If you want to have something which is completely sourced with close to definitive information, the 900+ page IPCC report is it,
We already went there.. the IPCC report is not the penultimate reference because they are rewriting the underlying scientific work to be compliant with their summary. I already referred to the reporting guidelines from the IPCC. One of the other posters also submitted a reference to one of the PhDs that pulled out because they felt that the IPCC was pushing their agenda ahead of and to the detriment of the real science. BTW: This was not a junkscience.com reference either. I am not going to bother to repost the above.. it is already here on this blog.
But the web blogs aren’t intended as primary literature, but as explanations to laymen of what the meaning of the results are.
From the perspective of realclimate.org, yes. Realclimate.org can not claim to speak for other climatologists until it does.. and yes I found some references… compared to junkscience.com, they are kind of thin. I am bothered that the ‘debate‘ here is on the two websites as opposed to the underlying references. If the underlying references are used, then the quality of the discussion improves because we are dealing direct with research papers (though it is harder and slower to do).
When you go to a cardiologist, do you demand citations justifying his diagnoses? No, but said cardiologists certainly use them when they publish papers on research results to other ones.
Bad analogy. If the cardiologist uses a non approved procedure, the cardiologist can lose his license to practice. The way a procedure becomes approved is through published procedures and clinical trials. Right now on A-CO2-GW, we are on the publish/research phase.
is pretty good but old (prior ref cited – most recent is 2004) I would double check to see if there are more current papers considering the rate of change/knowledge growth. I think there are, and they may contradict these results. Won’t claim them until I find them (Note: Russia has some pretty good hard science, guess those guys don’t have much else to entertain them during the winter)
where ‘controversial big ideas’ (like anthropogenic global warming once was) get
Hate to inform you, but AGW is still controversial, as well as the magnitude involved. (no effect .. to .. Armageddon)
BTW: I didn’t bring up cosmic rays.. so you have to be replying to someone else’s post..
And asserting a hypothetical solar mechanism does NOT turn off the obvious, and experimentally demonstrated mechanism of GHG.
How could it? How do you turn off known physics? The physical connection from galactic cosmic rays is tenuous (but it may influence cloud formation) and the physical connection from GHGs is primary and obvious.
Huh on the first one (must not be replying to one of my posts) On the second one (influence cloud formation), this is one mechanism that I much mentioned much earlier, that would cause H20’s positive feedback to switch to a negative feedback as far as AGW would be concerned. I will not link it directly to Cosmic Rays though, until I had read the literature.
