Page 22 of 48 FirstFirst ... 12131415161718192021222324252627282930313247 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 960

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #421
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    That's laughable! When the people doing the peer review have their personal reputations or theories at stake the result is preordained. It's happened to many times in the past. The only way it could be credit is if the peer reviewers do not have a dog in the hunt...and that is rare.
    Get your head out of this conspiracy sandbox B.W., you are not credible:
    https://retractionwatch.com/2016/05/...r-model-mixup/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/...ng-retraction/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/...limate-change/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/...ge/#more-20060

    And you are describing what contrarians are doing, pal review:
    https://skepticalscience.com/pal-review.htm

    The devil is in the details. here's an example. It doesn't show any temperature anomaly over central Africa and in fact shows cooler temperatures in the Nile delta, etc.

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Gl...ULY%202005.png
    You are using a map for the month of July in the year 2005. Why not using the last map for June 2019 on the frontpage? https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...201906_map.png

    Or January 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...6globalmap.png

    Or even better, using annual map for the anomaly. Like 2018: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...annual_map.PNG
    Like 2017: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...LT_ANOMALY.PNG
    Like 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...LT_ANOMALY.png

    Or the trend map from 1978 to 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...6_trend_LT.png

    Tell me how it contradicts the consensus.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  2. #422
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    That's laughable! When the people doing the peer review have their personal reputations or theories at stake the result is preordained. It's happened to many times in the past. The only way it could be credit is if the peer reviewers do not have a dog in the hunt...and that is rare.
    Do you seriously want crap like this to be flooding the headlines of major scientific journals constantly.

  3. #423
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,829

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Cool. So we as nuclear physicist should start doing peer review for meteorology and they will do voodoo magic with our field theories and detector calibration? Come on, we have enough own problems with cables and data...

    EDIT: anybody remembering https://www.nature.com/news/neutrino...-light-1.10249 Point is, mistakes happen. That is natural part of research, no conspiracy needed..



    Pardon me, but you are again showing complete lack of understanding of the materials...global map is showing local results for July 2019, graph is showing average per month. Just look at map of 2019...there is more yellowish stuff than there is blueish. So result must be overall in red...What you say would be truth only if the graph was labeled like local over Central Africa/Nile Delta..
    It should have been obvious that the reason no data was shown in the Huntsville graphics concerning Africa is because no data was available. The IPCC literally invents data for that region. Additionally, the Nile delta was below temperature expectations and clearly does't fit the IPCC model. You can go through the data month by month if you like; go have a look.

    As far as your problem with cables and calibration on, if my thinking on it is right, your going to have a lot of problems even if you insure that everything including your helium leak detectors as well as your other detectors are constantly calibrated and records of deviations are maintained. And because much of your cabling is not shielded in its own containment and many other factors you may have problems with voltage surges,etc. Lots of testing there needs to be done.

    Your just going to have to make test run after test run until you finally get the peculiarities of your unique machine figured out. That's going to take time and patience (and money).

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    I got no ideal what you are talking about. You have a list of peer reviews that killed careers and that some reviewer was shown to malicious not just pointing out defects in a paper please link away... So what is you alternative BW? How would validate the quality of a paper before allowing to be published as a worthwhile addition to the body of science?
    The only way to properly do it is to have AGW skeptics and AGW proponents review and debate the paper's merits. Unfortunately, AGW proponents refuse to debate the skeptics. The only time they attempted it was in 2007 and they lost profoundly.

    Going further, I've read a number of papers that pointedly mentioned that cloud cover and its cause was not being addressed properly in the AGW models.

    There is one paragraph in the article that needs further explanation that I thought was weak was this;

    bsolute value of the second term (11°C · ∆c) in equation (1). It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud cover depend on each other [4]. So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly. According to the observations 1 % increase of the relative humidity decreases the temperature by 0.15°C, and consequently the last term in the above equation can be approximated by −15°C∆φ, where ∆φ is the change of the relative humidity at the altitude of the low clouds.

    ...it clearly needs more explanation.

