Thongchai Thailand

CLIMATE CHANGE ON RESEARCHGATE

Posted on: June 19, 2020

bandicam 2020-06-19 16-35-11-798

bandicam 2020-06-19 16-37-23-785

bandicam 2020-06-19 16-32-47-852

[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

 

RESEARCH PAPERS CRITICAL OF AGW CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE UNLIKELY TO GET PUBLISHED IN TRADITIONAL JOURNALS BECAUSE OF A BIAS AGAINST WHAT IS TERMED “CLIMATE DENIAL”, BUT THERE ARE ONLINE JOURNALS SUCH AS RESEARCHGATE.NET, ACADEMIA.EDU, ARXIV.ORG, AND SSRN.COM WHERE SUCH CLIMATE DENIAL PAPERS ARE FREELY PUBLISHED BECAUSE THE WAY THEIR PEER REVIEW WORKS IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF TRADITIONAL JOURNALS. 

IN THESE ONLINE JOURNALS, PAPERS ARE NOT PAY-WALLED AND THEY ARE NOT PRE-JUDGED EITHER BY EDITORS OR BY PEER REVIEWERS EXCEPT FOR OVERALL SPECIFICATIONS ABOUT FORMAT AND CERTAIN  CRITERIA ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACADEMIC RESEARCH PAPER. 

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THESE ONLINE JOURNALS ARE EVALUATED AND PEER REVIEWED NOT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION BUT AFTER PUBLICATION IN TERMS OF READER COMMENTS, NUMBER OF READS, NUMBER OF DOWNLOADS, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS. MANY INDEPENDENT MINDED CLIMATE RESEARCHERS SUCH AS THE VENERABLE PAUL KENCH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND, EDWIN BERRY OF MONTANA,TOM SEGALSTAD OF OSLO, AND PEOPLE LIKE CHARLES KEELING AND TIMOTHY WHARF OF TIDAL CYCLE FAME PUBLISH IN ONLINE JOURNALS. A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPEN AND UNBIASED RESEARCH SHARING ENVIRONMENT IS THAT IT FACILITATES GREATER INTERACTION AMONG RESEARCHERS AND BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND READERS WITH MUCH FASTER TURNAROUND FROM WRITING TO PUBLISHING TO RESPONSES AND THEREBY TO NEW IDEAS.

MANY SUCH INTERACTIONS HAVE RESULTED IN COOPERATIVE PAPERS BY RESEARCHERS WHO MET IN ONLINE PUBLISHING SITES. IN THIS RESPECT, THE OLD 19TH CENTURY PUBLISHING MODEL SEEMS GROSSLY INEFFICIENT IN TERMS OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF RESEARCH PUBLISHING. TO PUBLISH MEANS TO “MAKE PUBLIC”.

THIS SIMPLE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH PUBLISHING HAS BECOME CORRUPTED BY THE SO CALLED RTP PROCESS OF UNIVERSITIES IN WHICH “RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION” OF UN-TENURED FACULTY CONTAINS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE FOR RESEARCH MEASURED AS NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS – AN ODD EQUATION THAT EVENTUALLY GAVE RISE TO THE PAY-TO-PUBLISH AND PAY-TO-READ “PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL” BUSINESS THAT CATERS TO UN-TENURED FACULTY UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE TO PUBLISH JUST TO PUBLISH AS A WAY OF ACHIEVING TENURE AND PROMOTION. THIS PUBLISHING MODEL OF ACADEMIA IS A GROSS CORRUPTION OF THE IDEA OF RESEARCH FOR THE SAKE OF RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE. 

 

HERE WE PRESENT SOME PAPERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOUND ON RESEARCHGATE.NET AS A SAMPLE OF THIS PROMISING NEW FRONTIER IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH PUBLICATION AND SHARING OF RESEARCH AND IDEAS UNHINDERED BY EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON WHAT VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE ARE ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT VIEWS ARE NOT. 

