New study on climate change

Actually being a skeptic or in denial about global warming are very poor terms to use.

Global warming is real, it is just not a man-made global warming.

And about peer reviews. The IPCC peer reviewed all their papers and completely got the cause of global warming wrong.

This is why I will be posting my research on my website and let the world peer review it, not just a handful of paper writers that got there work published through very biased federal grants, and grants from other countries.

My research is completely unbiased, not funded by the federal gov't or any energy concerns.

My research is a totally different and very common sense approach...A Natural Forcing Mechanism....not man.

Please do check my website in the upcoming weeks.

 

Make sure you include your methods and results separate from the discussion..

 

What is the reason you are doing this? Why the urgency to single handedly convince the world?

 

The global warming issue has become very political. The federal gov't does not issue grants to universities to study all possible causes of global warming, only possible man-made causes.

Actually many scientists such as Dr. Gray have lost grants because they became outspoken about possible natural causes. Some meteorologists and climatologists have been fired or threatened to be fired, and no federal employee is allowed to talk about possible natural causes.

Meanwhile the media and most congressmen have said that the case is closed, it is man-made, no further debate needed. Meanwhile some countries are talking about putting shields in space to shade the sun and reduce global temperatures, and/or inject sulfates into the atmosphere or dust. If actions such as this are taken as the earth enters its natural cooling cycle...temperatures would plumet well below levels seen in the past thousand years...not good science.

This is why it is urgent to get the information out to the world...let everyone peer review.

Global warming is not man-made, there are naturally occuring cycles approximately every 36-72 years, 200-years, 1500 years and 100 thousand years.

The question was asked why I am doing this, and the answer is that someone outside of the university and or government system must step forward and provide the proof...and I will be posting the proof shortly. The graphs and research is now complete and once the website is complete, the research will be posted.

The research posted will provide the graphs with the actual correlations, and a description of the Primary Forcing Mechanism.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see what it is you discovered that thousands of published scientists missed! But why don't you publish in a peer reviewed journal rather than making a web page. Once published in a journal non-experts like myself have the assurance that a group of experienced people in the field examined your work.

 

I have a big problem with you using the term "peer review" when you are saying the world should peer review your website (not a scientific paper). Are you assuming the rest of the world is trained in climate science or are you not trained in climate science and the untrained are then your peers?

You also realize that none of the natural climate change cycles line up with the change we are currently seeing except one causing an ice age of which we are currently in and is/was expected to get cooler.

 

Because on a web page no one can tell you you're full of sh!t :_> Peer review is less kind.

 

I was being tactful...

 

Sorry to say that the IPCC "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is suppose to be a panel of trained scientists, however they only peer reviewed man-made possible causes...not good science.

The approach I have taken involves several sciences and looks at the big picture. Papers in Journals are focused on 1 aspect i.e. carbon dioxide, i.e. changes in the ocean, and these studies are normally only for the past 100-years of the history of the earth...again not good science.

By posting on my website the information will get to all very quickly, not 6 months to a year or more that Journals take....and all scientists can review it online.

You should remember that there are many online scientific journals...this is done so all can see.

Yes I am taking a different approach, and one reason is because I am not connected to a University or Federal Gov't. Most univerisities have fear in them about helping to publish "natural" cycles. The fear is of losing Federal Grants....I had a doctorate in oceanography/meteorology helping me to finish polishing a paper on something else, but once he learned that I was pushing ahead on Natural Global Warming he had to pull out from the project in fear he would lose grants.

 

My webpage has an email icon so you can contact me and say what you think.

Probably about 80% of the meteorologists and climatologists in the world feel that global warming has a Natural cycle to it....those that are in denial about Natural cycles are those obtaining grant money to study CO2, so they are very biased.

 

"Peer review" isn't all you make it out to be. However, it seems to be your gold standard so knock yourself out.

Give it a rest, and let the guy promote his ideas. You can shoot all the holes you want to in them later.

 

I'm well aware of the pros and shortcomings of peer review but it is a hell of a lot better than the alternative which is hyperbole and OpEd pieces. I also look at who is doing the peer review. Most of th bad information is found in situations where a geology publication reviews a palynology paper.

I'm entilted to my opinion in this forum just as much as he is so you give it a rest.

 

Care to share with us your credentials and qualifications in the field? What exactly are your educational and professional backgrounds?

 

Your list is comprehensive, but the real interest is which of the above created the tipping point in coverage. There is some social feedback that has reached the point of irrationality. We have pollution problems and environmental issues galore, but an overfocus on global warming actually may misdirect taking proper actions.

