vehemently disputes anything.
My criteria is not searching Google Scholar for the search words 'climate change' (no quotes) in any context, including papers on climate control systems in automobiles.
Why is Rob counting results about climate control systems in automobiles?
I will admit Rob got embarrassed once it was irrefutably demonstrating that his numbers were based on erroneous results,
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html
There is no real argument here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is just one more variation of the Scopes Monkey Trial where fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan takes on rationalist Clarence Darrow in a tragicomic farce.
The naysayers are all saying the same thing: God created the earth for man and puny little man could not possibly do anything to destroy God's creation.
Stop Lying PopTech. You have been caught with your pants down. Full Stop. You have admitted that you care not for for scientific validity. That makes you a first class propagandist. No matter how much you dance and sing I can simply point out that statement over and over again. You got trounced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent, only in your delusional mind. Point the statement out over and over, it just makes you a propagandist and a liar. As I have explained it here and there. I understand your desperation but when you have to resort to lying you have proven you lost. I am not surprised by alarmist dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me explain it in a way you can understand,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have no INTEREST in DEBATING the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list."
Do you understand context? The purpose of the list is not for my interest to debate these papers. I did not create it so I can waste time debating it with people who have no interest in being objective and instead have only the goal in dismissing them. Especially not at Skeptical Science. I never stated I do not care if the papers are scientifically valid. You are too stupid to understand this.
Jstreet, They are saying no such thing. I for one support evolution theory, separation of church and state and am religiously agnostic. When you come to terms that skeptics do not fit into your silly stereo-types you might wish to spend some time objectively looking at their criticisms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oceans are rising for two reasons, and only for these two reasons. First, when the ocean water is warmer it is slightly less dense; so, a slight rise would occur. The second, far more determinant, reason is the addition of water to the ocean. The water in recent decades which has been added is the water resulting from the melting of glaciers in Africa, North America, Greenland, and Antarctica. The greatest melt so far has been the Greenland glaciers. They are not through, but the rise has already been just over half a meter. The Antarctic glacier, two miles high and larger than North America, is just starting to melt. When the Greenland glacier is fully melted, and the Antarctic glacier is fully melted, the ocean will rise over 52 meters from its 1950 level. The good news is this will take about 500-600 years. The bad news is that shortly thereafter the human species will be nearly or completely extinct. Not the first species for that to happen to, and it won't be the last. A perfectly natural phenomenon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs Mr. I-Do-Not-Care-About-Scientific Validity still here? Amazing. You would think that after such a fiasco he would go slink about to the hole he crawled out of. Well, I guess he would not be PopTech if shameless was not one of his characteristics.
Re: Climate change caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing more extreme rainfall and snowfall--and floods
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs climate change the same as anthropogenic global warming? Is that what is causing record cold and snowfall in some areas?
U.S.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/11/snow-present-in-49-of-the-50-u-s-states/?hpt=C2
and
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49085&src=eoa-iotd
U.K.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329
polar opposites
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baby-its-been-cold-outside--and-hot&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110131
and
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48882&src=eoa-iotd
@Bill Crofut,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Says: Is climate change the same as anthropogenic global warming?"
Trent: Yes, it is interchangeable.
Bill Says: U.S. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/11/snow-present-in-49-of-the-50-u-s-states/?hpt=C2
Bill, you do know that snow is precipitation too? So when we see more snow fall we are seeing more precipitation.
Bill Says: Is that what is causing record cold in some areas.
Here is what NOAA says:
U.S
January 2011 was the coolest January since 1994 when the average temperature was 28.3°F (-2.1°C), breaking a long string of warm or near-normal Januaries.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
So we see no record breaking cold here.
How about the global temperature?
NOAA Says:
" The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2011 was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the 17th warmest January on record."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/1
So what is this record cold you are speaking of? It is not the U.S, it is not globe, it is not the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. What in the world is it? Is this another case of Bill Crofut thinking that his back yard is the global temperature?
I believe it is ture, because lately it has been flooding in many parts of the country and others to. The flooding destroys many houses and building and kills people and animals and the food supply for us humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent, it is "Mr. I have no interest to debate the skeptical validity of the papers at skeptical science". Your distortion of reality is amusing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will continue to embarrass you on this.
So Trent,
Why is Rob counting results about climate control systems in automobiles?
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html
More nonsense from the anti-scientists of the far left, as reviewed by Roger Pielke (Jr.):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"President Obama's science advisor John Holdren has this to say to the BBC today:
'People are seeing the impact of climate change around them in extraordinary patterns of floods and droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and powerful storms.'
It is my view of the literature that a defensible scientific position can be presented with respect to "extraordinary patterns" in maximum daily temperatures, and perhaps even drought and wildfires. But in floods and powerful storms? No way, not even close. Then Dr. Holdren has this to say:
'I think it is going to be very hard to persuade people that climate change is somehow a fraud.'
By making claims that are scientifically without merit, he makes such persuasion that much easier. But perhaps he is just engaging is a bit of innocent predistortion.
Ball's in your court, trent1492. Show us some proof tying global warming to human CO2. Skip the ad hominem crap.
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” [adding that] “we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!” (Kevin Trenberth)
Richard the Meteorologist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how Poptech tries to introduce new debating points yet fails to realize that it is all a house of cards. When will he realize that he exited the game with the admission of not caring for scientific validity?
@Richard the Meteorologist:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Says: But in floods and powerful storms? No way, not even close.
I am sorry but simple denial of the facts will not suffice. The irony here is that you make this statement on a thread about a two research articles about extreme precipitation event analysis that have been published in Nature. When can we expect your paper to be published?
Richard Says: Ball's in your court, trent1492. Show us some proof tying global warming to human CO2.
A. Science does not operate in proofs. A concept that a supposed meteorologist should be familiar with.
B. That evidence has already been presented in comment #9. Links to the peer reviewed articles concerning predictions and observations will be provided on request. Run along now. You got some reading to do.
"When will he realize that he exited the game with the admission of not caring for scientific validity?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo admission was given to your libelous statement. I simply stated I had no interest in debating the scientific validity of these papers at that site. I understand you lack the ability to properly comprehend the context of sentences but this is not my problem.
It is impossible for me to exit this debate as I am still here and have shown everything you have stated about the list to be false.
The peer-reviewed evidence has already been provided,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You don't have to know much science when you read an article like this to know it is nonsense. The answer is given in every paragraph and no actual data is shown. In normal science, the reader is setup up for the conclusion by the data and analysis. This best I got out of this one is 2 out of three papers agree. One theory, one vote? The answer normally comes at the end. And it is rather disingenuous and misleading to say that our models disagree with nature, or what is really happening is worse than the models. That normally happens when your model is wrong. I am regularly amazed to look at the CO2 fraction graph which is smoothly rising (why does it always come from the same place and source?) superimposed on a temperature graph which is jiggling up and down in total independence of the CO2 change. The correlation is abysmal. Also please don't say in one paragraph that greenhouse gases are 380 ppm (that just CO2) and then say in the next that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, too. (up to 4% of the atmosphere). How can I believe such sloppy science? The amount of water vapor in clouds is one of the most interesting parameters for the temperature. That's one factor inside the water contribution. Cloud cover is due to many factors including how the clouds are seeded. But let's face it, your climatologists simply are incapable of generating a reliable model. They don't know how enough physics, initial conditions or have a large enough computer to do it and neither does anyone else. It would be nice to have heard of a really smart guy who is still on the bandwagon. Most of the smart ones seem to have been ostracized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Poptech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No admission was given to your libelous statement."
Oh, lawyer talk. I am going to go even further. You are a certified liar. You deny what you have plainly stated. That makes you a liar. Let me make it as clear as possible. You lie like a rug. You are a dishonest man.
