Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (50619)	5/2/2014 4:04:24 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 86356

Or, they don't, and he wants you to think they do. Same old lists, updated. Saturday, February 16, 2013 RTFR Pops So Poptech Andrew has popped up at Rabett Run. Amongst the blather are some discussion of Pop's careful selection of "septical [TM Stoat]" literature. Glenn Tamblyn went over there and found So... I go to poptech's site to have a look at his papers. Where to start? General is the first category so I might as well start there. And the first paper listed is ....(drum roll) Has the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Changed Significantly Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? (PDF) (Monthly Weather Review, Volume 83, Issue 10, pp. 225-231, 1955)- Giles SlocumSlocum FWIW was a government bureaucrat, in the Weather Service. His conclusion, stated in the abstract was: In this paper, the physical knowledge of atmospheric CO2 is examined and the available nineteenth and twentieth century observations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration are summarized to ascertain the extent to which they corroborate claims that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased since the nineteenth century. In the light of the uncertainty of both physical knowledge and of statistical analysis, it is concluded that the question of a trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration remains an open subject."Glenn continued So in 1955 Giles Slocum concluded that not enough was known about CO2levels. Which was exactly true, THEN! That's why Keeling began his studies just a few years later. So the 1st paper on poptech's list can best be described as OBSOLETE AND OUTDATED.Pops tried the old two step Poor Glenn and his SS " crusher crew" cannot read that the papers are listed chronologically and desperately cherry picks. Those papers were listed to show that skepticism is nothing new. I moved all the pre-1970 papers to the historical section at the bottom of the list. Oh I do enjoy educating and embarrassing the computer illiterates from Skeptical Science. Glenn notices I go back to have another look, and lo and behold, the Slocum paper is no longer in the General list. It suddenly vanished. After some searching I found it had moved to Historical, way down the list. All in just 15 minutes. Andrew, YOU ARE PRICELESS! but Eli, as is his wont went and read the paper, conveniently available from NOAA. Why their interest? Well it turns out that while Slocum was skeptical of many of Callendar's choices of records to exclude he was no one's fool. If bunnies go and read the paper the conclusion in the conclusion, reasonable at the time, was It may be hoped that the collection of standardized measurements of CO2 can be made a part of the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year program. Once a dependable set of observational data has been assembled, the evidence of the old observations can perhaps be reevaluated. If such new reevaluation proves impracticable, even then a reliable set of new worldwide observations can serve as a basis for comparison in future years. In summary, the data, at present available, are inadequate as they now stand to prove or disprove a statistically significant trend in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If and when an upward trend has been demonstrated, and its cause ascertained, it will then be valid to base physical explanations of atmospheric events on the assumption that CO2 is increasing. Meanwhile, Callendar’s interesting extrapolations (through the 22d century) of the effects of burning up of the world’s fuel, stimulate the interest of the speculatively minded.This paper provided strong motivation within the Weather Bureau for funding the Keeling measurements on Mauna Loa as part of the 1957-58 IGU. Moreover, Slocum was exactly right, the Keeling measurements quickly lead to to re-evaluation of the older records, indicating that Callendar's selection was the correct one and pointing to reasons why many of the older measurements were problematic. The Slocum paper also has an important listing of early measurements. RFAOTFR Pops. rabett.blogspot.com = Now Carbon Brief has had a look at the expanded list and brings us: Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil “Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers Another earlier approach to PopTech’s list was that of SkepticalScience in “ Meet The Denominator.” In this approach Honeycutt looked at the number of papers discussing climate change (850,000+) and compared it to PopTech’s (then) 850. After some adjustment he concluded that even if PopTech’s sample was valid (which it clearly is not) it represented a mere 0.45% of the literature on climate change. greenfyre.wordpress.com Here's another one 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words Posted on 2014/03/10 by Ben “ 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words“ (2014-02-27). Anthony Watts posts a profound intellectual insight from his favourite denialist blow-hard, Lord Monckton. Shockingly, it seems that *not every single climate paper is about the cause of the current rapid global temperature rise!* Many of them don’t even mention the issue! Therefore no Global Warming. In other equally profound news, the cause of Global Warming is *never mentioned in surgical journals*, more excellent proof that there is no Global Warming. But wait, Monckton’s claim is that “Only 64 of 11,944 published since 1991 said most warming since 1950 was manmade: i.e. 0.5%” This means that 11,880 papers asserted that the warming has been natural! I’m looking forward to reading some of them. Sadly for the loony Lord, no. The other climate papers about other subjects entirely. Fixed it for ya, Monckton. But don’t be so modest, you’re fourth author on that wottsupwiththat.com