  4. #424

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Get your head out of this conspiracy sandbox B.W., you are not credible:
    https://retractionwatch.com/2016/05/...r-model-mixup/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/...ng-retraction/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/...limate-change/
    https://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/...ge/#more-20060

    And you are describing what contrarians are doing, pal review:
    https://skepticalscience.com/pal-review.htm



    You are using a map for the month of July in the year 2005. Why not using the last map for June 2019 on the frontpage? https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...201906_map.png

    Or January 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...6globalmap.png

    Or even better, using annual map for the anomaly. Like 2018: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...annual_map.PNG
    Like 2017: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...LT_ANOMALY.PNG
    Like 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...LT_ANOMALY.png

    Or the trend map from 1978 to 2016: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/20...6_trend_LT.png

    Tell me how it contradicts the consensus.
    The consensus of scientists is sometimes wrong. The majority of scientist rejected Continental Drift initially, for example, and it was originally the consensus of scientists that the sun revovled around the earth. Even after Copernicus, some well known scientist like Tycho Brahe rejected the idea of the earth revovling around the sun. For centuries, the Copernicus theory required that the stars would have to be immense , even much, much, much bigger than they were actually, and such incredibly massive stars simply didn't seem feasible to some scientist. The Copernicus' theory didn't come up with a good explanation around having super large stars until many centuries later, when it was finally realized that the apparent magnitude of the stars was due to the blurry effect of the atmosphere.


    One thing I have never actually seen is a model that calculates the warming effect of CO2 that did not start with some initial assumption of the amount of warming caused by CO2. When you dig down and read the fine print, the models always assume that the initial level of CO2 caused some X amount of warming, and then predicted the rise of in temperature by an increase in the amount of CO2. None of the models I have seen model the temperature exclusively from the physical properties of CO2 and solar incident, without assuming that CO2 was causing some initial amount of warming in the first place. Can you show me model where it did not start off with assuming that the initial level of CO2 produced a given amount of warming? we

    The problem is that the Climate Change debate has become so politicized that regardless of what actually happens, scientist will make the data fit a warming trend. Despite having some record cold this winter in the Midwest, I have absolutely no doubt scientist will claim 2019 as one of the top 5 warmest years on record. And despite the earth being considerably warmer than today in he past long before us humans were around. Nor are the same climate scientist being totally honest with people, at least not in the popular press. The fact is, that a competent scientist will have to admit, is that our current climate conditions is inherently unstable over the long runrun (tens of thousands of years, maybe less). We are in an interglacial age that cycles between glacial ice ages and brief warming periods. And for all the talk about coastal flooding, a sheet of glaciers covering the continents would be even more damaging to the ecology and people than any warming produced by CO2. For th last few million years the Earth has been getting colder over all, and the glaciers coverage getting greater. Sooner or later, we will have another ice age. Currently, the the CO2 levels are so low that changes in orbit, tilt and solar radiation have major climate effects. For many millions of year in the past, when CO2 was much higher, the hd Earth's climate was much more stable over many millions of years. Perhaps instead of trying to achieve a stable climate that is not feasible with current low CO2 levels.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 18, 2019 at 03:45 PM.

  5. #425
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,293

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The only way to properly do it is to have AGW skeptics and AGW proponents review and debate the paper's merits. Unfortunately, AGW proponents refuse to debate the skeptics. The only time they attempted it was in 2007 and they lost profoundly.
    Presumably you want insist on anti vaax'er loon in on the review of all vaccine research as well?

    Again I go back to denier 'paper what was it #386 the anthers can't write a credible scientific paper why should they judge those who can?

    I also still waiting for an example of career ruined by peer review because it was malicious and biased, and not paper rejected because it was not a quality paper.