You take editorial and call it peer review. You take articles in which it could never be construed as being against the consensus and add them to the list to spite the authors requesting you remove it. That thread stands as a testament to your dishonesty. You ignore articles that have been rebutted and thus dishonestly call it science. You have taken papers that contradict one another and have no qualms about putting them on the same list.
The only way that behavior can be explained is if you have no concern for the scientific validity. You have put in your own words what is obvious from your behavior.
@Poptech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No admission was given to your libelous statement."
Oh, lawyer talk. I am going to go even further. You are a certified liar. You deny what you have plainly stated. That makes you a liar. Let me make it as clear as possible. You lie like a rug. You are a dishonest man.
You take editorial and call it peer review. You take articles in which it could never be construed as being against the consensus and add them to the list to spite the authors requesting you remove it. That thread stands as a testament to your dishonesty. You ignore articles that have been rebutted and thus dishonestly call it science. You have taken papers that contradict one another and have no qualms about putting them on the same list.
The only way that behavior can be explained is if you have no concern for the scientific validity. You have put in your own words what is obvious from your behavior.
The only liar is you. No where have I ever stated that I do not care about scientific validity. What I said was I had no interest in debating the scientific validity at that site. The quote proves what I said but you are too stupid to understand the context as you hyperventilate delusionally thinking you scored a win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never taken an editorial and called it peer-review. What I stated was that editorials in some journals can be peer-reviewed. This is a fact.
There is no consensus. All the papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW. No author has ever requested that I remove any papers. The existence of a criticism does not mean a paper is refuted.
The list is not a unified theory but a resource of all the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptics arguments. So naturally some would be mutually exclusive.
What is obvious is you are an idiot.
My attempt at digesting what is arguably one of the seminal papers on global warming [1] had to be put on hold (patience is not much of a factor in my daily existence). The problem for me was a lack of definition for the term, “proxy climate indicators.” However, Prof. Mann did provide a description: ‘”Multiproxy” methods exploit the complementary strengths of each of these proxies to reconstruct large-scale climate changes in past centuries.’ [2] Yet, he admitted the proxies used----tree-ring data, coral data, ice core data and historical documentary climate records—---each has limitations. That does not seem to me to provide a significant level of confidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[1] Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. NATURE, Vol. 392, 23 April, pp. 770-787.
[2] Michael E. Mann. 2002. The Value of Multiple Proxies. SCIENCE, vol 297, 30 August, pp. 1481-1482.
Bill Mann's paper is the most debunked paper in the history of climate science,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
Caspar and the Jesus paper
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland
http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland(2007).pdf
PopTech: No where have I ever stated that I do not care about scientific validity"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you did. No matter how many times you deny it comment#556 is still there. Here it is again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=12&t=634&&n=571
PopTech: I have no interest in debating the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list. If you have any questions about any of the papers, I suggest contacting the authors. Unfortunately this is not possible anymore for the late Mr. Beck.
This would be the second time I am posting this up. I love the Internet. No matter how many times you deny it that comment is still there. That comment explain your behavior to a T. That is why you include the mutually contradictory material too. You have no concern for scientific validity. According to you "that is not the purpose of the list".
So in short you have been hung by your own petard. Get use to it up there.
No the comment explicitly says,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have no interest in debating the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list."
I have no interest in debating...
I have no interest in debating...
I have no interest in debating...
I have no interest in debating...
I have no interest in debating...
I have no interest in debating...
Post it a million times, it does not change reality. The reality is I had not interest in debating the scientific validity of the papers at that site. I never said I do not care about scientific validity.
Using your idiocy, if someone does not want to debate something at a certain site that means they don't care
about that something.
Your are like a brain dead monkey.
@PopTech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did not finish the sentence. Allow me:
"...the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list."
Game Over.
Poptech Says Now: I never said I do not care about scientific validity.
