![]() | ||
2010-10-20 00:36:48 | Peer Review Journals Overview | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 142.162.23.57 |
Hey everyone. Me, John and Doug have been mulling over an idea and we thought we would open it up to general discussion amongst the authors group. Our idea is that the authors from the skeptical science forum would put together a couple review articles for submission into peer-reviewed journals such as quaternary science reviews. The reason this idea came about is because we feel that we have a very active author group with such wide reaching abilities that we could very efficiently conduct research and summarize it onto paper. When you think of it we have quite a few writers, some scientists and a lot of people with great research skills who together could probably work and contribute effectively. Ultimately, we would work in groups of say 5-10 authors per paper and hopefully have for each article some scientists who have experience with the peer reviewed literature. Once articles are finished our own internal peer review would be conducted and a couple individuals would be appointed to make thorough reviews of the articles. The final step would be the preparation for specific journals and the submission. By that point through our own internal peer review we should have the articles at a level that makes it likely to not require rigorous changes prior to acceptance. Some ideas we have thought about doing a review article on include: (1) The Empirical Evidence for Human Contributions to Climate Change (2) An Overview of the state of the cryosphere (sea ice, land-ice, and ice sheets) (3) Paleoclimate (Geologic to Holocene) (4) Any other ideas people can come up with! Question: Why do this? Answer: Some of these subjects lack the most recent developments in the literature, others like the empirical evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect often are left out and I have yet to even see a review article on the subject. Putting all the empirical evidence in one place and in one article will do a lot to inform the public and to dissuade dissidents who like to ignore real evidence. Finally, this process will make us better writers and better people. You learn a lot through the preparation of an article and you learn to collaborate and sure who wouldn't want to see their name in the literature!! Anyways I'm opening this up to discussion. Anyone who feels this is something they're interested in let us know and let us know what areas are those that would interest you! | |
2010-10-20 02:40:08 | #1 | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.249 |
My vote would still go to the empirical evidence for AGW topic, but the cryosphere is pretty good too. | |
2010-10-20 03:16:59 | My vote | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
My vote is that the empirical evidence for human attribution is the most important one and its something we can all get working on as soon as possible. The key is the identification of as many conclusive ones as possible.
| |
2010-10-20 03:32:30 | Format | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
I'm not sure exactly how the article would be formatted but I think first the evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing. Second the evidence that greenhouse gases such as CO2 are increasing, third the evidence that humans are causing this increase. References needed for the following: In introduction need to just say evidence the world is warming and that there is debate surrounding the causes -Glaciers (Cogley 2009) -Ice Sheets (Rignot et al. 2008, Bamber and Riva 2010) -Ecological indicators -Warming measured on the surface and in the air (UAH, RSS, NCDC, GISS, HADLEY) Debate exists (Spencer, Lindzen, whoever else articles) What is the greenhouse effect? <> Ruddiman's Book Evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing Empirical <> Less LW radiation is escaping from the Atmosphere (Harries et al. 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). <> Downward LW radiation is increasing (Philipona 2004, Wang and Liang 2009) <> Wavelengths of heat returning (Evans. 2006. Presentation) Hypothesized <> Nights should warm faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006) <> Cooling in the upper atmosphere (Jones 2003) <> Tropopause should rise with greenhouse warming (Santer 2003) <> The ionosphere is expected to cool (Lastovi?ka 2006) Evidence Greenhouse Gases are increasing <> Studies showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas <> Graph with Mauna Loa and Dome C (I think) data of CO2 <> Ruddiman's Book Evidence Greenhouse Gas increases are human caused <> CDIAC humans are emitting 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year <> More Carbon 16 (or 18 I always forget) is accumulating in the atmosphere which is expected with fossil fuel burning compared to terrestrial processes (Manning 2006) (Need more references and background from chemistry) <> Corals showing fossil fuel carbon accumulating (Pelejero 2005) Just some random thoughts obviously but it will be important to get the background articles behind all this subjects that the ideas are based upon. | |
2010-10-20 06:56:48 | How to organize info | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
The logical progression is good - warming -> more GHE -> more GHG -> humans raising GHG. A few initial thoughts David Evans has done some significant work measuring the GHE but all I've found are presentations. We need to search for any peer-reviewed work & then perhaps get in contact with him for more info (I hold out hopes of recruiting him into the Climate Scientists Explain series). I have a few coral papers - I'm planning 1 or 2 more posts on the 'human fingerprint on Coral' theme. Will add these to the mix. Perhaps we can organize this by having separate threads devoted to each topic. And as the paper takes shape, Robert can continually update the overview in this thread to reflect new content. | |
2010-10-20 09:21:40 | relevant rebuttals | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.249 |
We've got some relevant information in the 'how do we know CO2 is causing warming' and 'human fingerprint of global warming' rebuttals as well. And there's the aforementioned 'human fingerprint on coral' blog post. Robert's progression is good - humans are causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 -> this is increasing the greenhouse effect -> this is causing an energy imbalance -> this is causing global warming -> there are 'fingerprints' of this anthropogenic warming. | |
2010-10-20 16:52:23 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
(I think we should start a separate thread on this empirical evidence paper.) Here are some references for empirical evidence paper: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/ Robert: "In introduction need to just say evidence the world is warming and that there is debate surrounding the causes Ocean warming needs to be included here as well. Robert: "Debate exists I would argue that this doesn't necessarily belong in this paper. We are just going through the observations and showing the evidence. It is not relevant if someone doesn't believe the evidence. We need to mention the work of these people only when they have contributed something relevant to some issue we're discussing. For establishing the motivation for the article, I would mention that climate models are in the center of the attention in climate science, and that we are going to take a look how well we can establish the AGW without climate models but using just observations. Robert: "<> Less LW radiation is escaping from the Atmosphere (Harries et al. 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007)." There are some more references on this (especially Anderson et al. 2004, but there's some confusion on that, my list has full text from 2001 and the abstract is different - I need to check these references): http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/ Robert: "<> More Carbon 16 (or 18 I always forget) is accumulating in the atmosphere which is expected with fossil fuel burning compared to terrestrial processes (Manning 2006) (Need more references and background from chemistry)" Relevant carbon isotopes are carbon 12, 13, and 14. I looked at this issue some time ago. I think there were at least five different methods to establish that carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels but I need to refresh my memory on that. Here are some references (your Manning, 2006 seems to be missing from my list...): http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/ John: "David Evans has done some significant work measuring the GHE but all I've found are presentations. We need to search for any peer-reviewed work..." I can start searching for them, but I did look quite hard for such papers when I made this list (and couple of times after that): http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/ By the way, here's my previous attempt on this issue: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/observations-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ | |
2010-10-20 19:04:59 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
Here's probably the latest peer reviewed paper from Wayne F. Evans (not "David Evans", John :) ): http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=FTS-2009-FWA4 Unfortunately, I don't have access to this paper. He has other interesting papers in his CV too: http://www.nwra.com/resumes/cv/wayneevans.pdf One other example not in the CV from 1995: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95GL00606.shtml This one is from Journal of Climate, so the full text is freely available: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C3091%3ATEOTTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2 | |
2010-10-21 03:48:03 | Comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
Ican't seem to get access to the infobase paper either. It looks really interesting! I have some of the others though if anyone is interested! | |
2010-10-21 07:03:03 | Wayne Evan's publication list | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
I am drooling over that list of papers by Wayne Evans (no idea where I got David from). Theres one where he compares the forcing from the sun vs the greenhouse effect. Cool. I'll try to drill deeper and if I can get more info, will start a new thread. As far as empirical evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect goes, Evans is da man. | |
