Scientific published papers

MarcusR wrote:
I am starting this thread in order to have one place to post links to published scientific papers regarding global warming and climate science.

IBdaMann wrote:

So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

Published in a scientific journal.

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

MarcusR wrote:

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

Roy is one of the key guys behind UAH6, and that would absolutely count as a scientific source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Roy also has several published papers.

Third world guy wrote:

I consider serious scientific studies those that go hand in hand with Roy Spencer.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?

Published in a scientific journal.

Third world guy wrote:
I believe in scientists who think like me, and I discard those who don't.

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

MarcusR wrote:Roy is one of the key guys behind UAH6, and that would absolutely count as a scientific source:

MarcusR wrote:

If you have any other studies You have read by him (or Christy) and found interesting , please publish a link. That was the reason why I started this thread.

MarcusR wrote:
I am starting this thread in order to have one place to post links to published scientific papers regarding global warming and climate science.

MarcusR wrote:
Don't post links to blog-posts or similar - go with the primary source instead if they are refered to.

Don't post links directly to pdf's. Post the link to the journal where the paper was published. That gives two benefits:
1. You can see further discussions steming from the paper
2. You can refer to the journal impact to see how creadible - scientifically speaking - the journal is.

MarcusR wrote:
I know that many journals have the complete published paper behind pay-walls, but in some cases they can be found "elsewhere" and if you have logincredentials from your place of work, many of theese will let You read the journal.

EDIT: There are ofcourse sites that contains physical data can and should be included, i.e HITRAN.

MarcusR wrote:
I start with two papers regarding the effect of increased levels of greenhouse gasses:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
The abstract tells the story, but the actual figures are a bit further down. It has RF from 2016 levels.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
The title pretty much says it all: "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010", but the interesting parts comes at the end of the abstract.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

Published in a scientific journal.

MarcusR wrote:

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

Roy is one of the key guys behind UAH6, and that would absolutely count as a scientific source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Roy also has several published papers.

Third world guy wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

Roy is one of the key guys behind UAH6, and that would absolutely count as a scientific source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Roy also has several published papers.

Roy Spencer publishes monthly the graph of the Earth's surface temperature measured by NASA satellites, and calculates (at least at this moment) that the temperature is rising 0.13 degrees C per decade without modifying the atmosphere by reducing CO2, which leads us to 1 degree C increase in the year 2100. This contrasts with many studies that speak of 3 or 4 degrees C, including most of the IPCC.

Third world guy wrote:
I consider serious scientific studies those that go hand in hand with Roy Spencer.

Third world guy wrote:
Judith Curry also speaks of 1 degree C in 2100.

Third world guy wrote:
Clive Best speculates more on this issue, but does not depart from objectivity.

Third world guy wrote:
Many 'scientific studies' are simply speculations, derived from models funded by the IPCC. For me the IPCC is discarded as an objective scientific entity.

Third world guy wrote:
IBDaMann is definitely an intelligent and prepared guy, but he tends to break the threads with his arrogant attitude.

Third world guy wrote:
He considers himself the owner of absolute scientific truth.

Third world guy wrote:
He is, of course, in his right to intervene, but we must select how little positive he brings to the threads.

Third world guy wrote:
He has a 'twin brother' who appears as Into the Night, with exactly the same destructive attitude.

Third world guy wrote:
IBDaMann and Into the Night equate to the concept of 'noise' in communications.

Third world guy wrote: IBDaMann is definitely an intelligent and prepared guy, but he tends to break the threads with his arrogant attitude.

He considers himself the owner of absolute scientific truth.

Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Better try some other forum.

MarcusR wrote: Sadly, I have to agree on Your comments above.

MarcusR wrote: There is a sister-forum to this, but that is in Danish / Swedish so I will continue here for a while.

MarcusR wrote:

Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Better try some other forum.

Sadly, I have to agree on Your comments above. There is a sister-forum to this, but that is in Danish / Swedish so I will continue here for a while.

I think you have a valid question about scientific. That was the very reason why I started this thread, and I will continue to post links:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0666-7

And this was interesting as well:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

IBdaMann wrote:
Is there any reason you couldn't just explain what you mean by "scientific" or will you feel utterly stupid divulging your criteria?

