skiskyrock

For individual papers you can check the author(s) websites, they frequently post PDFs or preprints and the journals don't seem to object. If you can find someone currently enrolled in a college, they can generally get the papers for free throught their library's journal access program or can request them through inter-library loan. Also the journals generally send the author a hundred or so courtesy copies. If you contact the corresponding author, they are usually happy to mail you one. As a last resort you can visit a university library and dig the references out of the stacks. This will amaze most of the students who have no idea that a journal is a physical object.

It looks like you have decided to run the numbers on this one. I'm a Chem E also (and analytical chemist), and I'm pretty sure you won't like what you find. A few points to keep in mind: 1) pre-industrial CO2 is 280-290 ppm, so we already are committed to substantial warming from the previous emissions. If you look at temperature data, an increase of CO2 from 210 to 290 is sufficient to reverse an ice age glaciation. 2) the rate of CO2 emissions is not a linear increase, but is accelerating due to both increased human emissions and decreased solubility of CO2 in water. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback parameter 3) The uptake of 40% of human emissions by the biosphere is not well understood. The system must have a limit to what it can sink, but I don't know that we have any solid idea where that limit is. 4) The carbon tied up in the biosphere is available to be added back in to the atmosphere on short notice. For instance, the amazon (the other one) appears to be a carbon source or carbon sink, depending on rainfall: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/03/05-01.html

This wasn't a serious journal article. The authors knew there were holes in their approach, they had to. They sent it to a low impact journal without the resources to do a thorough review. It wasn't going to survive long after publication. But that wasn't the point. They had the press release ready to go. Everybody sees the Fox news and Forbes headlines, nobody reads the refutations. Seriously? Would you like the examples chronologically or alphabetically? How about this from Lubos Motl, reacting to Michael Mann being cleared of any wrongdoing by Penn State: "The complete lack of elementary morality of these people is just stunning. Those people may feel comfortable in their ivory towers but let me tell them that they're human trash and organized criminals and we will eventually give them what they deserve. No Tora Bora will be safe enough for them. That's my message to Ms Ass-mann, Mr Castleman, Ms Irwin, Ms Jablonski, and Mr Vondracek. I have met people at Harvard who would behave in the same way and let me tell you that I am proud of my stomach that throughout those long years, I have never vomited. " compare that to this harsh rhetoric for Trenberth commenting on Spencer's paper in Remote sensing: "Spencer, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist, and his colleagues have a history of making serious technical errors in their effort to cast doubt on the seriousness of climate change. Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming. " BTW, I'm not sure that I'd consider pointing out that a person has been wrong on a subject in the past would constitute and ad hom attack. Your comments about groupthink imply that there is a serious alternative to AGW being proposed by those in oposition. In fact there isn't. It's volcanoes. It's the sun. It's cosmic rays. It isn't happening. It is happening but it's a natural cycle. It's fraud (except when the data supports our point). All the small minority of scientists that oppose the current theories AGW are doing is throwing shit at the wall and hoping some sticks for a few days.

Because have you EVER heard of an editor publishing a paper and then, instead of the normal exchange of letters, e-mails and phone calls to improve a paper as is the normal case, publicly resigns with a manifesto against a paper? In cases where the editor of a minor journal was punk'd by the author and reviewers, yes Perhaps he felt that the paper was intellectually dishonest and only intended to generate headlines. My first read of the paper raised four red flags, and I'm not even a climate scientist. Actualy, the CRU emails discuss boycotting a journal after the editor published a paper by Soon and Baliunas despite receiving four "reject" recommendations from the reviewer. Half the editorial board also resigned to protest this incident. With respect to the Remote Sensing paper, the editor invited, and the journal has published, a detailed refutation of the original work. The piece you site seems measured and thoughtful to me. The authors have backed up their opinions else where with detailed discussions, and as I stated previously, they have published a paper in remote sensing refuting the original paper. If this meets your definition of "fucking disgusting", well you are entitled to that opinion. but you may find the internet a bit rough on your sensibilities. Published in Remote Sensing. See link in my original reply. Also here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/

