I had thoughts of reviewing a few other papers from Poptech's list considering what a hoot Reifsnyder's "Tale of ten fallacies" was. (you can read about it at "Considering Poptech's standards of excellence")
But, I'm over it. Too many other things to catch up on. If Andrew decides to continue the dialogue I'll be happy to field his complaints and claims and repeat my questions for him, if not, fine.
For my final post in this series I'm going to do a pure cut'n paste of an excellent, thoughtful examination of Poptech's list of papers over at https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com.
It's the sort of well narrated detail work I dream of doing, but time constraints, a chaotic hyper-attention syndrome, and frankly my limited understanding keep me from it. (I don't fail to recognize that I am a lay-person, my education has been of the casual self administered sort. It's great for what it is, but it certainly has limitations. That's why I love turning to the educated adults who have spent their lives and careers in a formal pursuit of learning about all the details and getting a grasp of the whole picture and its various components.)
I get the feeling ItsNotNova understands the science from the inside, as opposed to, from the outside looking in, such as I and most fellow blogger do. That's why I want to finish this Poptech series with his/her excellent review of Poptech's list of Confusion.
Poptech’s list of Confusion
800 papers disputing the theory of climate change!!
Can it be true, or is this an over-reaction?
Who are the deniers now? 800 Peer Reviewed Papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
… the list is explicitly titled, “Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm”.
To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.
- The author may disagree with having his paper on Poptech’s list.
- The paper can agree with the IPCC and mainstream climate science but disagree, even if only slightly, with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper or internet article.
- The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW.
- The paper may be alarming, but somehow still make the list.
- The papers on the list can hold completely opposing views with each other.
- The paper can be seriously flawed.
- Peer-reviewing yourself is acceptable
- Old incorrect research is okay
- The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
- The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, political views are ok.
- Dozens of the papers support high climate sensitivity.
- The paper may not be peer-reviewed.
- The “paper” can be just a “letter” of no significant importance.
- Poptech, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper.
My attention has just be called to a list of “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming.” A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.
I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, November 2009) – Wolfgang Knorr
It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.
There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period
The research, by Wolfgang Knorr, had a title that tried to do too much in too few words: “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?“ And so when the American Geophysical Union published this interesting-if-true study, it issued a press release with the catastrophically wrong headline, “No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years.”
During the 20th one continues to observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature patterns: both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from 1970 to 2000. However, a divergence in the upward trend of the two records is also evident. A comparison between the curves indicates that the sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the total global surface warming since 1900 [Scafetta and West, 2006]. Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone.
In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et al., 1999].
Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1°C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist.
The fact that Idso continued to cite his papers is clear evidence he did not accept their arguments.
Is the C02 increasing? Much seems to depend on the objectivity of Callendar’s decisions as to which data to keep. … Instead, the subject remains open, either until another chemist critically evaluates the accuracy of the existing data, or else until more and better-organized data are available.
All this does not refute Callendar’s thesis. The available data merely fail to conikm it. The positive evidence tha t the C02 ha s increased is inconclusive, but seems strong enough t o reward further study, and the time seems ripe for new research.
Beyond this point, however, Cess and Potter (1984) additionally suggest that most of Climatic Change the natural experiments which I have used to quantify the Earth’s surface air temperature response function employ “non-equilibrium observations and as such are inappropriate for the determination of an equilibrium response”. I have previously acquiesced to this criticism (Idso, 1984c, d) to the extent that I agreed that all of my non-equilibrium natural experiments did not directly yield a proper value for the equilibrium surface air temperature response function of Earth’s atmosphere, as I had previously claimed (Idso, 1982b, c); but I have subsequently gone on to show how they can be used in concert with still other non-equilibrium natural experiments to ultimately evaluate that most elusive parameter.
short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields
original reports whose conclusions represent a substantial advance in understanding of an important problem and have immediate, far-reaching implications.