 

RESEARCH PAPER #1: PAUL KENCH & NICHOL SCOTT: New Model of reef-island evolution: Maldives, Indian Ocean, January 2005 Geology 33(2):145-148, DOI: 10.1130/G21066.1, Paul Kench, NicholScott: ABSTRACT: A new model of reef-island evolution, based on detailed morphostratigraphic analysis and radiometric dating of three islands in South Maalhosmadulu Atoll, Maldives, is presented. Islands initially formed on a foundation of lagoonal sediments between 5500 and 4500 yr B.P. when the reef surface was as much as 2.5 m below modern sea level. Islands accumulated rapidly during the following 1500 yr, effectively reaching their current dimensions by 4000 yr B.P. Since then the high circum-island peripheral ridge has been subject to seasonal and longer-term shoreline changes, while the outer reef has grown upward, reducing the energy window and confining the islands. This new model has far-reaching implications for island stability during a period of global warming and raised sea level, which will partially reactivate the energy window, although it is not expected to inhibit upward reef growth or compromise island stability. [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

RESEARCH PAPER #2: ARTHUR WEBB AND PAUL KENCH: The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific, June 2010, Global and Planetary Change 72(3):234-246, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003, Arthur Webb, Paul Kench: ABSTRACT: Low-Lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea-level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the time frame of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases. Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea-level rise in the central Pacific. First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change. Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor. Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by. [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

RESEARCH PAPER #3: EDWIN BERRY: Human CO 2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2, July 2019, DOI: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13, Project: Climate effects of human CO2 emissions. Edwin Berry.  ABSTRACT:  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO 2 is only 5 percent and natural CO 2 is 95 percent of the CO 2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO 2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO 2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO 2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO 2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO 2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO 2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO 2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO 2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO 2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO 2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO 2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO 2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO 2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO 2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO 2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC. [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

RESEARCH PAPER #4: TOM SEGALSTADSegalstad, Tom V. “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the” Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.” Global Warming the Continuing Debate. Cambridge, UK. European Science and Environmental Forum. 1998.: The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively “edited”. Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion “buffer” correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior. The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC’s atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC’s wrong model creates its artificial 50% “missing sink”. IPCC’s 50% inexplicable “missing sink” of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC’s model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the “scare-them-to-death” influence principle. IPCC’s “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda “pop” as we know it.  [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

RESEARCH PAPER #5: TOM SEGALSTAD: Some thoughts on ocean chemistry (Chapter 6.3.1.2), January 2014, In book: Climate Change Reconsidered II – Biological Impacts.Chapter: 6.3.1.2Publisher: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); Heartland Institute, Tom SegalstadABSTRACT:  The “acidification” of the ocean — or rather its potential progression toward less alkaline conditions — is postulated to result in serious consequences to marine life, including the dissolution of lime Shells of various marine organisms. However, the Foundation of the ocean acidification scare is disputed and challenged in the scientific literature. The present section approaches and critiques the hypothesis from a geochemical perspective.  [LINK TO FULL TEXT]  {THIS PAPER IS ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION}

 

RESEARCH PAPER #6: NICOLA SCAFETTA Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
March 2012: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.016, Nicola Scafetta  ABSTRACT:
The sunspot record since 1749 is made of three major cycles (9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 yr). The side frequencies are related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (9.93 yr) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (11.86 yr). A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-eriodic interference/beat patterns at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium known as Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as 17 115-year long oscillations found in temperature reconstructions during the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Prolonged solar minima in 1900-1920 and 1960-1980, the secular solar maxima around 1870-1890, 1940-1950 and 1995-2005, and a secular upward trending during the 20th century is recovered: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar grand minimum during 2020-2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Solar and climate oscillations are linked to p​l​a​n​e​t​a​r… [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

 

RESEARCH PAPER #7: KEELING AND WHORF:  The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change, May 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(8):3814-9, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.070047197, SourcePubMed, Charles D. Keeling & Timothy P. Whorf. Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing. THIS WORK IS ALSO AVAILABLLE ON PNAS WITH FULL TEXT [LINK TO FULL TEXT]

 

POSTSCRIPT: THE TIDAL CYCLE PAPER BY KEELING AND WHORF IS DISCUSSED IN MY POST ON TIDAL CYCLES [LINK TO TIDAL CYCLE POST]

WHORF2

 

QUESTION: IS THIS THE SAME KEELING AS IN THE KEELING CURVE ? ANSWER: YES

The Keeling curve illustrating trends in atmospheric carbon ...

4 Responses to "CLIMATE CHANGE ON RESEARCHGATE"

Is this guy serious, or seriously embacing all-in Ignoramus as an snti-scientific lifestyle?

Researchgate isn’t a research journal– it’s a bibliometric scientific impact service that does not review what users choose to post on their pages .

It’s hard to say if he can’t tell the difference between bloggerel and the scientific literature , or has lost the will to so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: