Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific published papers



Page 1 of 3123>
Scientific published papers13-01-2020 15:19
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
I am starting this thread in order to have one place to post links to published scientific papers regarding global warming and climate science.

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.

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.
Edited on 13-01-2020 15:26
13-01-2020 15:24
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.
13-01-2020 15:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.

What makes a paper qualify as "scientific"? Does having a title similar to "The Rate of Climate Change is Worse than Previously Feared!" make it scientific?

I'm assuming that no repeatable falsifying tests are required because that is what would normally be required of a scientific paper but there has never been any repeatable falsifying tests of anything having to do with Climate. In fact, Climate has never been unambiguously defined.

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


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 16:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:

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


.


Published in a scientific journal.
13-01-2020 16:23
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

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


.


Published in a scientific journal.


What makes you think that a scientific journal is really scientific? The name given by its editors? In this forum you will find many opinions that disqualify scientific journals.

The only thing that formalizes the studies published in the scientific journals is the prestige of those who performed it.

Unfortunately, the prestige of most climate scientists is on the ground, so we are talking about dogmas of faith in any case.

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.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
13-01-2020 16:39
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)

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.
13-01-2020 16:54
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
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.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
13-01-2020 17:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Third world guy wrote:

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


I consider any published studies, if not for the study also to see response from other scientists - why limit that ?

Even Roy was the subject to a retraction - and an editor leaving:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002

But do read his work on ENSO:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z

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.

EDIT2:
While I DO NOT endorse it, there are "other sources" for getting published papers than having direct access, or through Your work credentials.
Edited on 13-01-2020 17:14
13-01-2020 17:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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:


You both have just described the process for religious faith, i.e. believing what some accepted authority tells you to believe.

For anything to be scientific it must be based on actual science that has withstood the scrutiny of the scientific method, not on anyone's word. If you are pointing to a person as an authority and not to specific science then you are talking about faith, not science ... and is therefore a matter of faith and is not scientific.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 17:34
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
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.


When a scientist retracts from something he affirmed, he is someone honest and trustworthy.

What affects your proposal to publish scientific studies in this place, is the climatical-economical-political war that we are living, in which everyone seeks to confirm their thinking (or interests), and this includes scientists.

The same scientific data can lead to the conclusions of each one. The problem is for those who, like me, want to be located in reality.

There is a newly published article in NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT that refers to who checks the fact confirmers.

I think what IBDaMann mentions about questioning the term 'scientific' is valid.

For this thread you propose to really work, we should set standards. These, in addition to allowing us to ensure that they come from reliable (non-biased) sources, would lay objective foundations.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
Edited on 13-01-2020 17:36
13-01-2020 17:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.

There are none. Science isn't a paper or a journal. Neither is 'global warming' or 'climate science'. 'Global warming' has not yet been defined. 'Climate science' is a buzzword of made up of two conflicting terms.
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.

Science isn't a journal or a paper. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The only authoritative reference for any theory is the theory itself.
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.

Models in computers are not data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.


CO2 is not a force. It is not energy. This paper is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

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


.


Published in a scientific journal.


There is no such thing. Science is not a journal or a magazine.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.


People are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:46
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
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.

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

He has a 'twin brother' who appears as Into the Night, with exactly the same destructive attitude.
 
IBDaMann and Into the Night equate to the concept of 'noise' in communications.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
13-01-2020 17:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.

Roy Spencer does not know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure it. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. He publishes random numbers as data.
Third world guy wrote:
I consider serious scientific studies those that go hand in hand with Roy Spencer.

Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. It is not a paper, journal, or a magazine. It is not any scientist. It is not people at all.

It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

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

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Third world guy wrote:
Clive Best speculates more on this issue, but does not depart from objectivity.

Quoting random numbers as data is not 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.

Science isn't an 'entity'. It is not a scientist or any group of scientists.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Third world guy wrote:
IBDaMann is definitely an intelligent and prepared guy, but he tends to break the threads with his arrogant attitude.

Threads don't break. They aren't made of glass.
Third world guy wrote:
He considers himself the owner of absolute scientific truth.

Science isn't a 'truth'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
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.

Who are you to judge what is 'positive'?
Third world guy wrote:
He has a 'twin brother' who appears as Into the Night, with exactly the same destructive attitude.

Who are you to judge what is 'destructive'?
Third world guy wrote:
IBDaMann and Into the Night equate to the concept of 'noise' in communications.

Bulverism fallacy. YALIF.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.

You sure like to gibber and you do not appreciate anyone pointing it out when you do. I get it. You seem willing to go to the mat with anyone who asks questions concerning your nonsense.

I'll tell you what ... I'll double down on my questions and just throw in all my chips:

You're a moron. Call.

Every time you start insulting me you are simply admitting that you don't know a fugging thing, but that you are DESPERATE to be perceived as "smart" and "important." You can't handle anyone asking questions because you don't have any fugging answers. You are just babbling, after all.