    -----


    The consensus of scientists is sometimes wrong. The majority of scientist rejected Continental Drift initially, for example, and it was originally the consensus of scientists that the sun revovled around the earth. Even after Copernicus, some well known scientist like Tycho Brahe rejected the idea of the earth revovling around the sun. For centuries, the Copernicus theory required that the stars would have to be immense , even much, much, much bigger than they were actually, and such incredibly massive stars simply didn't seem feasible to some scientist. The Copernicus' theory didn't come up with a good explanation around having super large stars until many centuries later, when it was finally realized that the apparent magnitude of the stars was due to the blurry effect of the atmosphere.
    Those are some weak arguments. On drift the problem was a means of its cause. I be skeptical of man made global warming if thee was no link to CO2 and the vast increase produced by humans as a driving element... Realistically Kepler had good answer to too many objections and the Church of was was deeply committed the the Aristotelian/Ptolemy view and it was effectively a theoretical mathematical argument with no really good empirical tools to use initaly. Its not really a fair comparison.
    Last edited by conon394; July 18, 2019 at 03:50 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  6. #426
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    One thing I have never actually seen is a model that calculates the warming effect of CO2 that did not start with some initial assumption of the amount of warming caused by CO2. When you dig down and read the fine print, the models always assume that the initial level of CO2 caused some X amount of warming, and then predicted the rise of in temperature by an increase in the amount of CO2. None of the models I have seen model the temperature exclusively from the physical properties of CO2 and solar incident, without assuming that CO2 was causing some initial amount of warming in the first place. Can you show me model where it did not start off with assuming that the initial level of CO2 produced a given amount of warming? we
    This is basically what is done with observational data in Feldman et al. 2015 (Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010) but if you want something about the modeling of the CO2 effect you should look to Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978 (Climate modeling through radiative‐convective models) and Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997 (Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget). The paper from Ramanathan is the most detailed. Myhre et al. 1998, (New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases) is a most recent calculation, included in the IPCC models now.

    The problem is that the Climate Change debate has become so politicized that regardless of what actually happens, scientist will make the data fit a warming trend. Despite having some record cold this winter in the Midwest, I have absolutely no doubt scientist will claim 2019 as one of the top 5 warmest years on record.
    Do you realize that you are opposing two things that are not contradicted by each other from a scientific point of view?

    And despite the earth being considerably warmer than today in he past long before us humans were around. Nor are the same climate scientist being totally honest with people, at least not in the popular press. The fact is, that a competent scientist will have to admit, is that our current climate conditions is inherently unstable over the long runrun (tens of thousands of years, maybe less). We are in an interglacial age that cycles between glacial ice ages and brief warming periods. And for all the talk about coastal flooding, a sheet of glaciers covering the continents would be even more damaging to the ecology and people than any warming produced by CO2. For th last few million years the Earth has been getting colder over all, and the glaciers coverage getting greater. Sooner or later, we will have another ice age. Currently, the the CO2 levels are so low that changes in orbit, tilt and solar radiation have major climate effects. For many millions of year in the past, when CO2 was much higher, the hd Earth's climate was much more stable over many millions of years. Perhaps instead of trying to achieve a stable climate that is not feasible with current low CO2 levels.
    We already have discussed this a bit before. I have the feeling you are always coming here to say the same random stuff, completely ignoring everything I explained. The CO2 level is actually enough to prevent a new ice age for the next tens thousands of years. In comparison the threat from a fast warming of the global climate is happening now and can become problematic in the next decades and centuries.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-em...ars-study-says

    Switching from Icehouse Earth to Hothouse Earth in less than two centuries won't be good for our societies. We can argue if this is something good in the long run of several millennia, but this is a digression from the actual issue of global warming.
    Last edited by Genava; July 18, 2019 at 05:41 PM.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  7. #427
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,360

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    We just had little halo due to new article in Nature. I won´t pretend I have read it whole, no time so far..especially as our part of table were particle, low temperature, astrophysicists but the other half with meotorologists and nature sceince guys had pretty nice talk. (next week we will try to hit them hard with some space particle crap ) So I think it will mostly might be interesting to @Genava

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

    Okey so poinst I took from it:

    -scientist explored 2500 years back ,found some heat anomalies but

    -despite times with higher temperature in history, current trend is unprecedented and way greater than any other anomaly in history
    (
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...er=www.bbc.com

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...er=www.bbc.com

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...er=www.bbc.com
    )

    -it is first time in history when warming is trully global
    (for example small ice age hit in Pacific Ocean in 15 century but in EU during 17 century, medieval warm period between 950-1250 hit just 40% of Earth surface....record up to now.)