Poptech Said Then: ...that is not the purpose of the list.
Keeping on digging.
PopTech Says: The list is not a unified theory but a resource of all the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptics arguments. So naturally some would be mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaturally mutually exclusive? Are you by any chance an escapee from Wonderland? You know the place: Where you have to believe "six impossible things before breakfast."
Amen. Blog at Dr. Judith Curry's site - Climate Etc. for a more enlightened discussion. AGW believers and skeptics are also invited for a more intelligent debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent, yes the purpose of the list is not for me to debate it. It is not complicated no matter how many times your repeat your idiocy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicar your idiocy rivals that of Trent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should not look at Wikipedia since it is inaccurate.
The first three listings are not three different papers but one counted paper and two supporting ones.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
- Found at 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
You can find all these corrections here,
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
E&E is not a trade publication as confirmed by Elsevier's (Parent company of Scopus) internal master list
The list is not simply papers rejecting AGW but ones supporting skepticism of "AGW Alarm" or the negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.
It helps if you learn how to read.
People are free to read the peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments and there is nothing you can do about it,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
"Naturally mutually exclusive?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes when two different skeptics have different theories this is bound to happen. It is natural for your collective upbringing to reject the existence of independent thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopTech: The list is not a unified theory but a resource of all the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptics arguments. So naturally some would be mutually exclusive.
No it is not natural. It is a sign of stupidity by someone not interested in the science. But you have already admitted that you are not interested in the scientific validity on your list. That explains the mutually contradictory article.
I understand that since you have never had an independent thought in your life it is not possible for you to believe in their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is perfectly natural for competing theories to exist when none has been proven. That is perfectly normal for science.
I have never stated that I am not interested in the scientific validity of the papers, I stated I am not interested in debating their scientific validity at that website. Repeating the same lie just makes you look like the idiot that your are.
I understand that since you have never had an independent thought in your life it is not possible for you to believe in their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is perfectly natural for competing theories to exist when none has been proven. That is perfectly normal for science.
I have never stated that I am not interested in the scientific validity of the papers, I stated I am not interested in debating their scientific validity at that website. Repeating the same lie just makes you look like the idiot that your are.
I understand that since you have never had an independent thought in your life it is not possible for you to believe in their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is perfectly natural for competing theories to exist when none has been proven. That is perfectly normal for science.
I have never stated that I am not interested in the scientific validity of the papers, I stated I am not interested in debating their scientific validity at that website. Repeating the same lie just makes you look like the idiot that your are.
I understand that since you have never had an independent thought in your life it is not possible for you to believe in their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is perfectly natural for competing theories to exist when none has been proven. That is perfectly normal for science.
I have never stated that I am not interested in the scientific validity of the papers, I stated I am not interested in debating their scientific validity at that website. Repeating the same lie just makes you look like the idiot that your are.
You two have to be the most clueless individuals I have met online. If you bothered to read the list your will read,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 850 counted papers.
All "addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" are preceded by a " - " and italicized."
It tells me your are illiterate.
Vendicator, like I said you are not that bright.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe editor is not the reviewer of E&E, they follow a standard peer-review process like any scholarly journal as defined,
Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication.
The editor has impeccable scientific credentials,
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), University of Adelaide (1962), M.A. International Relations, University of Sussex (1971), D.Phil. (Ph.D.) International Relations (Thesis: Limits to the International Control of Marine Pollution) (1981), Lecturer in Geography, Flinders University, Australia (1963-68), Research Assistant, Institute for Public International Law, Ludwig-Maximillian University, Germany (1982-1985), Consultant, Acid Rain Project, Chatham House, UK (1986-1987), Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1985-1987), Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1987-1993), Member, Working Group on Global Environmental Change, International Political Science Association (1991-1994), Referee, Environmental Research Programme, European Commission (1992), Member, Working Group on Environment and Society, International Sociological Association (1992-Present), Reader of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (1993-2007), Consultant, Climatic Impacts Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (1994), Member, International Geographical Union (1998-Present), Editor, Energy & Environment Journal (1998-Present), Reader Emeritus of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (2007-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001)
Your researching abilities are very poor.
