Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate

#1
C C Offline
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/c...inaccurate

EXCERPT: Abraham et al. show that a paper by ‘sceptics’ Spencer & Braswell is rife with unrealistic assumptions in an overly simple model... Well, again this year, I’ve wasted my time (and my colleagues’ time) by rebutting a 2014 paper published by the darling of the Dwindling Few, Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer wrote a paper earlier this year that used a very simple ocean model to suggest that standard climate models overestimate the Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. You can see his manuscript here although it is behind a paywall so you will have to shell out about $40 to read it. Dr. Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell made a number of basic math and physics errors in the article that call into question their conclusions....
Reply
#2
Mr Doodlebug Offline
The only people who will pay $40 for such a paper are people spending other peoples' money.

Here's an interesting fact though.
Despite Global warming, Antarctic winter sea ice has been increasing in extent for the past four years.
No-one really understands why.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...al-warming

This winter had the largest extent on record despite the very warm weather.
The ocean’s sea ice levels were 44.6% higher than the 1981-2010 average, breaking a prevous record set in 2008 by 220,000 square miles.

The growth came in a month NOAA says was the second warmest January on record since 1880, 0.77C above the 20th century average.
NOAA says the warmest January was back in 2007, 1.84C above the average.

- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/19/antarctic...XTA7l.dpuf
Reply
#3
Yazata Offline
Quote:EXCERPT: Abraham et al. show that a paper by ‘sceptics’ Spencer & Braswell is rife with unrealistic assumptions in an overly simple model...


Says who, The Guardian? That newspaper has a political line that it wears on its sleeve.

Global Warming has been shamelessly politicized and turned into such a quasi-religious political social-change cause that I'm increasingly doubtful whether it qualifies as unbiased objective science. The way that skeptics are insulted and belittled suggests that those hurling the insults don't just see them as merely being wrong, but perceive them as evil as well. Doubters are called "deniers", a word not dissimilar to how "heretic" or "heathen" were used back in the Middle Ages. I don't like it.

Quote:Well, again this year, I’ve wasted my time (and my colleagues’ time) by rebutting a 2014 paper published by the darling of the Dwindling Few, Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer wrote a paper earlier this year that used a very simple ocean model to suggest that standard climate models overestimate the Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. You can see his manuscript here although it is behind a paywall so you will have to shell out about $40 to read it. Dr. Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell made a number of basic math and physics errors in the article that call into question their conclusions....

At least according to the author. The rest of us are just supposed to believe him or her, presumably because he/she is on the 'correct' side in this controversy.

That's the problem from the point of view of laypeople like myself, people who are in no position to follow the arcane technical arguments. From our point of view, this whole thing is nothing more than competing arguments from authority.

It essentially boils down to the demand - 'Believe what you're told!!' (The Church used to say the same thing, back in the day.

As for me, I'm something of a cat, not easily herded. I remain skeptical about the whole subject.

I question whether Global Warming political cause is being driven by objective science, or whether the conclusions of Global Warming science are being driven by the political cause.

Given that academic hiring and tenure decisions can depend on one's having the 'correct' views on these kind of issues, one wonders how dispassionate and unbiased the intellectual process really is.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Widely cited COVID-19-masks paper under scrutiny for inaccurate stat C C 1 71 Oct 27, 2020 05:48 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Global Warming Hiatus C C 0 547 Jun 17, 2015 05:53 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)