Another Troubling Climate Article

[Tweegs]

I’ve been following along in this thread, but given the topic I’ve been reluctant to jump in.

A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.

Since there is a high level of interest in this thread, the paper is relevant to the conversation, and there is likely to be little circulation elsewhere, I submit for your review:

The paper itself:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....al041717-1.pdf

And an article to sum it up:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/ex...totally-false/

The above relates to the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding which allows the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

[DrTimPerkins]

A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.

Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.

[mudr]

Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.

Dr. Perkins beat me to it.

[Tweegs]

Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
I’m merely pointing out that a paper has just been released that contradicts EPA’s findings.

The paper was “released”, not actually published…poor choice of words on my part.
Three different news sources reporting on the paper’s release cited it as peer reviewed, I just went with it.

I’m not holding this paper up as evidence to support an opinion, nor am I criticizing the authors or body of work.
It popped up on my news sites this morning, was relevant to the thread, so here you go.
Now if you folks want to pick it apart, have at it.

I’m really more interested in what people have to say about it.
So far, we have the paper should be disregarded because it was sloppily written by 3 kooks, it wasn’t actually published and the peer review claim is suspect.
Those points are duly noted and no offense taken or intended to be given.

It does remind me of an engineer I work with though.
80% of the time he’s wrong. It’s the 20% he’s right that irritates me to no end.
Much as I’d like, I can never dismiss him out of hand.

[eustis22]

yes...we'd lose some sleep observing the latter and boiling takes enough of that already.

[eustis22]

>The Bible suggests

Um...what?

>the teaching of social justice/communism

One of these is not like the other, you know.

>the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days.

Ref: Inherit the Wind.

>Nitrogen fertilizers are made from ammonia (NH₃), which is sometimes injected into the ground directly. The ammonia is produced by the Haber-Bosch process.^[5] In this energy-intensive process, natural gas (CH₄) supplies the hydrogen, and the nitrogen (N₂) is derived from the air. This ammonia is used as a feedstock for all other nitrogen fertilizers, such as anhydrous ammonium nitrate (NH₄NO₃) and urea (CO(NH₂)₂).

China	18.7	3.0
India	11.9	N/A[11]
U.S.	9.1	4.7

So basically half of the amount used in the U.S. is used for feed and pasture. Nearly 5 metric tons per acre. Not to worry. As the feed lands dry out the factory herds will start shrinking.

[BreezyHill]

[QUOTE=eustis22;333403>the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days.

Ref: Inherit the Wind.

>Nitrogen fertilizers

So basically half of the amount used in the U.S. is used for feed and pasture. Nearly 5 metric tons per acre. Not to worry. As the feed lands dry out the factory herds will start shrinking.[/QUOTE]


So it has been a while since I was in bible school but since a day is the time period of one cycle of the sun then how do we know how long a day was prior to the formation of the sun and moon to separate day and night?

So if one is to believe the amount of 5 metric tons per acre that would mean 11,000# per acre and with there being 43560 square feet in an acre and the last load of urea we had delivered was 45 # / bushel( 1.24cu') that would be about 245 cu ft of urea on an acre on about a layer 9.7 inches deep. You can burn a hayfield off with as little as 100# of Nitrogen(217# urea) per acre. so there must be something that is missing in the calculation of 5 MTons per acre.

Thanks for the humorous thread. LOL

[mudr]

Ugh, I had a longer response typed up but closed out the tab on my computer. This response will be shorter...

I think you found an online document that was written by some of the (only) 3% of climate scientists who do not feel the data support the notion that we are changing our climate. Actually, two of the three lead authors are indeed either climatologists or meterologists, but both are on the books as being supported by think-tanks funded by large business, including the fossil fuel industry (Cato and Heartland Institutes). The other author appears to be an engineer, but I can't find much on him.

This is great you found an online "peer-reviewed" document, but it is not the same as a peer-reviewed journal manuscript. Papers from peer-reviewed journals are generally peer reviewed "blindly", so you do not know who you are getting as a reviewer and they don't know you. This document seems to be written by folks that on the books for the aforementioned think-tanks, and "agreed with" (peer reviewed?) by other folks on the books by the same think-tanks. That is not peer-review. Further, this report is rather shoddily produced. Some of the things I find troublesome include the random and inconsistent capitalization of various words; figures produced without the broadly-accepted practices of labels and figure captions; poor punctuation; random and inconsistent highlighting of random statements; and a poorly performed and inconsistent attempt at citing sources.

To be blunt, if I had an undergraduate student turn in a document that contained many of these errors, they would not be getting a good grade. I am surprised that the authors, most of whom have advanced degrees, put together a document as poorly produced as this. This document is not a true peer-reviewed document, it appears to be a politically and monetarily motivated attempt to discredit real scientific reports. It is sad to see individuals with advanced degrees have their names on such a poorly produced article. Now, if they clean this up and make a real report that is consistent with the generally accepted scientific practices INCLUDING having it actually peer-reviewed in a robust and ethical manner, I will take the findings of the report more seriously.

[eustis22]

I also don't think you can make The Big Bang and Climate Change//Global Warming remotely analogous to each other.

One is observable. One is not.

[DrTimPerkins]

I also don't think you can make The Big Bang and Climate Change//Global Warming remotely analogous to each other.

One is observable. One is not.

To some degree we can observe the aftermath of the big bang and extrapolate from there based upon the evidence that remains.

Also, one is happening over a few hundred years time-frame, the other over 13 billion years.