The list is overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments in the peer-reviewed literature and there is nothing you can do about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
So I take it you are mathematically challenged as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represent 14% of the list. There are over 700 papers from 236 other journals on the list.
Energy & Environment is scholarly peer-reviewed by having experts in the field review the paper not the editor. Repeating your lie just makes you look like a liar.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
- Found at 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
"And as to your 850 figure, you have admitted that the first three references are to the same paper - published in E&E - which isn't peer reviewed."
Only the first reference is counted the other two are listed in support of the first paper but are not counted. Go ahead count the list, if you included the supporting papers "Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" you would add another +50 to the count.
Your denial of E&E being peer-reviewed is hilarious. Are you usually this ignorant of fact?
First you cite Wikipedia than you cite DesmogBlog both worthless sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to show how useless an inaccurate your source is, she is an Emeritus Reader,
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/staff.aspx
Her scientific credentials are impeccable,
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), University of Adelaide (1962), M.A. International Relations, University of Sussex (1971), D.Phil. (Ph.D.) International Relations (Thesis: Limits to the International Control of Marine Pollution) (1981)
Lecturer in Geography, Flinders University, Australia (1963-68), Research Assistant, Institute for Public International Law, Ludwig-Maximillian University, Germany (1982-1985), Consultant, Acid Rain Project, Chatham House, UK (1986-1987), Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1985-1987), Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1987-1993), Member, Working Group on Global Environmental Change, International Political Science Association (1991-1994), Referee, Environmental Research Programme, European Commission (1992), Member, Working Group on Environment and Society, International Sociological Association (1992-Present), Reader of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (1993-2007), Consultant, Climatic Impacts Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (1994), Member, International Geographical Union (1998-Present), Editor, Energy & Environment Journal (1998-Present), Reader Emeritus of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (2007-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001)
Your source is so worthless it says only 25 libraries, Worldcat shows otherwise,
56 - http://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-environment/oclc/21187549
94 - http://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-environment/oclc/61313975
E&E is found at 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
JCR (Journal Citation Reports) is a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 8,000 peer-reviewed journals using a subjective inclusion process. There are thousands of peer-reviewed journals that are not included but are with competitors. Scopus indexes 17,000 peer-reviewed journals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can go on as it is clear you have no remote clue about what you are talking about and instead are desperately copying anything you can find from smear sites, it is sad and pathetic.
"Now subtract the 200 that were from the 1990's and then 50 that were from the 1980's, and the 10 written in the 1970's..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes you are mathematically challenged as there are over 650 papers on the list since 200, so your numbers are nonsense. And there are only 4 papers from 40 years ago, your inability to add is amazing.
The Cato Journal (2 papers) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf
- ProQuest lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
All these publications are peer-reviewed and found in the socio-economic sections,
"Economic Analysis and Policy" (1 paper)
"Economics Bulletin" (1 paper)
"Society" (1 paper)
"The Independent Review" (5 papers)
"World Economics" (5 papers)
The rest a also peer-reviewed
Public Administration Review (1 paper) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1540-6210)
- EBSCO lists Public Administration Review as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- ProQuest lists Public Administration Review as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Social Sciences Citation Index lists Public Administration Review as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "PAR uses a double-blind review process"
Iron & Steel Technology (1 paper) is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)
- "Iron & Steel Technology readers will find timely peer-reviewed articles"
Regulation (6 papers) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0147-0590)
- EBSCO lists Regulation as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- ProQuest lists Regulation as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
Waste Management (1 paper) is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0956-053X)
- EBSCO lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Science Citation Index lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal
"Waste Management",
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (3 papers) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1543-4826)
- EBSCO lists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- "Articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process"
Sorry but the list is real and all the papers peer-reviewed. Your mathematical illiteracy netted 28 papers all peer-reviewed.
