now it gets interesting... on this thread you now expanded your argument. Had you done that on the earlier thread... I would have agreed with you to some degree. The paper is not fake... the data is not fake as was pointed out to you earlier. You can see for yourself using NOAA data changes were consistently made to show recent warming and past cooling. === but I would agree that its bona fides as peer reviewed does not make the standards I and most scholars set for other papers. Had you explained earlier you see no links to journals... I would have granted your point. however, I just read the whole paper... and the paper itself documents that 7 peers have reviewed the paper and concur in its findings. So oddly it seems it may actually be a superior peer review to the "peer review" you argued for with your Berkeley Earth paper. So perhaps ironically this paper does not meet my definition of peer review... but it seems it would be more than sufficient to surpass the definition you argued for with the Berkeley Earth papers. so in short the paper was not tripe however it may be incorrectly labeled peer reviewed. (by my definition it was a mistake to call it peer reviewed.)
The paper is not peer reviewed as claimed,without being published in a peer reviewed journal, it can't have been peer reviewed so why do I have to explain this in the first place? And where is the evidence that 7 peers reviewed it?
1. do you still claim the berkeley earth papers are peer reviewed? Can the journal be a pay to publish journal? 2. The list is in the paper... The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report: Dr. Alan Carlin Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015. Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University M.A, Economics, University of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group Dr. Richard A. Keen Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T. Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
1. I never used BEST as my main source for climate change, I highlighted them to sketpics because they were funded by Kochs, were skeptics themselves, provide all data and they go through the peer review process in their own way. I have posted plenty of traditionally peer reviewed papers in support of my arguments, it's in the very thread I linked 2. Your list is who's who of Heartland institute, no wonder they havn't got it peer reviewed as they don't want to be exposed for their BS again.
your guys get to go through the peer reviewed process in their own way? you just gave yourself a fake argument selfie. (by the way you did not post one properly peer reviewed paper saying man made co2 causes warming... because there are none. ) 2. What does who's who of heartland mean? what are you accusing these scientists of? 3. Why does it matter who funded the study... when you can see from the data. many sources show the 40s have been cooled and more recently times warmed. and... There is no question that taking instrument data and grafting it onto proxy data involves a great deal of conjecture and guess work. And its especially telling your side now says the proxy data is broken because it does not show as much warming as your manipulated instrument data.
I highlighted Berkeley given their non academic stance, their skeptical background and the fact that they were Koch funded, when asked for peer reviewed papers on climate change, I have linked to MANY other papers. And I linked to papers showing greenhouse gases causing warming in the very same thread I linked. Heartland Institute is a shill organization that's funded by oil companies https://www.desmogblog.com/heartlan...documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
what are you talking about.... do you have no peer reviewed studies that showing man made co2 causes warming or not? we all suspect water vapor can and probably does impact warming and cooling... especially because of its relationship to clouds.... So saying other green house gases... is a fricken troll like dodge.
Check the thread I linked to earlier, I posted three peer reviewed studies that show greenhouse gas effect on climate CO2 accounts for three quarters of the green house gases, ignoring data maybe your style, that's not how science works.
what the hell fake argument is that. the argument is about man made co2 and what the hell does three quarters mean? three quarters of what most recent studies that I have read state water vapor is the most impactful greenhouse gas. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. Now I must remind you... that the greenhouse effect is different than claiming adding man man co2 causes warming. and there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.
Three quarters of total man made greenhouse gases, who cares about your argument, science doesn't ignore the one quarter because you are fixated on your narrative. From Trump's EPA Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain manufactured greenhouse gases have all risen significantly over the last few hundred years (see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). Historical measurements show that the current global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are unprecedented compared with the past 800,000 years (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial era, rising from an annual average of 280 ppm in the late 1700s to 401 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa in 2015—a 43 percent increase (see Figure 1). Almost all of this increase is due to human activities.1 The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since preindustrial times, reaching approximately 1,800 ppb in recent years (see the range of measurements for 2014 and 2015 in Figure 2). This increase is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use.2 Over the past 800,000 years, concentrations of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere rarely exceeded 280 ppb. Levels have risen since the 1920s, however, reaching a new high of 328 ppb in 2015 (average of three sites in Figure 3). This increase is primarily due to agriculture.3 Concentrations of many of the halogenated gases shown in Figure 4 were essentially zero a few decades ago but have increased rapidly as they have been incorporated into industrial products and processes. Some of these chemicals have been or are currently being phased out of use because they are ozone-depleting substances, meaning they also cause harm to the Earth’s protective ozone layer. As a result, concentrations of many major ozone-depleting gases have begun to stabilize or decline (see Figure 4, left panel). Concentrations of other halogenated gases have continued to rise, however, especially where the gases have emerged as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals (see Figure 4, right panel). Overall, the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreased by about 3 percent between 1979 and 2014 (see Figure 5). All of the decrease happened in the stratosphere, with most of the decrease occurring between 1979 and 1994. Changes in stratospheric ozone reflect the effect of ozone-depleting substances. These chemicals have been released into the air for many years, but recently, international efforts have reduced emissions and phased out their use. Globally, the amount of ozone in the troposphere increased by about 3 percent between 1979 and 2014 (see Figure 5). Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Human activities have only a small direct influence on atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, primarily through irrigation and deforestation, so it is not included in this indicator.4 The surface warming caused by human production of other greenhouse gases, however, leads to an increase in atmospheric water vapor because warmer temperatures make it easier for water to evaporate and stay in the air in vapor form. This creates a positive “feedback loop” in which warming leads to more warming. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicat...s-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases