is by a journalist who wants to speak his mind about politics, the economy and finance, and political philosophy, among other things, and hopes others will find that useful and constructive.
Wednesday, October 05, 2022
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years W. Jackson Davis - MDPI
1. Davis has no research background in the subjects of his non-peer-reviewed open access paper. Paleoclimate and atmospheric physics.
2. Why did he ignore all published research by experts in those fields that refuted his conclusions?
3. Why did Davis not take into account other factors like a dimmer sun, different insolation due to landmasses all being in the Southern hemisphere, albedo etc?
4.Why did Davis (who has zero expertise in atmospheric physics)use MODTRAN to "calculate" radiative forcing for CO2 when the Phanerozoic had a very different atmosphere and different forcing factors than the modern atmosphere on which MODTRAN is based?
I did not draw on the Davis paper because of the conclusions it reached; I drew on it only for the chart, which was the best and most complete available graphic depiction of the known data and detected behavior of CO2 and temperature during the entire Phanerozoic era I could find, and I used it only for illustrative purposes. It includes not only the widely cited Royer, et al. paper data but also additional data Royer does not include. It also is in general agreement with other presentations of this data for all or parts of the phanerozoic era. For the reason, the rest of his paper is not relevant to my discussion.
While Davis has no apparent background in paleoclimate and atmospheric physics, he does exhibit ability to do research.
If you have evidence that the data presented by Davis in this chart are erroneous, please cite the errors and your sources used for correction.
While Davis’ conclusions and arguments lie outside and are not actually relevant to my intentions in using his chart, I will endeavor to address your questions in that area as best I can.
MDPI, which published his paper, claims rigorous peer review, and has not been challenged on that assertion by jealous competitors. The quality of its product is considered good, even by its critics. If you can prove it’s non-peer-revewed, you can break a major scientific scandal. If not, the accusation is potentially libelous. 2. Davis referred to such research extensively in paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 of his paper. 3. The first sentence of para, 3: “The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between at atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the ancient climate, with the aim of informing the current debate about climate change.” His apparent intent therefore was not necessarily to identify the reasons for the poor-to-negative correlations of CO2 proxies with temperature proxies he found, but to find and present them. 4. Ask Davis. My guess: he used MODTRAN because it was the best tool available, whatever its drawbacks.
LOL, " I drew on it only for the chart" says all that needs to be said. Hence, no consideration of better charts from scientists actually working in the field, because he saw and picked the cherry that supported his conclusions.
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
Dear Anonymous: There are a number of such charts around. I searched. This was the most comprehensive one I could find, including data that others leave out. It nevertheless agrees well with what other chart show. You surmise is very much mistaken.
Dear Mr. Kiehl: Here is the citation to the Davis paper. In the body of the paper are chart setting out the data points on which the smoothed curves are based. You can compare for yourself. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm
Dear Postkey: I found that the "alphabet soup" groups that you mention and the contrarian websites you mention are busy telling you what to think about the climate, and I have generally avoided citing such biased sources, preferring to go to the source material: peer-reviewed scientific papers, and standard references in wide use like Encyclopedia Britannica. I did use a report from NOAA that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has increased the "greening" of the earth, but that was an exception.
8 comments:
1. Davis has no research background in the subjects of his non-peer-reviewed open access paper. Paleoclimate and atmospheric physics.
2. Why did he ignore all published research by experts in those fields that refuted his conclusions?
3. Why did Davis not take into account other factors like a dimmer sun, different insolation due to landmasses all being in the Southern hemisphere, albedo etc?
4.Why did Davis (who has zero expertise in atmospheric physics)use MODTRAN to "calculate" radiative forcing for CO2 when the Phanerozoic had a very different atmosphere and different forcing factors than the modern atmosphere on which MODTRAN is based?
The whole paper is incompetent pseudoscience.
I did not draw on the Davis paper because of the conclusions it reached; I drew on it only for the chart, which was the best and most complete available graphic depiction of the known data and detected behavior of CO2 and temperature during the entire Phanerozoic era I could find, and I used it only for illustrative purposes. It includes not only the widely cited Royer, et al. paper data but also additional data Royer does not include. It also is in general agreement with other presentations of this data for all or parts of the phanerozoic era. For the reason, the rest of his paper is not relevant to my discussion.
While Davis has no apparent background in paleoclimate and atmospheric physics, he does exhibit ability to do research.
If you have evidence that the data presented by Davis in this chart are erroneous, please cite the errors and your sources used for correction.
While Davis’ conclusions and arguments lie outside and are not actually relevant to my intentions in using his chart, I will endeavor to address your questions in that area as best I can.
MDPI, which published his paper, claims rigorous peer review, and has not been challenged on that assertion by jealous competitors. The quality of its product is considered good, even by its critics. If you can prove it’s non-peer-revewed, you can break a major scientific scandal. If not, the accusation is potentially libelous.
2. Davis referred to such research extensively in paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 of his paper.
3. The first sentence of para, 3: “The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between at atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the ancient climate, with the aim of informing the current debate about climate change.” His apparent intent therefore was not necessarily to identify the reasons for the poor-to-negative correlations of CO2 proxies with temperature proxies he found, but to find and present them.
4. Ask Davis. My guess: he used MODTRAN because it was the best tool available, whatever its drawbacks.
LOL, " I drew on it only for the chart" says all that needs to be said.
Hence, no consideration of better charts from scientists actually working in the field, because he saw and picked the cherry that supported his conclusions.
The chart grossly undersamples the data. Such undersampling can make a sine wave look like a straight line. This chart is meaningless.
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
Dear Anonymous: There are a number of such charts around. I searched. This was the most comprehensive one I could find, including data that others leave out. It nevertheless agrees well with what other chart show. You surmise is very much mistaken.
Dear Mr. Kiehl: Here is the citation to the Davis paper. In the body of the paper are chart setting out the data points on which the smoothed curves are based. You can compare for yourself. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm
Dear Postkey: I found that the "alphabet soup" groups that you mention and the contrarian websites you mention are busy telling you what to think about the climate, and I have generally avoided citing such biased sources, preferring to go to the source material: peer-reviewed scientific papers, and standard references in wide use like Encyclopedia Britannica. I did use a report from NOAA that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has increased the "greening" of the earth, but that was an exception.
Post a Comment