2012-02-27 16:09:50Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Putting these here as a sticky thread. Will update these guidelines with clarifications if required. All discussion of grey areas and requests for clarifications goes in this thread from now on.

Changes on 27 Feb marked in red

Level of Endorsement

1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification

  • Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%). Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement - that would be implicit.

2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification

  • Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change as a given fact. Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity relegates to implicit endorsement.

3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW

  • Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change
  • Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
  • Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
  • Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral
  • Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature - not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
  • Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)

4. Neutral

  • If a paper merely mentions global climate change or global warming, this is not sufficient to imply anthropogenic global warming
  • Mitigation papers talking about non-GHG pollutants are not about AGW
  • Research into the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth without including the warming effect of CO2
  • Anthropogenic impact studies about direct human influence like urban heat island and land use changes (eg - not about GHG emissions)
  • Research into metrics of climate change (surface temperature, sea level rise) without mention of causation (eg - GHGs)

5. Implicit Rejection of AGW

  • Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW

6. Explicit Rejection of AGW without quantification

  • Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming without putting a figure on it.

7. Explicit Rejection of AGW with quantification

  • Explicitly rejects or minimises anthropogenic warming with a specific figure

Categories

  • Methods: examines technical aspects of measurement/modelling. If a paper describes methods but no actual results, assign it to methods. If it goes on to results, then assign it to whatever the results are relevant to (eg - impacts/mitigation/paleoclimate)
  • Mitigation: explores ways to reduce CO2 emissions or sequester CO2 from the atmosphere
  • Paleoclimate: examines climate in periods predating the instrumental period (eg - around 1750)
  • Impacts: Papers on the effect of climate change or rising CO2 on the environment, ecosystems or humanity
  • Not Related To Climate: Non-mitigation/impacts paper that contain no actual climate science. Eg - social science papers on education/communication/historical analysis.
2012-02-27 16:21:42A synthesis of some of the discussion going on
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Dana says on 25 Feb 2012, 4:34 AM:

Similar for mitigation, if they don't say why they're trying to mitigate CO2 emissions, I don't think we should assume it's an AGW endorsement.  Maybe they're concerned about acidification, or just want to make money or something.  Most mitigation papers make some statement about global warming that puts them into an endorsement category though.

Seeing as you and Ari agree on this and that never happens, will concur, going with the "if in doubt, rate neutral" policy. Have updated the guidelines now to say:

Implicit Endorsement = Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate

Dana says on 25 Feb 2012, 4:34 AM:

If a paper says "future climate change will have these impacts", that to me is clearly an implicit endorsement.  They are endorsing that the planet will continue to warm, which is a position based on the AGW theory.

I dunno, Dana, I side with Ari on this one. Is it really a safe bet to assume predictions of future warming implicitly endorse AGW? Well, it is a pretty safe bet yes, but is it a reasonable assumption for us to make? Note that although if we adopt the better safe than sorry approach and hence overestimate the # of neutral papers because of this assumption, we will quantify the level of overestimation when we compare our results to the scientist-rating and full-paper-rating (and later with Phase 3).

2012-02-27 17:36:40
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

In the implicit endorsement section there's papers about climate policy. These are practically the same as mitigation papers from our rating point of view, I think. No need to mention them separately, and now they also have slightly different rules (mitigation papers are not necessarily endorsements but policy papers apparently still are).

2012-02-28 14:46:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.231

"...is it a reasonable assumption for us to make?"

Yes.  If a paper says the planet is going to continue to warm and then goes on to look at the impacts, that's an AGW endorsement.  They wouldn't know how much the planet was going to warm (and thus what scenarios to examine impacts for) if not for the AGW theory.

2012-02-28 15:23:27
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.27

I don't want to throw a wrench in since I didn't read all this until now, but to me GHG reduction implicitly means a link to climate, else what does greenhouse gas mean?

I can imagine studying the impact of changing T without caring (much) about what's causing the warming (it could be local). But I have a harder time imagining working on mitigation if you don't think there's any rason to mitigate.

Anyhow, I won't bicker; the new rules will shift a few of my mitigation ratings from implicit to neutral. I do think most mention climate. 

And they will shift some impact papers from nuetral up to implicit.

I'm guessing it will be a net wash. But more consistant with everyone else.

When in doubt, I skew toward neutral so that revisits will then shift things up, not down.

2012-02-28 18:09:48
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

Sarah, some scientists are just studying some technologies out of interest and just mention in passing that there's also this global warming angle of the issue. I have also seen mitigation papers where the authors express the whole thing as uncertain (they might for example say that it is believed that GHGs cause global warming). There also can be papers discussing mitigation and concluding that there's no need to mitigate because they don't think AGW is happening. So, there's many reasons why a mitigation paper can be neutral or even rejection of AGW. That's why we shouldn't put all mitigation papers to at least implicit endorsement, in my opinion. I think you will find out that even with new rules, most mitigation papers will fall to endorsement side. Now we just have means to drop those few exception papers to neutral or even rejection side.

2012-03-01 11:06:33
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.20

Ari, not to worry. I can read between the lines on these when they don't seem convinced. When the line is fuzzy I'm putting them in neutral.

On another topic, mitigation is listed as CO2 reduction only; many effeorts to mitigate include other GHGs.

 

Rats- I came home early because of a snow storm, but the snow is gumming up my internet link, so I may have to shift back to my real work for the evening.

 

2012-03-01 12:05:06Many mitigation papers do mention climate or global warming in the abstract
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

So we will miss a few mitigation papers but we're playing the "if in doubt, neutral" rule and while this increases the chances of our underestimating the endorsement level, that will come out when we compare our results to the scientists' ratings. 

Okay, here's one I'm struggling over. Just this line:

Given projected increases in future temperature...

Now I'm with Ari that it's dangerous to assume merely predicting future warming is an endorsement (it probably is but well, "if in doubt, neutral". But if a paper talks about CO2 emission scenarious and future warming, then it is warming. What about this one? The term 'projected' generally refers to projections based on different emission scenarios. Well, it's very close to the line so if in doubt...