I take it you never graduated high school?
"She has published 4 papers"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo your retard source if just wrong like you have been. I have 11 papers from her on my list alone. How stupid are you trying to make yourself look?
The scholarly peer-reviewed journal Enegy & Environment is not carried in a dozen libraries but 149 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975
Look it has been established you cannot add but please this is getting embarrassing.
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Emeritus Reader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Which means she is retired."
Very good too bad your retard source cannot get it right. Sorry but there are 11 papers by her on the list. Don't you bother to even check these things before making yourself look like the idiot you are?
No she is not the only expert reviewer, she is the editor and sends the papers out to expert reviewers but since you are too stupid to understand how peer-review works this does not surprise me.
Yes impeccable credentials that make yours look like the dog shit I stepped in the other day. ROFLMAO!
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, B.A. (Hons) Geography (Thesis: Geomorphology), University of Adelaide (1962), M.A. International Relations, University of Sussex (1971), D.Phil. (Ph.D.) International Relations (Thesis: Limits to the International Control of Marine Pollution) (1981), Lecturer in Geography, Flinders University, Australia (1963-68), Research Assistant, Institute for Public International Law, Ludwig-Maximillian University, Germany (1982-1985), Consultant, Acid Rain Project, Chatham House, UK (1986-1987), Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1985-1987), Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex, UK (1987-1993), Member, Working Group on Global Environmental Change, International Political Science Association (1991-1994), Referee, Environmental Research Programme, European Commission (1992), Member, Working Group on Environment and Society, International Sociological Association (1992-Present), Reader of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (1993-2007), Consultant, Climatic Impacts Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (1994), Member, International Geographical Union (1998-Present), Editor, Energy & Environment Journal (1998-Present), Reader Emeritus of Environmental Science and Management, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK (2007-Present), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001)
BTW where did you retard friend go? I enjoyed embarrassing two morons at the same time.
Oh and guess what? There is nothing you can do about the list big boy, nothing.
850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You can cry, whine and pout but the it is not going anywhere.
the 105 Comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare not worth reading.
"Earths Heat Source - The Sun" was not peer-reviewed and thus is not on the list, it is an opinion piece. Similar papers by Dr. Manual have appeared in other science journals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicker, if you bothered to read the sources I gave you, you would not post such embarrassing nonsense.
E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences.
The published made an agreement with the UK's professional Golf Association because one of their journals covers Golf, "International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching"
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/121504/?k=golf
You idiocy about that is astounding.
Vendicker, you are so clueless you do not even know what you just have proven. Your quote from Michael Mann's letter actually proves that M&M's paper was peer-reviewed by Dr. Tim Osborne. ROFLMAO!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicker, peer-review was not dispensed with. The paper went through peer-review. It is a lie that the paper was not peer-reviewed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem incredibly clueless on many issues, including the fact that Manuel's theory was widely reported,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109075137.htm
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-23/tech/sun.iron_1_supernova-solar-system-hydrogen?_s=PM:TECH
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iron-02b.html
The Cato Journal is peer-reviewed scholarly journal so those two peer-reviewed papers will not be removed.
Well done Poptech. I doubt you got through though. Those two prove we have not reached the end of the periodic table. Nothing this dense has yet been described.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How many ...Articles like this are in your List?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone because it was not peer-reviewed but an opinion piece published as a technical viewpoint. You have just supported the robustness of the peer-review process of the journal.
I am accusing Mann of much worse, Fraud for his hockey stick papers (MBH98, 99).
The M&M paper was peer-reviewed, she just rushed the reviewers by asking them for their comments earlier so she could meet a publishing deadline. That does not mean it was not reviewed. Are you that dense?