You're right. It was 50 years.http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKxdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bl0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2794,1289946&dq=james-hansen+flood&hl=en And five and a half years ago, he expects sea levels to rise 82 feet. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-on-the-edge-466818.html 2006-2099 = 93 years. 82/93=.88 feet per year. So if the trend is linear, the sea level rose 4 feet, 10 inches in five years. And in 1988, Hanson predicted that in 40 years, the West Side Highway in Manhattan will be inundated. He'll need another 10 feet in the next 17 years. Seeing as how we've had about 2.5 inches in the intervening 23, I have a problem with averaging 7-8 inches of sea level rise per year. I am merely using Hansen as one example. He's generally considered to be a serious scientist. Bill - so I somewhat overstated it. But Hansen stands by his statement of 40 year inundation. Meaning he still predicts that in 17 years, a ten foot rise in sea level will occur. Meaning I somewhat understated it while I was at it. And actually, no serious scientist in 25 years has said coast will be inundated? http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf Footnote 1. And snow a thing of the past? Dr. David Viner of CRU Anglia WAS a serious scientist and he said just that in 2000. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Edited: Mike beat me to it. I went into more detail. And I gave you the benefit of th edoubt, bill. I mean, 10 feet in 40 years we'd expect to see some inundation now.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html Hansen was speaking of a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in 1988 and what would happen 40 years later, not a prediction of what will happen in 40 years under the current emission scenarios.

JUst as a public service announcement, the editor of the paper which StreetScooby refers to has said the paper should not have been published and that there were problems with the review process. The editor resigned as a result. Another group analyzed the same data and showed that in fact the existing data fit some of the models well. The original authors studied those same models, but neglected to include them in the original paper. http://www.mdpi.com/search/?q=&s_journal=remotesensing&s_volume=&s_authors=trenberth&s_section=&s_issue=&s_article_type=&s_special_issue=&s_page=&s_search=Search This has been discussed previously in Speaker Corner, so it is a mystery to me why it keeps geetting repeating without at least mentioning that there might be some wee problem with the original paper.

from the website: "Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."

Hi. I'm the guy from big pharma that decides what goes in the vials. I'm just curious.... why do you think we put that stuff in there? Why do you think the FDA allows us to put it in there? What possible benefit could we derive for putting unnecessary ingredients in our product? Do you think we get a kick back from Amalgamated Mercury for putting thimerosal in the formulation or something? If it is in there we have presented evidence to the FDA that it is safe and that it's use is scientifically justified. As a necessary part of a drug product that prevents or treats disease, these are in fact wonderful for infants.

Just in case Forbes is slow getting it's retraction out there, the journal editor at Remote Sensing has retracted the paper and resigned. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

I never thought about this before, but if I have the math right, the voltage gradient in a lightning stroke is around 200 volts per meter. Assuming that you are 2m tall you will have voltage drop of 400v (at huge amperage) across your body, regardless if you are in mid-air or on the 18th hole wearing metal cleats. On the ground you may attract a strike, in mid-air you just get in the way of one. Either way the results are the same

They should get that guy that did that great screen adaptation of that other Stephen King novel to direct.... Oh....

You may find that the bumper hits the ramps before the wheels do in some compacts. Just use a good hydraulic jack and jack stands. If you have a top accessible oil filter there is a device called a Pela extractor that can vacuum the oil out through the dipstick tube and eliminates the need to get underneath at all. I've never been a fan, but since my Jetta requires the removal of something like 16 Torx screws and a skid plate to get at the oil drain, I may give one a try. If we can mandate airbags, we should be able to mandate oil filters that removed without the need for a prehensile tail.

In the sense that what a person does is more important than what they talk about doing, absolutely.

Got a cite for that, since Jones doesn't mention *what* papers in the email? In references, the listing for Kalnay doesn't include Cai. No primary mention of Mcintyre or McKitrick (of course) and the listings for Michaels don't include Mcintyre. There is more than one listing for Kalnay. Look carefully in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-references.html McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is there as well. The reference to the identity of the papers is from the realclimate website. Michael Mann, the recipient of the Jones email, is a permanent contributor to the site. If anyone has any idea of the context of the email, he should. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ McIntyre and McKitrick are listed in chapter 6 on paleoclimate. Five times as a pair. [/url]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html[url] edit: missed an url

Really? I can't seem to find Pielke or McIntyre listed in the contributing authors for AR4 - guess they must have inadvertently left them out, sorta like how CRU inadvertently lost their data. Try looking in references. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) are the papers in question and both are included in the IPCC. I lost all of the old data for my thesis research in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I've deleted other stuff I didn't have space for. This is the rule for 99% of academic research. Better data management is a nice goal, but we have managed to get this far without it.

And yet both papers were included in the IPCC.