Gotta remember, our goal isn't to try to shoehorn as many papers into endorsement - we're only rating on abstract so it's not the end of the world if we underestimate the consensus.

2012-03-01 14:54:16
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.20

John-

Did the selection from WoS tag keywords as well as title/abstract? I've recently had several that talk about the effect of increasing T on X,Y,Z. They are obviously referring to climate warming, but don't mention climate in the abstract. This could be:

1. A few abstracts are truncated (ed in the middle of a senence); maybe it's mentioned later.

or

2. It's mentioned in a keyword list instead of the abstract.

I've rated these as "impacts/neutral", but they could be "not climate related".

2012-03-01 15:25:22It likely would be option 2
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Our search for 'global climate change' or 'global warming' was just on topic so as is my understanding, this didn't search title/abstract but just the keywords. So climate might not be mentioned in the abstract.

2012-03-01 15:28:18Mitigation paper
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

This is our current approach for mitigation papers

Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change

I came across this line in an abstract:

[some technology] shows potential for environmental benefits due to lower power consumption

Eg - it links mitigation (energy efficiency) to climate change (environmental benefit). So I marked it as implicit.

2012-03-01 18:09:41
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
I realize that I've been too harsh on paleoclimate papers, marking them as neutral unless they talk about modern anthropogenic GHG emissions. After rereading the guidelines, i realize that there are many that i should have graded as implicit There are probably about fifty or so that I have mis graded in this way. John, if it's possible to search on all my paleoclimate papers, please remove the gradings and send them back into the pool. And, sniff, remove them from my total.
2012-03-01 18:49:12
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

"Given projected increases in future temperature..."

No cause assigned to the temperature projections so I'd say that's neutral.

I'm also on the fence with papers discussing emission scenarios without mentioning any warming resulting from the emissions. There are lot of papers that use models with certain scenarios but don't study warming related issues but some other unrelated issues. I don't see these as endorsements of AGW because GHG emissions have also other impacts than just warming.

2012-03-01 20:32:26Unprecedented levels
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

One abstract talks about "unprecedented levels of climate change in the 21st century". I rated that as an implicit endorsement. Do we agree on this? 

2012-03-01 21:18:21
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

If it doesn't say anything else, then I would put it as neutral. Climate change doesn't necessarily refer to temperature and also in this case cause is not even implied.

2012-03-01 21:48:40
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

One grey area for me: a paper that talks about man-made global warming but doesn't mention GHG's or emissions. I have seen couple of cases like this and rated them as implicit endorsements.

Another thing, guidelines to rating have disappeared from the rating page.

2012-03-01 21:54:33
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

Hmm... looking at the rules in the opening post, I think my example above should be rated as explicit endorsement. Now that I started to think about it, one can create anthropogenic global warming also by reducing aerosol emissions, which then results in somewhat different climate change than from GHGs. So, simply mentioning anthropogenic global warming doesn't necessarily suggest that it's about GHG warming.

2012-03-01 21:59:15
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

I removed the guidelines from the rating page because there were being updated on this page - thought to keep them centralised. Do people also like them being available as popups on the rating page.

Yes, papers that refer to man-made global warming as a given fact are explicit endorsements. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they could refer to reduction of aerosol emissions but if you ever do encounter a paper that does indicate that, well, we can add that as a clause in our definitions.

I'm going to add a "my ratings" page soon so we can peruse and edit our ratings.

2012-03-03 09:19:01Discussion of non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

We discussed in a thread somewhere that mitigation of GHGs that are not CO2 should probably be neutral. But I noticed this is still the guideline:

Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change

So that encompasses all greenhouse gases. But I've been rating mitigation papers that looks solely at marginal GHGs like CFCs as not doing quite enough to be rated an implicit endorsement that humans are causing global warming. So my question - should we update this guideline to say:

Mitigation papers that examine CO2 emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change (papers on mitigation of exclusively non-CO2 GHGs are rated neutral)

Does everyone agree with this amendment and my suggestion that mitigation of non-CO2 GHGs doesn't necessarily constitute endorsement of AGW and hence should be rated neutral on the "if in doubt, neutral" policy?

2012-03-03 14:33:39
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

John, 

I don't agree on the non-CO2 gases.

I have been rating some non-CO2 GHG papers as implicit if they are specifically about about warming potential of CFC replacements. These compounds are not insignificant GHGs and are totally man-made. So discussing their climate warming potential supports the fact that humans can change the climate.

IPCC AR4:

The Montreal Protocol gases contributed +0.32 ± 0.03 W m–2 to direct radiative forcing in 2005, with CFC-12 continuing to be the third most important long-lived radiative forcing agent. These gases as a group contribute about 12% of the total forcing due to LLGHGs. {2.3}

The concentrations of industrial fluorinated gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol (hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexa- fluoride (SF6)) are relatively small but are increasing rapidly. Their total radiative forcing in 2005 was +0.017 W m–2. {2.3}

2012-03-03 14:43:21
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

I like the pop-up guidelines- very helpful reminders for iffy cases.

2012-03-03 16:55:59
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

I've been noting some in the comments as "NEEDS  A CLOSER LOOK".  These are abstracts that are on topic, but don't have enough details to evaluate.

e.g. this one is a statistical analysis of sunspot numbers and mentions "implication to climate change" without stating any conclusion; could be a denier, or not:

Principal Components And Iterative Regression Analysis Of Geophysical Series: Application To Sunspot Number (1750-2004)

Is a note like that in the comments useful? Or is there a better way to communicate?

2012-03-03 17:07:44
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

Does a mention of "global warming potential" constitue a  "link to climate change" under mitigation?

I'm saying yes, unless the general tone suggests otherwise.