The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf
- ProQuest lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.proquest.com/tls/jsp/list/ListHTML.jsp?start=2000&productID=770&productName=ProQuest+5000+International&IDString=343+422+182+180+181+8+224+347+567+348+445+223+602+604+350&format=formatHTML&all=all
Deal with it, those peer-reviewed papers will not be removed.
What are the potential problems associated with higher levels of atmospheric CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492, in response to an earlier question of mine identified the following as the problems that global warming might cause. Let’s examine each of these concerns and see if the issue is worth spending trillions on in order to lower CO2 emissions.
Trent’s concerns with my responses and supporting data
1. Ocean Acidification-
It seems that this issue is another false claim by those like Trent who believe we need to eliminate CO2. Please read the article at the links. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/summaries/acidificationphenom.php
http://sepmstrata.org/MARINESEDIMENTS/CarbonateSlopes/webpage-oceanset.htm
2. Weeds and disease moving into now warmer climates.
Over the time spans that any warming will occur, claiming that diseases or weeds will be a problem that warrants spending Trillions on is almost laughable. I will address one of the most serious of the disease concerns malaria.
References
Jackson, M.C., Johansen, L., Furlong, C., Colson, A. and Sellers, K.F. 2010. Modelling the effect of climate change on prevalence of malaria in western Africa. Statistica Neerlandica 64: 388-400.
Breman, J.G. 2001. The ears of the hippopotamus: manifestations, determinants, and estimates of the malaria burden. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 64: 1-11.
Sun, K.N., Kain, K.C. and Keystone, J.S. 2004. Malaria. Canadian Medical Association Journal 170: 1693-1702.
In summary Jackson et al. report that their analyses showed that "very little correlation exists between rates of malaria prevalence and climate indicators in western Africa." This result, as they describe it, "contradicts the prevailing theory that climate and malaria prevalence are closely linked and also negates the idea that climate change will increase malaria transmission in the region."
More of Trent's concerns:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3. The extinction of species that will be unable to move further north in the Northern Hemisphere and further south in the Southern Hemisphere and those species that will be unable to go higher in altitude.
There is actually very little evidence of species having any trouble surviving due to the warming issue that Trent and others raise. In fact, there is evidence that the warmer temperatures help species. Pockely, P. 2001. Climate change transforms island ecosystem. Nature 410: 616.
Nature's contributing correspondent for Australasia, Peter Pockley, reports the results of a recent survey of the plants and animals on Australia's Heard Island, a little piece of real estate located 4,000 kilometers southwest of Perth. Over the past fifty years this sub-Antarctic island has experienced a local warming of approximately 1°C that has resulted in a modest (12%) retreat of its glaciers; and now, for the first time in a decade, scientists are attempting to document what this warming and melting has done to the ecology of the island.
Pockley begins by stating the scientists' work has unearthed "dramatic evidence of global warming's ecological impact." Oh no, we thought. How bad can it be? But we had it wrong. The impact, as we clearly should have surmised, was positive, and dramatically so. But, in our defense, how often does one read good news about rising temperatures? And in Nature!
First off, Pockley reports on the "rapid increases in flora and fauna" that have accompanied the warming. He quotes Dana Bergstrom, an ecologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, as saying that areas that previously had been poorly vegetated are now "lush with large expanses of plants." To this information is added the fact that populations of birds, fur seals and insects have also expanded rapidly. One of the real winners in this regard is the king penguin, which, Pockley says, "has exploded from only three breeding pairs in 1947 to 25,000."
Eric Woehler of Australia's environment department is listed as a source of other equally remarkable figures, like the Heard Island cormorant's comeback from "vulnerable" status to a substantial 1,200 pairs, and fur seals emergence from "near extinction" to a population of 28,000 adults and 1,000 pups.
More on Trent's concerns
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. The inability of some crops to cope beyond a limited temperature range. Go ahead and look up what the optimum temperature is for a good rice harvest is, for example.
This claim is absolutely without validity when looked at from any reasonably perspective. In fact plant growth will be better with higher levels of CO2. All of these claims may be readily verified by perusing the many synopses of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.
References
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M. and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812-818.
Herder, G.D., Van Isterdael, G., Beeckman, T. and De Smet, I. 2010. The roots of a new green revolution. Trends in Plant Science 15: 600-607.
Parniske, M. 2008. Arbuscular mycorrhiza: the mother of plant root endosymbioses. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6: 763-775.
5. The increased frequency of extreme rain patterns and drought in different areas.
This one is easily managed by building dams and sewer systems. These critical infrastructure components will be required by humans regardless of any global warming.
6. The movement of precipitation patterns further North in the Northern Hemisphere thus disrupting agriculture practices.
Again, building appropriate infrastructure is the answer to this issue. It needs to be build in any case over the next 50 years.
More Trent concerns
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7. The diminishment of glacial run off for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes.
This is another non issue. Over the timeframes that the planet may warm, building infrastructure resolves all the concerns about glaziers melting. In addition, there is more plant growth and available land as a result of melting.
8. The inability of the world's economy to build dikes around every coastal city, every inhabited coast on the planet.
This comment by Trent and other shows a lack of understanding of the dynamics of sea level, economics or infrastructure management. First off, sea level does not rise universally around the world. Local sea levels are predominately affected by the movement of the ocean floor as much as by changes in the amount of water in the oceans.
It is quite clear there is no compelling reason to believe that the type of global warming earth has experienced over the past century or so - CO2-induced or otherwise - will lead to catastrophic increases in sea level, even if it continues apace for quite some time to come Over the time frames involved, dams, and levees can easily be constructed. We are discussing a “potential” (by no means definite) sea level rise
References
Antonov, J.I., Levitus, S. and Boyer, T.P. 2002. Steric sea level variations during 1957-1994: Importance of salinity. Journal of Geophysical Research 107: 8013-8021.
Braithwaite, R.J. and Raper, S.C.B. 2002. Glaciers and their contribution to sea level change. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27: 1445-1454.
Bratton, J.F. 1999. Clathrate eustasy: Methane hydrate melting as a mechanism for geologically rapid sea-level fall. Geology 27: 915-918.
Bye, J.A.T. 1998. Sea level change due to oscillations in seafloor spreading rate. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 109: 151-159.
Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.
Diez, J.J. 2000.
I'm not sure how many pages of name calling have gone on here but you don't win any points by acting like you are a three year old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I generally don't agree with Poptech, I hardly see using an insulting name as valid debate methodology. It is nice that children read science oriented periodicals but do you really need to post?
Poptech - I am a little confused by your assertion that the paper was peer-reviewed when the publisher says it was not properly peer-reviewed before it was published. I understand the desire to prevent policy decisions that may lead to damaging consequences but what happened with the peer-review after the paper was published? Did the peer reviewers confirm or contradict the fundamental assertions of the paper?
The published has never stated that it was not properly peer-reviewed before it was published. The paper in question was submitted for review to multiple reviewers, comments were made and corrections were made to the paper based on these comments. Peer-review is a subjective process that at some point the editor has to make a decision of whether to move on and publish a paper if no major issues remained or that they felt a reviewers complaints were not helpful but obstructionist by weighing the reviewers comments vs the author's arguments to these. Peer-review is not some infallible objective process that produces scientific truth, it is a process that improves papers and weeds out serious errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article ignores the fact that CO2 concentration varies depending on wind direction. Rain strips CO2 from air, for example. Also, this article ignores the fact that CO2 already absorbs all photons at 15-microns, and so CO2 cannot affect flooding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe could instead blame a decrease in oxygen concentration in the atmosphere for causing climate change. Oxygen disperses sunlight thus lowering surface temperature. Since oxygen is decreasing, temperature is gradually rising. Temperature will continue to rise until oxygen concentration again increases, and an ice age begins.