2010-10-21 08:55:12 | comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 142.162.23.57 |
Hey John, I have that paper on solar versus greenhouse if you like. | |
2010-10-21 10:12:30 | Yes please | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
BTW, I've already got hold of a few papers I previously didn't have access to, thanks! :-) | |
2010-10-21 16:03:25 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
Perhaps we should setup an e-mailing list so that we can exchange files. I would be interested in the full texts also. | |
2010-10-21 19:04:54 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.123.185 |
It would be nice to know who had access to what. I can generally papers from Nature. | |
2010-10-21 19:05:33 | Collaboration via a dedicated and easy to set up wiki? | |
BaerbelW baerbel-for-350@email... 93.231.154.170 |
Hi Folks, just wondering if for a collaborating effort like the one you are planning a kind of easy to use "wiki" might not come in handy? We've been using a wiki to organise the translations into German (http://klimaschutz.pbworks.com/Skeptical-Science-Translations) and something similar could be set up for your purpose as well. You wouldn't need to send emails back and forth as files can be stored and referenced directly in the wiki and you could also more easily jointly edit your texts via pages in the wiki. The "klimaschutzwiki" is open for all to read but such a pbworks-wiki can also be set up as "invisible" where only registered users have access to the content. I have been using such wikis for a couple of years eg. for the volunteer docents at our zoo in Stuttgart and it really works very well and is easy to use. A basic wiki with 2GB of storage can be set up for free and it can be up an running in just a few minutes. Here is some more information from pbworks: Collaboration made easy If you think that something like this could help with your efforts, just let me know and I can help setting it up. Cheers
| |
2010-10-21 19:14:05 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.123.185 |
BaerbelW, PBWorks looks interesting. But if everything is free, how do they make money? How do we know they won't "pull the plug" on us at some time? | |
2010-10-21 22:52:21 | PBWorks | |
BaerbelW baerbel-for-350@email... 93.231.165.189 |
Neal, PBWorks also offers paid versions for companies, schools and universities which is how they "make money". Those versions offer more functionality, space and service. For the tasks I've been using pbworks, I actually started out with basic paid versions but was later able to easily switch to free versions with more functionality than the earlier free versions had. I'm currently involved with 7 more or less active workspaces and didn't have any issues with any of them yet. Their "About" page has some information about who their customers are. Does this help? Cheers
| |
2010-10-22 00:41:55 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.123.185 |
Yes, thanks. | |
2010-10-22 10:07:40 | Comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
I think the first step should be to make a mock (or real) skeptical science post from the review and then shape it/mould it to be of peer review quality and length. Basically we put together a nice long summary of the information out there and work it into a length and quality then expand. | |
2010-10-22 11:28:57 | Access of papers | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
Hello All, Setting up an emailing list would be good as long as it doesn't get spammy. I would suggest waiting until a few papers have been collected and sending all at once perhaps. | |
2010-10-22 15:35:02 | Papers | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
Is it too iffy to upload full papers to the SkS website and post the links in this forum? It won't be public - only for us authors. But is that too dodgy from a copyright point of view? | |
2010-10-22 16:02:49 | Comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
I won't tell. I have QUITE an archive of papers too... couple hundred... so as long as it doesn't get out to other people... | |
2010-10-22 16:08:08 | Comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
I think if you do it, wait till you have an applet or something set up. Like not just post links but have it organized somehow... posting links will let people get access if they ever find out the links and a lot of scientists could be mad. There must be some where to keep it so you can directly link to it. | |
2010-10-22 18:58:24 | Tricky issue: How to avoid copyright issues? | |
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.127.187 |
I would not keep an archive on-site. I would not make a whole lot of papers available, over a period of time. | |
2010-10-23 18:12:29 | Ok, no papers on SkS | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
Perhaps a thread that lists all relevant papers + links to abstracts & full papers if available online (Ari has a knack of sniffing them out). For the papers that aren't freely available online, someone can request we email e PDF. | |
2010-10-27 16:46:58 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