Bring it on.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 18:00
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
MarcusR:

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

They always do it. It is something systematic that makes this forum not worth it.

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

We had achieved communication, but they already annoyed her.

Better try some other forum.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
Edited on 13-01-2020 18:03
13-01-2020 18:34
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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
13-01-2020 19:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
MarcusR wrote: Sadly, I have to agree on Your comments above.

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

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

Can you explain what you mean by "scientific" in Danish?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 19:37
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
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



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.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221578935231732%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B57.206%2C-86.484%5D%2C%5B80.532%2C-36.563%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221578935231732%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%222008-01-06%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222020-01-13%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A80.532%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A57.206%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A-36.563%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-86.484%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A4.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D

Around Greenland,
4.5 magnitude or greater, 1940 - 1960, 37;
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221578935467841%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B56.823%2C-84.375%5D%2C%5B84.245%2C-0.703%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221578935467841%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%221940-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%221959-12-31%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.245%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A56.823%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A-0.703%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-84.375%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A4.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D

From 2000 - to present, 931;
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221578935562891%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B56.823%2C-84.375%5D%2C%5B84.245%2C-0.703%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221578935562891%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%222000-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222020-01-12%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.245%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A56.823%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A-0.703%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-84.375%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A4.5%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D

Magnitude 6.0 or greater, 1940 - 1960, 2;
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221578935649633%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B56.823%2C-84.375%5D%2C%5B84.245%2C-0.703%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221578935649633%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%221940-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%221959-12-31%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.245%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A56.823%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A-0.703%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-84.375%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A6%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D


From 2000 to present, 10,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221578935734747%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B56.823%2C-84.375%5D%2C%5B84.245%2C-0.703%5D%5D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221578935734747%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%222000-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222020-01-12%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A84.245%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A56.823%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A-0.703%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A-84.375%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A6%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22%7D%7D%7D

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.
Edited on 13-01-2020 20:01
13-01-2020 20:03
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.
13-01-2020 20:34
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.


I don't know any direct history of Jakobshavn, besides that it is one of the glaciers that have been monitored for quite some time:
http://polarportal.dk/groenland/position-af-gletsjerfronter/
It was a positive to see it grow lately, and thus reducing the negative trend of GIS slightly.

Thanks for the links. Much appriciated ! 93 ± 21 mW/m2 (or 0.093 W/m2) is almost on average with Davies figures
https://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/
which gives an average of 0,092 W/m2. Nonetheless, the estimated values of 88–140 mW/m2 reported for the central northern Greenland are ofcourse much higher - not to mention 0,26 W/m2 at Scoresbysund fjord. In order not to get any deeper on the question in this thread - perhaps You could start a new thread with this subject in mind ? I would be glad to post in it after reading Your links !!

And btw.. One of our cars is an EV - not a Tesla though - but the instant torque will leave You behind at the redlight for the first couple of meters.....
With nothing but a silent whoooosh... - but thats the subject of yet another thread..
Edited on 13-01-2020 20:41
13-01-2020 20:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 21:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-01-2020 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Third world guy wrote:
MarcusR:

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

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

Nope. People are still posting on this forum.
Third world guy wrote:
I dare to say that they have serious psychological problems. otherwise, how do you explain it to yourself?

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

Chanting is not communication.

Third world guy wrote:
Better try some other forum.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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

You find scripture interesting...yes?
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.
Word salad. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. There is no 'puzzle'. There is no such thing as 'geological heat flow'. There is no such thing as 'anomalous bottom melting'.
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.

Earthquakes do not have the capability to warm or cool the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.


Science is not a magazine or a journal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.


Inversion fallacy. That would be you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-01-2020 18:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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?


.





spot, MarcusR, ... still no thoughts on what you think you mean by the word "scientific"? Anything that makes sense?



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-01-2020 16:51
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
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.


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?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
15-01-2020 17:55
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
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?


As far as I know, Spencer and Curry's reputation is impeccable.

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


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
15-01-2020 18:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
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...
15-01-2020 18:27
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
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...


Another little brother?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
15-01-2020 18:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
Third world guy wrote:
Another little brother?

Nope. I am an only child.
15-01-2020 19:01
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
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.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
15-01-2020 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
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.

You have a good bead on things. You have also correctly identified Agenda 21 for what it is...another socialist plot.

There is actually no such thing as 'scientific' data. There either data, or there is not. There is nothing 'scientific' about any data. Data is simply the result of an observation. The Church of Global Warming likes to use random numbers as 'data'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-01-2020 02:18
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
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.


How's this version?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, my purpose here is to reconcile the claims made in the name of science by the alarmists versus their SOSF.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Scientific published papers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Measurement vs. scientific principles2928-02-2020 04:21
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
75 papers now support a low climate sensitivity306-10-2018 02:45
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact