Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Peer-reviewed paper: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes?
Perhaps I missed a discussion or two here on YA when this paper first came out, but it appears to be peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, questioning CO2 as a driver of warming.
This doesn't say the planet isn't warming, doesn't say that anthropogenic factors are not involved (black soot, etc). However if its foundations are solid it does imply that the current approaches to control CO2 (to address climate change) may be premature and misguided.
Comments? Have there been reactions by leading scientists (active in and familiar with climate/CO2 science, not paid propagandists who happen to have an ancient scientific degree) discussing the merits and shortcomings of this paper?
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?Fi...
Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
Paulo Cesar Soares
International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112
doi:10.4236/ijg.2010.13014 Published Online November 2010 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg)
Conclusions
The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing ef- fect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is ex- plained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known
To repeat, "This doesn't say the planet isn't warming."
I spelled that out pretty clearly (as does the paper).
"This... doesn't say that anthropogenic factors are not involved (black soot, etc)."
To clarify, this is a question specifically about CO2 science, not about biased, uninformed opinions. For the purposes of this question, I ask that you please keep the responses on-topic and factual, not a reflection of mob psychology or paranoid conspiracy theories.
Update: I notice that it's from a journal that is only on it's third issue... with its first issue printed May 2010... seems a little fishy and I can't find anything in the submission instructions about peer review.
The validity of the source aside, the paper does seem to hinge its argument on the claim that correlation between CO2 and temperatures should be monthly or yearly, which may not be a valid assumption in a complex and chaotic system.
Fascinating rebuttal, thanks:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/soares-correlation...
"Firstly it expects atmospheric temperatures to change regularly: natural cycles like El Nino transfer heat from the oceans and can change atmospheric temperature by up to 0.4 °C in a year causing the big vertical spread.
The graph below is based on Meehl et al, 2004 and shows a climate model estimate of how much global warming was expected from greenhouse gases for the past century: always less than 0.02 °C/year - so small that the noise effectively hides the incline if you only look at year to year changes. Fortunately, very simple statistical techniques work around this."
It appears unlikely that a paper such as Soares' would have been published in a reputable journal, claiming (deceptively?) that a signal should be visible in month to month or year to year data containing noise 20X larger in magnitude.
I have to conclude that Soares' paper is wrong in such a blatant manner tha
I have to conclude that Soares' paper is wrong in such a blatant manner that the questionable nature (or deception) of this paper may be intentional.
Thanks for the additional context. If as stated this publisher and its newly-invented journal publishes prior papers without the authors' knowledge or permission, that may be part of a broader effort to provide an aura of validity in which to cloak these otherwise highly suspect papers.
If there's no valid peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support questioning climate change, peer review junk and create a journal which looks credible to publish it in. Any true skeptic should find this evidence and these tactics highly troubling. If there were any evidence supporting doubt of climate change, why would the denial side of the argument have to stoop to these levels (rather than simply present credible evidence, published in an established and respected journal?
I had hopes for this paper (the journal-like format of its presentat
I had hopes for this paper, but upon further inspection the denial side once again comes up severly lacking in support from science.
5 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The paper seems to form its conclusions off of comparisons of monthly or annual CO2 rise, and coincident temperature rise. In other words, they're forming conclusions off of data heavily influenced by short-term noise, e.g. ENSO effects, which is extremely sketchy to me.
The long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature is much stronger. Year-to-year variability reflects several variables that more or less cancel out over decades.
I think I remember reading an analysis of these conclusions, I'll try to find it for you.
MarkR did an SkS article on it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/soares-correlation...
(Your post did not finish.)
- Dana1981Lv 71 decade ago
I see AMP already referenced Mark's article on the paper.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/SoaresCorrelation....
To be blunt, the paper is junk. It was written by a retired professor and researcher, and published in a very sketchy journal. The publisher (Scientific Research Publishing [SCIRP]) is known for re-publishing papers which were published in other journals long ago, without notifying the authors. And it's now published two new highly-flawed "skeptic" studies (the other by Douglass and Knox cherrypicking short-term ocean heat content data to claim the oceans are no longer warming).
Source(s): http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148... http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academi... - Anonymous5 years ago
Yes it has turn out to be a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.Think of how much cash unique corporations will make off of the hype.Think of all that executive cash going to "study".Besides there's handiest such a lot you'll be able to do ,in any case whoever controls the elements controls the arena.Fear is the fine political motivator. Climate difference is side of the character of the planet.Common experience is to have blank vigour however till there's a dollar in all of it that occurs is speak,speak and extra speak.Government rules,fines and consequences(gotta get that bailout cash someplace) We without doubt want blank air and water .I am the common recycler and I do not waste vigour identical to many different humans.I use vigour and do not opt for the "guilt" shuttle of doing so. I have a situation with Gore the guru who flies round a gas guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a higher one to fly backward and forward to California.Remember her announcing she wishes to save lots of the planet,yeah she flies we stroll.We can all begin through utilising the brand new vigour saving gentle bulbs. Oh I forgot they're those with mercury in them.Oh,good turns out like a well concept on the time. I bet you all heard that a few genius baby-kisser desired to tax cow farmers for any that possess greater than one hundred for emitting "methane fuel" yeah it is actual.Can we bottle it rather?Or on moment suggestion ship a few from the bull to that baby-kisser as he is aware of the B.S. whilst he sees or smells it.
- mikeyLv 61 decade ago
Good article, concerning the etiology of the current small increase in average global temperature. This paper correctly suggests that the conclusion that CO2 is a main driver of global average temperature increase is not a valid scientific method. This of course discounts the ideas that humans burning fossil fuel have caused the current climate change. Politically, the far left is dependent upon this "paradigm" so that they can further their political agenda of increasing taxes on energy production, in order to fund more social programs, which they hope will of course ensure their re-election in perpetuity. This paper undercuts that basic tenant of their political movement, of course.
Simply stated, easy to understand, and apparently correct.
Source(s): old doc - Anonymous1 decade ago
Confirms the long held position of skeptics. That alarmist need to get people concerned in order to gain power or political clout or money. This is the chicken little approach.