2012-03-03 17:22:58
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

This isn't urgent, but, in the newly appeared "my ratings" section, it would be useful to be able to pull out all the ones I rated in a certain way, e.g. all denier, or all paleo papers.

My main concern is drift in my ratings over weeks of doing them. 

 

2012-03-03 17:32:11
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.109.19

I have rated the mentions of global warming potential as neutral (unless there's nothing more on warming in abstract) because using GWP is just using common method of evaluating things. GWP is quite often used in such manner that it doesn't suggest endorsement. Sometimes GWP is used in such a way that it does suggest endorsement, though, so general guideline for this issue might be difficult. Play by ear?

By the way, John, I think in that mitigation rule it would be better if it would say warming instead of climate change. Climate change doesn't necessarily have to do with temperature as there are also other parameters related to climate.

2012-03-03 19:02:18
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

Sarah, the question here is whether a paper endorses the notion that humans are causing global warming. Papers that talk about the warming effect of CO2 implicitly endorses AGW. But what about research into a minor GHG that contributes only a fraction of global warming? When a paper endorses that "greenhouse gas X has a global warming potential of Y, implying a tiny climate impact", does that also imply that humans are causing global warming? I've assumed the answer is no in my ratings (if in doubt, neutral).

There may be rating drift over the first 12000 ratings but hopefully we can have all the niggly ambiguities resolved by the time we get to the second 12000 ratings so any inconsistent ratings in the first half will be flagged by the second half.

BTW, will be adding filters to "My Ratings" shortly allowing you to narrow the search. I just need to get my ratings past Dana first :-)

2012-03-04 04:41:16
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

John,

I will shift to go with the boss on the CFC, HFC issue; may have to revisit some.

The papers I've rated as implicit are fundamental measurements of (i) gobal warming potential (absorbance spectra) or (ii) kinetics of fluorinated hydrocarbons with OH (i.e. to determine their atmospheric lifetime). So they are doing more than mentioning it in passing; they are implicitly saying these anthropogenic gases can change the climate. But, maybe not that they ARE changing it.

Anyhow, I try to always err toward neutral.

2012-03-04 06:46:25CO2 equivalents
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

Have encountered a few papers that talk about CO2 equivalents to do with global warming, I consider these implicit endorsements - a case where discussion of other GHGs are expressed in terms of the GHG effect of CO2.

2012-03-04 06:59:38
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.109.19

CO2 equivalents are to me similar to global warming potentials - standard paramaters that researchers use without really endorsing or rejecting the idea behind them. I haven't considered either of these as endorsements.

2012-03-04 10:50:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Man, I think you guys are being way too conservative.

Papers that talk about other GHGs causing warming are saying that human GHG emissions cause global warming.  How is that not an implicit endorsement?  If CFC emissions cause warming because they're GHGs, then CO2 emissions cause global warming for the same reason.  That's an implicit endorsement.

I also still think in most cases, papers looking at impacts of future warming are implicit endorsements (depending on the wording).  If they're anticipating future warming, it's based on the AGW theory.  Remember, neither category 2 or 3 includes any quantification, they just can't include any minimization.

Certainly it's better to err on the conservative side, but being too conservative results in less accuracy.

2012-03-04 18:09:09
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.109.19

I agree that if a paper talks about other GHGs causing warming is an implicit endorsement. However, a paper that discusses global warming potentials doesn't equal to paper that discusses GHGs causing warming for reasons stated above. Remember that scientific language is neutral by nature. That is why we get so much neutrals.

Scientists anticipating future warming without assigning cause for the warming is not necessarily based on AGW theory. It can be just neutral case of taking a what if situation and looking what effect it has to some subject.

2012-03-04 21:25:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.107

I agree with Ari and rated accordingly. Many mitigation papers talk about GWP but do not say anything on the impcts. The only thing they impicitly or explicitly aknowledge is that the GHG effect exists. Not enogh to consider it an endorsement.

The rule above for implicit endorsement says:

Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change.

which excludes that mentioning GWP is an implicit endorsement.

ADDED:

I've just found an example: "Methane emission from peatlands contributes substantially to global warming". In this case yes, it is an implicit endorsement. I emphasized the relevant part.

2012-03-05 03:17:08
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.27

I feel like we are not too disperate on this.

With the new "my rating" section (thinks John!) I've looked back at some of mine by category. I just looked specifically at my mitigation ratings and find very few that I want to reclassify based on these discussions.

Rather than focusing on the words, I look for an aknowledgement that emissions caused by humans are changing the climate.

Similar examples to Riccardo's:

"NO2 is a major greenhouse gas heavily contirubuting to global warming" = implicit

 Paper on the price of CO2 credits = neutral 

"Cement accounts for 5% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions" = neutral 

A large percentage of impact papers are neutral because they don't address why the climate is warming. (Most becaue they already understand the science and don't have space in an abstract to discuss it.)

2012-03-05 03:50:30
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
Thanks for "my ratings" facility, John. I was able to revisit all my "paleoclimate neutral" ratings and I changed about four to implicit, based on the guidelines which I had misunderstood. So, my misrating was not as bad as I thought. They were mostly PETM papers. See my comment on march 1 above.
2012-03-05 03:56:04
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
Just for fun, I looked at the abstract for the Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999 paper. That would be a clear "paleoclimate, neutral" rating since they don't mention CO2 at all in the abstract. Maybe we should find some other examples of supposedly iconic papers and see how they rate according to our scheme.
2012-03-05 04:21:46
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.107

Example like Mann et al 1999 are a good weapon to throw when deniers will question the validity of the method. One of the most iconic papers is rated neutral.

2012-03-05 08:24:51
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

Andy, nice idea to possibly add iconic papers as a way of demonstrating that we err towards neutral.

2012-03-05 08:52:09
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

I agree with most of the examples here, so we're probably at least mostly in agreement on our overall ratings.

2012-03-05 09:48:03
Andy S

skucea@telus...
207.216.0.42
The danger, of course, is that we will also grade some iconic denier papers as neutral. We shouldn't, naturally, change their ratings but we should at least be aware of their existence I suspect that a lot of denialist papers will be rated neutral, since they may have had to hedge their conclusions to get published. I haven't looked at it again but I suspect that the McLean et al ENSO paper abstract would have to be rated neutral, whereas the authors trumpeted its denialist conclusion only in the press release, if I recall correctly. I'd guess that M&M's papers and some of the cosmic ray and solar stuff will also be neutral. Remember that many deniers will claim that they don't doubt AGW, just "CAGW".
2012-03-05 10:38:36
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

McLean's paper doesn't come up in our database meaning they didn't use 'global warming' or 'global climate change' in their keywords.

An important point to stress will be that this survey, large as it is, doesn't constitute a comprehensive listing of every rejection paper. Instead, it's about comparing the proportion of rejection papers to the proportion of endorsement papers. If we broadened the search to include 'climate change' papers, increasing the sample size to 70,000+, we would get more rejection papers but also presumably proportionally more endorsement papers also hence finding the same result. In other words, our result should be robust.

2012-03-05 11:40:40
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.21

beating a dead horse, related to HFCs as trace contributors:

A mitigation paper saying "aviation contributes 3.5% of warming attributed to human activities" ... That's a small proportion, but I'm still rating it as implicit. 

2012-03-05 12:32:42
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.21

I continue to have trouble selecting a category for "detection and atribution" papers. Thanks to a denier paper for that phrase, but most are real science.

I've been putting them in methods, although that doen't seem quite right. The vast majority of these conclude that that detected changes are atributed to humans; so they apply a method to get a conclusion.

It's probably too late to change the categories, but these papers, although a small fraction of the total, really are about the crux of the issue; they ask explicitly "are humans changing the climate?" It would be nice to flag them somehow.

 

 

2012-03-05 12:46:35
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Sarah, I put such papers under methods also. My original plan was we'd flag the attribution papers that quantify the human % but we ended up opting with the category "explicitly endorse AGW quantifying human contribution > 50%" which will capture many of these attribution papers. I see a lot of papers I would like to flag in different ways but well, in the interest of getting the job done, you just have to select a methodology that doesn't overweigh the raters too much then get on with it.

BTW, here was a paper I had to think about:

Warming Trends In Asia Amplified By Brown Cloud Solar Absorption
Atmospheric brown clouds are mostly the result of biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption(1). They consist of a mixture of light-absorbing and light-scattering aerosols(1) and therefore contribute to atmospheric solar heating and surface cooling. The sum of the two climate forcing terms-the net aerosol forcing effect is thought to be negative and may have masked as much as half of the global warming attributed to the recent rapid rise in greenhouse gases(2). There is, however, at least a fourfold uncertainty(2) in the aerosol forcing effect. Atmospheric solar heating is a significant source of the uncertainty, because current estimates are largely derived from model studies. Here we use three lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles that were vertically stacked between 0.5 and 3 km over the polluted Indian Ocean. These unmanned aerial vehicles deployed miniaturized instruments measuring aerosol concentrations, soot amount and solar fluxes. During 18 flight missions the three unmanned aerial vehicles were flown with a horizontal separation of tens of metres or less and a temporal separation of less than ten seconds, which made it possible to measure the atmospheric solar heating rates directly. We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia(3), suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers(4-6).

It was the phrase "...suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends" that had me thinking. Is this minimising the role of greenhouse gases? In the end, I decided either way, human activity was causing the warming so rated it as implicit endorsement.

2012-03-05 15:40:00
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

I'd classify that one as implicit, too. It localizes the effect of the aerosols to "regional lower atmospheric warming trends".

2012-03-05 22:58:15
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.107

How come this paper ended up in the database?

Static And Dynamic Characteristics Of Giant Magnetostrictive Materials Under High Pre-stress
We describe the static and dynamic characteristics of a giant magnetostrictive material under high pro-stress, using the pre-stress given to the giant magnetostrictive material as a parameter. and also evaluate material constants. Seven evaluation units, each having an optimum magnetic bias applied to vary the pre-stress given to the material from 15 MPa to 54 MPa, were used to measure the static and dynamic characteristics. As a result. the trends of equivalent circuit constants such as stiffness. internal resistance, and force factor in response to the increase in pre-stress for enhancing the output. were clarified. Furthermore, considering the linearity to the input level, the necessity of examining the optimum pre-stress region, in addition to the simple increase in pre-stress, was suggested.

 

rated as non climate ralated, neutral and commented offtopic :)

2012-03-06 00:50:26
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

Web of Wcience keywords for Riccardo's paper:

Author Keywords: global climate change; acoustical thermometry; low-frequency source; giant magnetostrictive material

2012-03-06 01:01:34
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Magnetostrictive materials science has applications in new kinds of electric motor, especially linear motors, which are more energy efficient than current types and hence are projected to have a lowered carbon footprint.

File under 'mitigation'.  :-)

2012-03-06 03:09:46
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
193.167.135.17

I had one that modelled feedbacks and found a negative cloud feedback. I put that as implicit rejection, since most IPCC models now state positive feedback or near zero...

Is that right?

2012-03-06 04:25:23
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.107

It looks rather an interpretation of the results than what actually is said in the abstract. The rule for implicit rejection says:

"Discusses other natural causes as being dominant influences of recent climate change without explicitly mentioning AGW"

I'd put it in the neutral category.

2012-03-06 04:29:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Mark - I'd call that neutral too.  That's more of a sensitivity question than an attribution question.  A negative cloud feedback itself doesn't mean that humans aren't causing global warming, or even most global warming.

2012-03-06 12:33:02
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

I found a 100% "it's not us" paper.  It was produced by a tobacco-funded think tank.

 

Global Warming Theory Challenged By Esef
News analysis GLOBAL WARMING may not be happening - and if it is, carbon dioxide emissions may not be to blame, according to an independent group of scientists. The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) is challenging the view that global warming exists - a theory driving efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2. Last December the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the earth's temperature could rise by 1-3.5°C by 2010 (ECN 1 January). John Emsley, editor of ESEF's report and science writer in residence at Imperial College, London University, said: 'We are questioning whether [global warming] may be occurring - if it is, we are questioning whether CO2 is driving it. There might be some other factors - some papers suggest that sunspot cycles might be more responsible.'

 

ESEF sourcewatch

Note the usual suspects listed in the above link.

Esef is co2web.info

 

archive.org esef links 1997


2012-03-06 12:38:47
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

FYI, Jim classified "Global Warming Theory Challenged By Esef" as an opinion article, not a peer-reviewed paper (but didn't include a note indicating why).

2012-03-06 14:19:12
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

This one is on UV not GW. I'm putting it under 'not climate related'. I've seen a few others that look at combined warming + UV effects.

Exposure To Ultraviolet Radiation Causes Proteomic Changes In Embryos Of The Purple Sea Urchin, Strongylocentrotus Purpuratus

2012-03-06 14:22:35
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

I'm putting almost any paper that runs GCMs (general circulation models) into "explicit". Usually they are looking at impacts on something (cyclones, etc) due to CO2 at varius levels. 

2012-03-06 17:01:17
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.197

On the negative cloud feedback thing; I think that the uncertainty ranges given for feedbacks in IPCC reports allows a small negative cloud feedback, so as such negative cloud feedback is not rejection. Also, most of the cloud feedback studies I have seen are local or regional so one must be careful in considering which of the studies apply globally.

2012-03-06 17:28:02
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
193.167.135.17

Sarah, I've highlighted all of mine that use GCMs but I put as neutral.

 

In a way, maybe I know a bit too much about this. So I know that HadCM3 and ECHAM5 definitely support human caused global warming, but unless the abstract specifically refers to temperature rise linked to CO2 (or IPCC projections e.g. 1.4-5.8 C warming) then I leave it as neutral. Also, I set as neutral all papers that talk about assumed future global warming, unless they specifically link it to IPCC/GCM projection or state that it's human caused.

2012-03-06 17:29:51GCM papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

Explicit means the abstract/title explicitly says "humans causing global warming", "anthropogenic climate change", "human CO2 emissions which leads to warming" - they explicitly say we are causing warming. But if a paper talks about GCM models that adopt IPCC scenarios to model future warming, this IMO constitutes implicit endorsement. Eg - they're not explicitly saying the words "humans are causing global warming" but they imply it by using models based on AGW assumptions. The key here is the semantic difference between implicit and explicit.

So I've been rating those types of papers that talk about GCM models and emission scenarios as implicit endorsement.

2012-03-06 17:40:21
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.197

Some of those modelling papers are neutral, I think, but the whole issue is quite borderline. In many cases they just use the standard tools (GCM's) to study the impacts of possible future warming. Even if they mention emission scenarios, it's quite difficult to see those kind of studies as endorsements. It's similar as the issue of global warming potentials we discussed, GWP is a standard term which can be used neutrally and GCM's are standard tools that can be used neutrally.

2012-03-06 18:51:19
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

I second Ari. One could also use a GCM to probe the climate response to GCR or leprechauns.

2012-03-07 03:25:58
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
141.219.48.137

OK- I'll be carefull not to read too far between the lines on these (although I have to close one eye and squint to imagine someone running HadCM3 while assuming excess CO2 was caused by sunspots or leprechauns with indigestion).

I have seen some that explicitely investigate the effects of "human induced CO2 doubling". 

2012-03-07 06:05:36
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Sarah

a climate model can be forced with whatever the researchers like. For example, I could study the impact of the shutting down of the thermohaline circulation using the HadCM3 model. In my opinion, to be an implicit endorsement we need something more than just the use of a GCM, we need them say something about projected future temperature increase due to increasing GHG.

And rest assured that no one will assume excess CO2 caused by sunspots or leprechauns :)

2012-03-07 06:42:04
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I see Riccardo's point but I wonder how many times GCMs are used to predict climate impacts where the CO2 concentrations are held constant at pre-industrial levels. Very few, I would imagine, since it's an entirely non-physical assumtion. And if someone were to do that, for example in a what-if modelling experiment, wouldn't they be sure to mention that in the abstract? I know, this doesn't provide proof that would satisfy a philosopher but I think it's a strong enough case to warrant an "implicit" rating.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that I have graded a few abstracts, ones that mention GCMs in an offhand way and that are mainly concerned with non-global-warming impacts, as "neutral", so you can take that as evidence that I'm not always entirely convinced by my argument in the paragraph above.

I think that we have to just accept the fact that this, and other subjective rating calls, are just inherent and inevtitable measuring uncertainties. What we'll have to do is try, somehow, to estimate how big those measurement errors are and hope that the results are robust enough that they emerge despite them. 

-----

Which sets me thinking....

I know that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to assess this kind of study adequately. It's certain that many of other participants among the TCP raters are a heck of a lot better than me at statistics, but may I ask the question: Do we have enough statistical fire power to handle the analysis? (Forgive me if I have implicitly and wrongly underestimated anyone's capabilities; I'm not familiar with your level of professional expertise.)

My impression is that Dikran and Kevin C have a lot of stats knowledge and perhaps we can enlist their help. But do we have to go outside, perhaps to someone like Tamino for his input?

2012-03-07 08:44:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I bet Dikran could handle it.

2012-03-07 13:42:32
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

I'm positive I'm seeing duplicates. 

I definitely remember this one for its assertion that atmo CO2 is 330 ppm. And the odd statement that the flux of carbon out of fossil fuels is 600 times greater than the flux into fossil fuels. 

Use Of Chlorella Vulgaris For Co2 Mitigation In A Photobioreactor

2012-03-07 13:46:20
climatesight
Kate
climatesight@live...
74.216.79.185

I'm not sure what thread this belongs in, so I thought I would just put it here...

I'm not sure that "neutral" is a very good word to use for the neutral category when we eventually write this up into a paper. I think it's one of those words that Susan Joy Hassol and Richard Sommerville wrote about in Physics Today: scientists mean it as "the paper didn't comment on this aspect of the issue", and the public will likely interpret it as "the paper balanced both sides of the debate equally".

I have done about 75 ratings now and all the neutral papers are ones that don't comment on the causes of recent warming - for example, there's a lot of papers on the impacts of warming on ecosystems. I haven't found any that do the false balance thing.

Just a thought...maybe we should find a new name.

2012-03-07 14:09:45
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Good thoughts, Kate. I can see the neutral term being twisted to mean undecided on AGW when we actually mean "not directly addressing AGW". But a catchier, snappier phrase than "doesn't comment on causes of global warming" or "research not directly addressing causes of global warming" is required.

2012-03-07 15:44:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Good point, perhaps "not applicable" or something similar would be better.

2012-03-07 16:24:13Alternatives to "neutral"
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.140.50

How about...

"doesn't spell it out"

"uncommitted"

2012-03-07 16:30:23
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

"nothing to see here, move along"

2012-03-07 16:50:06Starting to come round to Dana's view on future predictions of warming, at least in some cases
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.

2012-03-07 17:02:14
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.197

Some of the papers in neutral bin are genuinely neutral (I have even seen papers that are neutral between explicitly endorses & quantifies and explicitly rejects & quantifies). When we were discussing the rating system I suggested that we divide the neutral in two bins: neutral and unrelated, but it wasn't accepted. Perhaps the new name for it could be "neutral and unrelated".

2012-03-07 17:06:30DAWAAR
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

DAWAAR, John.

2012-03-07 18:56:17
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

I am using -

it is projected that there may be  - neutral

it is projected that there will be  -  implicit

 

suggestion:

neutral = DNC = Did Not Comment on causes.

2012-03-08 01:45:59emails
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

For some of the papers I can find a joint author email but not 1st named author.

How should I deal with this?

2012-03-08 03:26:49
Andy S

skucea@telus...
74.198.150.236
For "neutral" how about "undeclared position/neutral"?
2012-03-08 07:23:37Email
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176
If a paper gives a coauthors email, just grab that, it's fine. The more emails, the better, the larger our sample of scientist self-ratings
2012-03-08 10:49:25
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

typo in author's name.

Papers by Hillbrilcht-Ilkowska, A    Authors    Journal
Nutrient Loading And Retention In Lakes Of The Jorka River System (masurian Lakeland, Poland): Seasonal And Long-term Variation     Hillbrilcht-ilkowska, A (2002)     Polish Journal Of Ecology

Should be Hillbricht-Ilkowska, A.

2012-03-08 10:54:41Fixed, thanks
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

Now there are two Hillbricht-Ilkowska in the database but our duplicate hunting should fix that

2012-03-09 11:15:00
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

My very first #7 paper! (I count "practically no effect" as putting a number on the human impact)

Greenhouse Gases And Greenhouse Effect

Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO(2) and CH(4) in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO(2) should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth's climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth's heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO(2) concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth's climate.

2012-03-09 11:19:14Encountering a rejection paper
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Did you get that giddy feeling that Rob H reported every time he encounters a rejection paper? :-)

2012-03-09 11:23:29
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

No abstract (probably not peer reviewed either)

Stellar Variability And Global Warming - Reply

2012-03-09 11:39:00
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

This paper is so old, my Uni library access won't let me view it. It is in Science so possibly peer-reviewed. Anyone else able to access it?

2012-03-09 12:11:11
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

No abstract

Lasers Probe Global Climate From Space - A Laser Altimeter Is One Of The Most Vital Instruments In The Study Of Global Warming

2012-03-09 12:33:46
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

I put this one as method/neutral, but really I'd need a closer look at the full paper to really classify it: 

Dynamic Contribution To Hemispheric Mean Temperature Trends
On the basis of land station data from the Northern Hemisphere, it was determined that roughly half of the temporal variance of monthly mean hemispheric mean anomalies in surface air temperature during the period from 1900 through 1990 were linearly related to the amplitude of a distinctive spatial pattern in which the oceans are anomalously cold and the continents are anomalously warm poleward of 40 degrees north when the hemisphere is warm. Apart from an upward trend since 1975, to which El Nino has contributed, the amplitude time series associated with this pattern resembles seasonally dependent white noise. It is argued that the variability associated with this pattern is dynamically induced and is not necessarily an integral part of the fingerprint of global warming.

2012-03-09 21:19:18
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Lasers Probe Global Climate From Space - A Laser Altimeter Is One Of The Most Vital Instruments In The Study Of Global Warming

That is an article about satellites.  Not peer-reviewed.

2012-03-09 21:43:56
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Error report -

The DOI you requested --

10.1021/esO7O750+

-- cannot be found in the Handle System.

+ is code %2B - is the system decoding wrongly, or is the data not in the database ?

 

should be:

10.1021/es070750%2B

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es070750%2B

Thomas P Gloria et al.

2012-03-10 00:28:17
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

John-

I just sent you the stellar variability paper. I can access anything in Science if you need others.

-sarah

2012-03-10 01:25:37
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
70.59.89.112

I'm really hoping this is a really bad translation; alas, I expect it is more likely a severe misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

The Greenhouse Effect: A New Source Of Energy
Climate change induced by global warming is a result of an excess of energy at the earth's surface due to the greenhouse effect. But a new energy management can reverse the situation taking advantage of the greenhouse effect to produce renewable energy. In fact, both the renewable energy and the energy consumed which are not dissipated into heat are subtracted from the excess of energy produced by the greenhouse effect and contribute to mitigate climate change. This opens perspectives to harness the greenhouse effect [F. Meunier, Domestiquer l'effet de serre, Dunod, 2005]. Should all the primary energy be renewable energy and should part of the energy production not dissipated into heat, the present earth's energy imbalance should be beneficial and should serve to produce renewable energy. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2012-03-10 01:52:42
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Sarah:  It's a bad translation. The author, Francis Meunier, is very much pro alternative / green energy sources.