Here's a new paper claiming that there's not much empirical evidence for AGW: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n238rl53w2571262/ "At best, the empirical evidence for human impact on climate change, more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is based on correlational research. That is, no experiment has been carried out that confirms or falsifies the causal hypothesis put forward by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that anthropogenic increasing of green house gas concentrations very likely causes increasing of the (mean) global temperature. In this article, we point out the major weaknesses of correlational research in assessing causal hypotheses. We further point out that the AGW hypothesis is in need of potential falsifiers in the Popperian (neopositivistic) sense. Some directions for future research on the formulation of such falsifiers in causal research are discussed. Of course, failure to find falsifying evidence in empirical climate data will render the AWG hypothesis much stronger." This one is sure to be celebrated in denialosphere soon. | |
2010-10-27 19:38:40 | What the crap?!?! | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
It's correlational? What about the satellites measuring less heat escaping to space? You can't get any more causal than that. More infrared heat returning to earth at CO2 wavelengths. The multitude of human fingerprints. Okay, I am definitely fired up about getting our paper published now. This paper stinks! Oh, and I'm using the Firefox Add-on to add it to the database. Does it qualify as peer-review? | |
2010-10-27 20:18:11 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.230.100 |
John, you'll have to add another argument to the list "Anthropogenic Global Warming is unfalsifiable". That Karl Popper nonsense is one meme I've run across a few times elsewhere. That it could possibly make it into the peer review literature, is a bit of a shock.
| |
2010-10-27 21:38:54 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
That paper is open access, by the way, so the PDF-link in the abstract page should work for everyone. The paper is full of questionable stuff - even some conspiracy innuendo: "Since as a matter of fact, the cash-value of the idea of AGW has proved to be positive, this alone may serve as sufficient motivation for its maintenance in science." "Unfortunately, when a theoretical phenomenon such as AGW becomes a global political program, it soon becomes vulnerable to methodological fallacies in the realm of social and political science." And complete nonsense: "In fact, some skeptics in the debate on AGW point out that all natural climatic disasters are used as evidence (verification) for the human impact on climate, whereas evidence that a post WWII global warming is absent in, e.g., the Greenland Ice-Core Bore Record is ignored as falsifying evidence (see, e.g., Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998; Feldman and Marks 2009). Needless to say that a methodologically sound theory would encompass all available evidence and not “cherry-pick” those pieces of evidence that confirm the theory while ignoring those that do not." It cites heavily the papers of known climate change deniers: "In the scientific (i.e., peer-reviewed) literature, several authors have expressed doubts about the quality of the analyzed data and the possibility to derive at valid inferences on human impact on global warming (e.g., Jaworowski 1994; Soon et al. 2004; Michaels 2008; Pielke et al. 2007)." Most critically, a review of existing empirical evidence is missing completely. I wonder how this got past peer-review. One quite revealing quote is this: "However, since the author of this article is no expert on climate science, the issue of whether or not data used in climate science are of enough quality will be left for others to decide." | |
2010-10-27 21:43:32 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 192.100.112.202 |
Sigh, I just looked at the reference list and found out that the Feldman and Marks 2009 in one of the quotes above is a citation to a book called "Global warming and other bollocks". | |
2010-10-27 22:15:57 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.118.60 |
The impact factor of this journal is about 1.7; for comparison, Nature's is about 50. The area of expertise of this author is "Research Methodology" of science. I guess that translates to "applied kibbutzing." | |
2010-10-28 00:53:31 | This study sucks... | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.3.144 |
Perhaps we should write a comment on this paper? They're only short... Kampen (2010), hereafter KP10, makes the argument that the basis for current understanding on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is constructed almost exclusively from correlation research. KP10 furthermore makes the claim that there is significant motivation for the maintenance of the current view on AGW because of monetary investments associated with this theory. | |
2010-10-28 07:01:42 | comment | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252 |
Robert has drafted up a comment for us to....comment on. | |
2010-10-28 07:05:22 | New thread | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.186.160.198 |
Yes, let's move all discussion of this paper to the new thread... |