James___ wrote:
Am curious, do you know the history associated with Disko Bay and possibly Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier itself? It's a very famous event in the US. It's believed that the iceberg that sank the Titanic came from there.
https://www.livescience.com/18862-supermoon-titanic-disaster.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222661107_The_regime_shift_of_the_1920s_and_1930s_in_the_North_Atlantic

Earthquakes greater than 4.5 magnitude since 1 January, 2008.
The larger circle at the top was 6.1 magnitude. Earthquakes can also open deep faults in the seafloor.

Another giant piece of the climate science puzzle just fell into place, specifically that geological heat flow is now proven to be the primary force responsible for anomalous bottom melting and break-up of many West Antarctica glaciers, and not atmospheric warming.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/how-major-oceanic-and-continental-fault-boundaries-act-to-control-much-of-earths-climate

If it can happen in Antarctica and in the Pacific https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109173830.htm
and High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x

If anyone wants to, they can look at what 4.5 or greater or 6.0 or greater earthquakes in the northeast of Greenland. It's in a previous link in this post. Sorry about all of the reading but I don't think that seismic activity and vents in the seafloor receive much notice.
And it's possible that the melting glaciers and increased earthquake activity are related. Basically their own feedback mechanism.
And I'll also remember not put to put a turbo on a small block 383 less it experience it's own kind of earthquake

p.s., with earthquakes, there does seem to be a relationship to warming or cooling associated with earthquakes 6.0 magnitude or greater over the last century. Given a 10 year lag time for warm water to rise or cool water to move in to that area. And I looked at the earthquakes around Greenland and there have been many along with 1 - 6.0 magnitude in the northeast around Greenland. And around Greenland it seems that earthquake monitoring started in the 1920's.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Is there any reason you couldn't just explain what you mean by "scientific" or will you feel utterly stupid divulging your criteria?

Published in scientific journals - as I wrote above.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?

Published in a scientific journal.

Same thing, what makes a journal "scientific"? Does publishing articles with titles similar to "The Rate of Climate Change is Worse that Previously Feared!" make a journal "scientific"?

Are there any journals that have major ownership share in science such that they get to declare their articles to be "science"?

Ergo, when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?

I hope you aren't defining "scientific" as anything posted in this thread.

IBdaMann wrote:


When you write "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

Third world guy wrote:
They always do it. It is something systematic that makes this forum not worth it.

Third world guy wrote:
I dare to say that they have serious psychological problems. otherwise, how do you explain it to yourself?

Third world guy wrote:
We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Third world guy wrote:
Better try some other forum.

James___ wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
[quote]Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Better try some other forum.

Sadly, I have to agree on Your comments above. There is a sister-forum to this, but that is in Danish / Swedish so I will continue here for a while.

I think you have a valid question about scientific. That was the very reason why I started this thread, and I will continue to post links:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0666-7

And this was interesting as well:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

James___ wrote:
Another giant piece of the climate science puzzle just fell into place, specifically that geological heat flow is now proven to be the primary force responsible for anomalous bottom melting and break-up of many West Antarctica glaciers, and not atmospheric warming.

James___ wrote:
p.s., with earthquakes, there does seem to be a relationship to warming or cooling associated with earthquakes 6.0 magnitude or greater over the last century. Given a 10 year lag time for warm water to rise or cool water to move in to that area. And I looked at the earthquakes around Greenland and there have been many along with 1 - 6.0 magnitude in the northeast around Greenland. And around Greenland it seems that earthquake monitoring started in the 1920's.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Is there any reason you couldn't just explain what you mean by "scientific" or will you feel utterly stupid divulging your criteria?

Published in scientific journals - as I wrote above.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:


When you write "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

I would guess what English speakers mean by the term, IE something different to what you understand the term to be

I have a feeling you want to derail the thread and discuss semantics again.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Is there any reason you couldn't just explain what you mean by "scientific" or will you feel utterly stupid divulging your criteria?

Published in scientific journals - as I wrote above.

What do you mean by "scientific" journal - as I asked above?

Are you saying that a scientific journal is a jounal that is published in a scientific journal? That's not too brilliant if I may point out.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?

Published in a scientific journal.

Same thing, what makes a journal "scientific"? Does publishing articles with titles similar to "The Rate of Climate Change is Worse that Previously Feared!" make a journal "scientific"?

Are there any journals that have major ownership share in science such that they get to declare their articles to be "science"?

Ergo, when you say "scientific" ... what do you really mean?

I hope you aren't defining "scientific" as anything posted in this thread.

When you write "scientific" ... what do you really mean?


.

Third world guy wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

I will believe in global warming, when Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Clive Best tell it is real and well dimensioned.

Roy is one of the key guys behind UAH6, and that would absolutely count as a scientific source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Roy also has several published papers.

Roy Spencer publishes monthly the graph of the Earth's surface temperature measured by NASA satellites, and calculates (at least at this moment) that the temperature is rising 0.13 degrees C per decade without modifying the atmosphere by reducing CO2, which leads us to 1 degree C increase in the year 2100. This contrasts with many studies that speak of 3 or 4 degrees C, including most of the IPCC.

I consider serious scientific studies those that go hand in hand with Roy Spencer.

Judith Curry also speaks of 1 degree C in 2100.

Clive Best speculates more on this issue, but does not depart from objectivity.

Many 'scientific studies' are simply speculations, derived from models funded by the IPCC. For me the IPCC is discarded as an objective scientific entity.

Harry C wrote:

I like Spencer and Curry. What I don't understand is why they aren't disputing the reported temperatures as the foundation for an increase in global temperatures over time. Could it be that they are just playing the game by focusing on their own agenda?

Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

Third world guy wrote:
They always do it. It is something systematic that makes this forum not worth it.

Third world guy wrote:
I dare to say that they have serious psychological problems. otherwise, how do you explain it to yourself?

Third world guy wrote:
We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Third world guy wrote:
Better try some other forum.

gfm7175 wrote:

Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

As you can see, IBDaMann and Into the Night have already managed to destroy your thread.

Nothing has been destroyed. The thread is still here.

Third world guy wrote:
They always do it. It is something systematic that makes this forum not worth it.

They destroyed nothing. People are still posting in this thread; you included.

Third world guy wrote:
I dare to say that they have serious psychological problems. otherwise, how do you explain it to yourself?

Regardless of their "psychological state", they have presented valid arguments.

Third world guy wrote:
We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

What communication?

Third world guy wrote:
Better try some other forum.

Yet, here you still are...

Third world guy wrote:
Another little brother?

Third world guy wrote:

The ones that I know have their own agenda are IBDaMann and Into the Night: spoil all the threads in this site.

Harry C wrote:

Third world guy wrote:

The ones that I know have their own agenda are IBDaMann and Into the Night: spoil all the threads in this site.

I don't want to be a fanboy for either. However, I think I understand their point of view which is why I posed the question I did. If you read what they say and you think about it they have a strict interpretation of science as it relates to this debate.

This is my interpretation of their Statements On Scientific Facts (SOSF):
First and foremost, there is no Global Warming Theory. Please direct me to the theory so it's subject to falsification.
There is no Climate Change Theory. ditto
There are no green house gasses. ditto
No gas, including carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere.
For carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere it would violate 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann law. Energy in exceeds energy out.
The emissivity of earth is unknown. Too many variables and constantly changing to use it as a fixed factor and therefore determinant of the earth's temperature.
The global temperature of earth is unknown. Not enough temperature readings throughout the atmosphere to make a valid case for temperature change.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. Not enough readings.
The lack of scientific approach, infers a nefarious existence for the declaration emergency. They think it's a socialist plot and I also lean in that direction. I think it's an extension of Agenda 21. It's a way to subordinate the world to a cause.

I'm sure they will come along and correct me where I have misspoken and I'm not threatened by that.

I got here on my own because I was tired of being inundated by anecdotal data and sought out the science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, my purpsose here is to reconcile the scientific data the alarmists believe versus their SOSF.

Harry C wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, my purpsose here is to reconcile the scientific data the alarmists believe versus their SOSF.