This opens perspectives to harness exploit the greenhouse effect - i.e. make money out of solving the problem.

(But don't quote me on any of the above.  ;-)

2012-03-10 06:40:04
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
64.122.89.69

Probably not peer reviewed (is it helpful to flag these here? elsewhere?)

 

Living On Credits
One way to tackle global warming is to give people a 'carbon ration' that limits their emission of greenhouse gases. Helen Pilcher spends one week living on an allowance of carbon credits estimated for the year 2050, and finds that saving the planet can play havoc with your lifestyle.

2012-03-10 07:15:25Opinion papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176
Might be useful to start a new thread flagging possible opinion papers, to come back to later.
2012-03-10 07:50:05
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

That Meunier paper (actually a draft of it, I think) looks like thermodynamic mumbo-jumbo to me. It hinges on there beeing a term W0 which is  "the energy, not dissipated into heat, which is extracted from the earth’s closed thermodynamic system". I have only skimmed it but it's not clear what he means by that and he merely assumes the quantity of it. Note that it was published in the journal Applied Thermal Engineering. pdf of a related article here

2012-03-12 09:11:59Problem
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

So how would people rate this one:

On The Scientific Basis For Global Warming Scenarios
The scientific basis for current projections of significant warming due to enhanced minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is reviewed. Care is taken to distinguish the issue of changes in radiative forcing at the earth's surface from the issue of the climatic response to this forcing. With respect to the former, it is noted that the predicted forcing is, in fact, small (2 W m-2 at the surface for a doubling of CO2, or less than 1% of the absorbed solar flux). With respect to the latter, it is noted that predictions of significant warming are dependent on the presence of large positive feedbacks serving to amplify the response. The largest of these feedbacks in current models involves water vapor at upper levels in the troposphere. This feedback appears to be largely a model artifact, and evidence is presented that models may even have the wrong sign for this feedback. The possibility is examined that the response of climate to major volcanic eruptions may provide a test of the climate system's amplification. The basis for this possibility is the fact that the response delay of the ocean-atmosphere system is proportional to the system gain.

 

Now, once you know the author's name, would you change your rating?

I scored it an impacts/#5 "implicitly minimizes"  but I'm not sure I would have if I hadn't recognized the paper. It probably would have got a "neutral" from me objectively. But maybe it even deserves a #6 or a #7.

Thoughts?

2012-03-12 09:30:35
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

My first response was that it explicitly minimises AGW and that it was ghost-written for somebody by Monckton.  ;-)

2012-03-12 10:33:09
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

The paper is about feedbacks and climate sensitivity. However, what is the significance of the statement "forcing at the surface is 2 Wm-2 for doubled CO2"? We know the forcing at the top of atmosphere for doubled CO2 is 3.7 Wm-2 but I couldn't say off the top of my head what the surface forcing is. To me, that statement holds the key to whether this paper rejects or is neutral so I can't say a rating without knowing the "mainstream position" on surface forcing from doubled CO2. Anyone?

2012-03-12 11:18:46
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Cherry picking par exellence:

 

"... nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response (see, e.g., the caveats expressed in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-8.html#2-8-1

 

A very good paper with 'how we know AGW is real'

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

2012-03-12 13:48:22That 'very good paper' is one of the go-to papers SkS cites as evidence for increased greenhouse effect
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Re the Evans paper "how we know AGW is real", that's a conference proceeding as far as I know. Has that research been worked up into an actual published paper? Would be good to know.

FYI, here are all papers in our database by the author Wayne Evans:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?Action=Scientist&s=10420

And here is Evans CV including published papers:

http://www.nwra.com/resumes/evans/wayneevans.pdf

2012-03-12 17:50:08
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.199

On Andy's question, I would have rated it neutral or implicit rejection (perhaps latter - and by the way, I think I have already rated that abstract :) ). I also usually make a note if I'm hesitant between two categories.

There's one thing though, I wouldn't have put it to impacts but to methods.

2012-03-12 19:09:42
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
I have tended to be sparing with the methods category, restricting it to papers that talk about a new device or technique without actually reporting any results.
2012-03-12 19:50:48
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.199

Before rating phase started, the methods category was agreed to be the one where you put everyting else that doesn't fit to impacts/mitigation/paleoclimate. So, it's actually "methods and miscellaneous". I tried to suggest an additional category of "climate science" but it wasn't accepted.

2012-03-12 23:06:11
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.24

I would have put it into methods/implicit rejection (and then would have tried to find the paper to confirm, not sure if that's cheating).

I tend to put modeling papers into 'methods', unless they try to model and report on an impact or mitigation scheme. I put all nutty and hand-waving modeling stuff like this one into 'methods'.

2012-03-12 23:06:49
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Found in 'get emails' -

 

Something In The Air     Hooper, R (2006)     New Scientist

actual title

Something Nasty In The Air     Hooper, R (2006)     New Scientist

Magazine article, pay-per-view.  Not peer reviewed.

2012-03-12 23:10:38
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.199

Sarah, in this phase we shouldn't peek at full texts at all (it might cause a bias).

2012-03-13 06:03:22
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

John:  I expect that the paper, having been read at an AMS conference, is properly peer-reviewed.  It was certainly pre-printed, as shown in this alternative pdf / url:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

Strangely, for such a concise statement of 'how we know it's us', it has,

according to Google Scholar, only been cited once.