So, appeal to authority is all you've got? It's a statement of fact. I'm not saying that Mann's hockeystick reconstruction is true because it's published in Nature, I'm citing counter examples to your assertion that Nature won't publish views that deviate from the consensus.

Ah, yes...those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from "the consensus"... I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to say, as well. Ah Nature, the folks that accepted publications on the wave nature of particles, the existence of the neutron, plate techonics, the helical nature of DNA, nuclear fission, the human genome. Bunch of sticks in the mud who wouldn't know a new idea if it ran up and bit them in the ass.

Nitrogen is completely transparent to infrared. We use it to purge atmospheric CO2 and water vapor out of IR spectrometers. Now if you are talking about nitrogen oxides that is well understood. Nitrogen oxides are greenhouse gases, but unfortunately, carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that is increasing, and it's the one that's hard to get rid of.

You can mail the long guns to yourself through the US postal service, the handgun can be sent to yourself by fed ex (this is brutally expensive, but ). Ammo can be shipped UPS, but is generally not worth the trouble. My experience with the post office is that you won't have any trouble if you don't tell them what you are shipping. They have to ship long guns, but it avoids a lot of discussion if they don't know what you are shipping. I try to avoid boxes that scream GUN (receivers in flat rate boxes, barreled actions in poster tubes). Not that you only need to ship the portions with a serial number on them; the rest is just parts. Note that as long as you are legal at the start and end of the journey and follow a few simple rules, you are, in theory, protected by federal law while in transit. The concealed weapons permit doesn't really matter in this situation, other than to establish that you are a law abiding sort if it becomes an issue. In my experience, movers may or may not handle the long guns, but definitely not the handguns. The advice from the moving companies has been universally bad: from "you need remove the firing pin and cut the action with a grinding wheel" to "Just slip them into the boxes after we leave".

SPPI and IJG are not reputable peer reviewed journals. The D'Aleo paper contains so many glaring omissions it isn't even worth commenting on. Just out of curiosity, how much of a change in anomaly would you expect for a 10% change in CO2, say from 380 to 390ppm?

NOAA - 2010 tied with 2005 for warmest (sea surface/land surface temperature) Remote Sensing Systems - 2010 second warmest after 1998 University of Alabama Huntsville - 2010 second warmest after 1998. 2010 was warm, indeed (notably, 1998 and 2010 were positively influenced by an El Nino). Considering history, we would likely expect a drop in global temperature next year. The el Nino effect dissipated in April. Since that time, we've been on a la Nina cycle: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html

If that is the case then - why wouldn't it be the case now? Why wouldn't your model of "CO2 isn't the only driver of limate" be universally accepted throughout? It is universally accepted. I've never seen anyone credible say it isn't. However we can now measure the other factors and know whether they do or don't apply in this case.

Over the last 30 years, yes they are. Of course, given all the 'adjustments' to the data, I don't see how it *couldn't* be. Really? HADCRUT GLOBAL mean omits arctic warming? Please, do tell how a GLOBAL mean 'omits arctic warming'. Care to actually respond to my point - you know, temperature remaining flat even though CO2 is continually rising? For that matter, kindly explain the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods in re: CO2. The HADCRUT data set handles missing data in the arctic by filling the missing values with the northern hemisphere mean temperature anomally. The GISTEMP data interpolates and extrapolates from shore stations (they have a published scientific basis for doing this). Effectively the GISTEMP method assumes that missing data will be closer to data in adjacent grids than to the overall hemisphere mean. If you don't like the actual temperature data I provided, take a look at the UAH data set, which is obtained by satellite measurement. If you don't like the corrections to the GISTEMP land ocean do your own. If that's all it takes to overturn global warming, I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a better method and get it peer reviewed and published. As to my not addressing your original point, I just showed you that your conclusions don't match the available data, and even if they did the time period you discuss is too short to reach a statistically valid conclusion. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

Because the trend is essentially flat for the last decade, even though CO2 is continually rising? 30 years is the typical period used to define temperature trends, since it is hard to get a significant regression for shorter periods. I have plotted the data from the woodfortrees site for 1980-present for the GIStemp land ocean index, the HADCRU global series, and the UAH satellite measurements and all 30 year trends are strongly positive. I also plotted trends for 2001-present and 1998 to present. The only the HADCRU data could be said to be flat over the last decade, but this data set omits arctic warming. I'd have to say your conclusion on warming isn't robust. The plots are anomaly in degrees C vs time in years.