It is also really interesting of what is NOT on the list. No mention of curiosity about how our climate actually works. It really would be interesting to know how much of a feedback loop various ecosystems have developed on the overall planet, but the real answers are SO hard to filter out.

 

I would argue that the real answers are hard to filter out because they aren't there. Nobody has a definitive answer on these issues. We have a partial picture of what's going on. It's a moving target. As we study and development better conceptual models we inch along, but we have a very dim understanding of the whole system. To me that puts us in a bad spot. We have a variety of risks (to food production, air quality & public health, security, economies) that we need to manage. We can only manage and mitigate that risk with incomplete knowledge. That said we need to make sure that we're not basing our risk management on false assumptions as that could put us in a real bind. Societies aren't usually clobbered by a known threat. It's that something that they never anticipated that gets them.

So, based on what we know about climate, air quality, and security we ought to be moving away from fossil fuels. We ought to start with the biggest most immediate threats and move from there, keeping an eye on our overall risk. That means oil. Gotta get rid of it. There are many compelling reasons to do so. Next is probably coal. This is a more long term issue and we should be steadily, but not too aggressively phasing it out. Natural gas last, but we've got to be careful because too much dependence on MG could put us right back into the security issues that we have with oil now. NG can also be a renewable, but I kinda doubt we'd ever be able to produce so much of it as we use now.

It's really all about managing risks and that is a political issue. It's the role of gov't. It needs to be done using the best information that's available while recognizing that that information will never be complete.

That's my take on what we should be doing. I agree with Tim that constructs like Kyoto won't work. Kyoto itself is a failure (just look to Canada for an example). I also agree that there are many axes out there being ground by many different interests. The media really only makes things worse because they just gob off about whatever is hot, and they never really understand the issues. I think the onus ought to be on the naysayers of climate change at this point, but I'm worried that researchers are going to stop asking questions because of "consensus". This happened in nutrition/diet research in the 70's and 80's and we're paying the price for it now. The science will find the truth if we let it work properly. The problem is that this issue has gotten so bloody politicized I fear that it's going to be difficult to get at it now. There are strong forces at work (money and inertia) and those forces will cloud the science. Especially for the folks like us on the fringes who have a genuine interest but lack the training to understand the details fully.

 

I agree.

 

As usual Tripp, quite elegantly stated.

 

AND ALSO FOR F8L

There are great short comings in peer review at Journals. I have sent papers in for peer review in the past and the reviewers have no idea about my scientific approach...they are so crusted in the old meteorological view of only publishing what has already been published, and not moving forward with innovative ideas.

Dr. Reid Bryson the "father" of Climatology (still working half days at age 85) reminded me that many many great papers and findings are never published because of the biased views of the reviewers, or that the reviewers are ill informed on the subject.

I have an innnovative research that old staunch reviewers have a problem with...and they have forgotten that some of my research has already been proven in earlier research (especially by Dr. Bryson). However, these reviewers are newer to the field and have forgotten that the basic concept has been proven...so lets look at it guys!!!

Credentials....I have a B.S. and M.S. in meteorology/climatology with 40-years of experience. This includes being a weather officers in the Air Force (rank of Captain), operational and management positiions in the National Weather Service with experience in forecasting aviation meteorology, marine, general weather forecasts and warning, climatology etc...
I have been researching the "Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate" since 1979, and founded Global Weather Oscillations Inc in 1992 with the understanding that almost all weather/climate events are cyclical, and if the mehanism behind these cycles are known, they can be forecast years in advance.

My work with the Primary Forcing Mechansims (PFM) has shown extremely high correlations to many climate features such as, hurricane tracks, season precipitation, climate oscillations, and of interest here....Global Warming and Global Cooling cycle of 10-years, 200-years, 1500-years and 100 thousand years.

 

I've read many, many of your posts promoting peer review as the end-all-be-all, so it's refreshing to hear you say it has shortcomings. However, and there's always a "however," you come off as a wanna be academic snob. You've written about your schooling and studies quite a bit, so it sounds like you're still in university; and there is a difference between the classroom and the real world ... regardless of the quality and reputation of the institution.

Whatever your terminal degree aspirations and field of study are, please attempt to be (or at least sound) less elitist in conversation and action. You're definitely entitled to you opinions, as are we all (thank God). However, you come off as preachy and smug, and that's the last thing this debate needs (IMO).

 

There is seldom a definitive answer in science. More often there is a consensus which is the best answer on which to act upon.