 

fyi, author's email: wayne@nwra.com

2012-03-13 11:27:53
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I'll be less sparing with my "methods" classification in future. Maybe when this phase is over, JC will be able to identify all those abstracts of mine that I rated as "impacts" and others rated as "methods" and I can go back and have another look at my classifications. I expect that there will be a few anomalies like this, where rater A has an unusual proportion of classifications or ratings compared to the rest and it would be useful for him/her to revisit the ratings. This wouldn't be to change opinions to conform to the "consensus" but to assure more consistency of the understanding of criteria and correct outright mistakes. There may also be some drift in ratings with time.

BTW, this was the only time I "cheated" by looking at the whole paper. I was mystified by the ambiguity of the abstract, with the author wanting his skeptical cake and eating it too. I thought, "that smells like Lindzen" and had to peek.

2012-03-13 11:38:51Searching your own ratings
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Andy, click on My Ratings - you can search your own ratings and filter by category and endorsement level, then update your ratings.

2012-03-13 11:58:27
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

The problem is that the ones that I think I may not have identified as "methods" I have lumped into "impacts". "Impacts" is probably far and away my biggest category (I'm guessing that I have probably 1000 of those) but the mis-classified  ones, the ones I should have labelled "methods", probably only make up 50 or 100 of those. I'll have a quick look, it may be possible for me to find most of them just from the title, so I won't have to re-read 1000 abstracts.

2012-03-13 12:34:07
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.20

I would have put it into methods/implicit rejection (and then would have tried to find the paper to confirm, even though that feels like cheating).

I tend to put modeling papers into methods, unless they are modeling and then reporting on an impact or mitigation scheme. I put most of the nutty and hand-waving modeling stuff like this one into methods.

2012-03-13 17:17:35
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.199

My ratings would definitely need a fix so that one could go back further than last 50 ratings.

2012-03-14 18:04:27
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
193.167.135.17

I'd like the chance to go over all of mine too. Especially the earliest ones, actually, because I've learned a bit since then :p

 

 

My concern is that I've lumped too many under 'neutral' or 'implicit' for discussion of GWP and assumed future global warming. If they just assumed future global warming without mentioning cause, I put it as neutral.Is that sensible, and is it consistent with what other people have been doing?

2012-03-14 18:19:51
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

Yes, that's how I have rated that kind of papers.

2012-03-14 18:55:39
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
193.167.135.17

Also, is my experience ruining my objectivity?

 

For example, if they state warming scenarios without mentioning cause, but use IPCC warming by 2100 figures I put as 'implicit'. If they also state warming values output from a model I recognise, and I know the model supports the 'consensus' (e.g. pretty much any from CMIP3) then I put as 'implicit'.

2012-03-14 20:03:52
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

I have put those kind of papers to neutral because they just use the warming scenarios to study something else without really taking a stand on AGW.

2012-03-14 20:54:13
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176
I'd actually go with Mark. If a paper endorses IPCC warming scenarios or models that assume AGW is true, then they implicitly endorse AGW - the research is operating under the assumption that AGW is true.
2012-03-14 21:20:33
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
194.251.119.198

I disagree. They are just using standard tool of the field. The research, in such cases that Mark talked about, operates under the assumption that there is warming, and they just use climate models to achieve that situation so that they can study what happens in such situation. It can be completely hypothetical in their view. If we say that they endorse AGW based on that, we are making a guess on their opinion and not sticking with the information provided by the abstract.

2012-03-15 12:18:53
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.23

Based on discussions early on in the process, I've been looking for statements that the source of CO2 is anthopogenic in the modeling papers that use any of the various your-acronym-here models. 

If it clearly says anthropogenic, fossil fuels, etc. I put it in implicit.

If it uses a model but doesn’t say anything about GHG, then neutral. These are often looking at effects on weather, floods, storms, or ocean circulation.

If it talks about 2xCO2, or other GHG scenarios, I tend toward implicit based on the rest of the text. 

(Even though the CO2 could be claimed to come from a giant belch from, say Lake Vostok, or from a comet tail, or a fire-breathing dragon). 

I've also rated the future warming ones that don't mention a cause as neutral. One could investigate the effects of climate warming without admiting the cause or while claiming it's 'natural'.

2012-03-15 13:11:25
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.23

For example, I rated this one impacts/implicit. "B1, A1B, and A2 IPCC emission scenarios" are by definition anthropogenic.

Regional Variability Of Climate Change Hot-spots In East Asia
The regional climate change index (RCCI) is employed to investigate hot-spots under 21st century global warming over East Asia. The RCCI is calculated on a 1-degree resolution grid from the ensemble of CMIP3 simulations for the B1, A1B, and A2 IPCC emission scenarios. The RCCI over East Asia exhibits marked sub-regional variability. Five sub-regional hot-spots are identified over the area of investigation: three in the northern regions (Northeast China, Mongolia, and Northwest China), one in eastern China, and one over the Tibetan Plateau. Contributions from different factors to the RCCI are discussed for the sub-regions. Analysis of the temporal evolution of the hot-spots throughout the 21st century shows different speeds of response time to global warming for the different sub-regions. Hot-spots firstly emerge in Northwest China and Mongolia. The Northeast China hot-spot becomes evident by the mid of the 21st century and it is the most prominent by the end of the century. While hot-spots are generally evident in all the 5 sub-regions for the A1B and A2 scenarios, only the Tibetan Plateau and Northwest China hot-spots emerge in the B1 scenario, which has the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Our analysis indicates that subregional hot-spots show a rather complex spatial and temporal dependency on the GHG concentration and on the different factors contributing to the RCCI.

2012-03-15 14:55:14
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

I rate those types of papers as implicit too - if a paper talks about IPCC emission scenarios and consequent warming, that's well into implicit endorsement territory.

2012-03-16 10:23:06
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

John: how to deal with deceased authors in emails / names?

Is it ok to put 'deceased' instead of an email address?

e.g. Ingram, RG = R. Grant Ingram, d. 2011.

2012-03-19 01:47:49
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

no abstract

Global Warming

2012-03-19 23:50:07Logic, sure re "deceased"
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176
I'll code it to only extract valid emails