    -current warming is simply out off comparison with any previous one. Previous warm periods were linked with Volcanic activity plus there are no proofs that temperature differences were cause by Sun changing Intensity or other space sources.
    ...so the conclusion is simple. Humanity is the reason. Simply natural processes are not strong enough to cause current level in intensity and globality.
    Last edited by Daruwind; July 26, 2019 at 04:40 PM.

    DMR: R2 (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  8. #428
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,403

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    I think human involvement in warming is established, on top of other causes.

    I don't think we have the political leadership in the West to interfere in runaway warming. Places with undemocratic centralised rule have abetter chance of legislating comprehensively, but not necessarily effectively: In the 1960's China managed some amazing results like nearly exterminating all flies and small birds (an ecological disaster).

    In my country we have poor water security the population may already be too large for existing resources, and warming will alter those resources (not sure if there will be more or less). One symptom is the critical decline of the Murray Darling river system, with upstream users stealingwater from downstream states, so much so that the rive rno longer reaches the sea.

    Corporate interests (with large proportion of foreign corporations, especially British) have successfully stopped effective riparian reform, and in fact pocketed billions in "drought proofing funds". The money was supposed to be used to reduce water use (implementation was poorly supervised so it may have gone offshore for all we know), but in fact water use has increased and ecological disaster like algal blooms and concomitant fish kills have become more common.

    This is a simple matter of economics. Export cash crops like cotton are being grown in semi-arid regions, using water stole from the breadbasket regions downstream. Essentially tax money goes to foreign interests whose water theft increases domestic food costs.

    Were a rich country and can afford these sort of rorts without people starving...yet. I very much doubt we could respond effectively to coming water crises given the current debacle.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #429
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,718

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind
    current warming is simply out off comparison with any previous one. Previous warm periods were linked with Volcanic activity plus there are no proofs that temperature differences were cause by Sun changing Intensity or other space sources.
    ...so the conclusion is simple. Humanity is the reason. Simply natural processes are not strong enough to cause current level in intensity and globality.
    This along with NASA's 'hockey-stick' graph, now the official document of the Global warming religion is utter BS! "WHEN you're willing to manipulate data you can create any result you want, and they wanted to show warming"...

    The climate alarmist- NASA/NOAA have been caught manipulating data.
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...data-yet-again

    Comparing NASA charts from the years 2000, 2017, and 2019, data has been manipulated multiple times since the year 2000.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tODIRhhV80
    Last edited by Stario; August 06, 2019 at 10:39 AM.

  10. #430
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Well, this seems a bogus argument. Why the NASA and the NOAA would be tampering the data while they are publishing the changes in their website and publishing their methods in peer-reviewed papers? Everybody is seeing that they are making changes. Their website even allows the user to compare each versions with another. NASA's scientists are smarts but not that much to hide their evil tricks? Actually, they gave good arguments for these changes and everything is transparent and free to access. The changes by each versions are not consistent with the purpose of increasing the warming trend since even older values get warmer (which is actually reducing the warming trend). In fact, it seems that the website you are relying on is actually the source of deceptive arguments and manipulation. Their dataset is comparing two different types of data to make you believe that the changes are very high (going up to 0.4°C while they are less than 0.15°C with a correct dataset comparison). And their perpetual recall to the figure of Hubert Lamb made in 1965 as a proof of manipulation is not only deceptive, this is as well really stupid.

    At the end, your argumentation from all your messages in this thread looks like this:

    You are saying that the dataset from the NASA, an American independent agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the NOAA, an American government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the MetOffice, a British government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the JMA, a Japanese government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the Berkeley Earth, an American independent non-profit organization, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), an American state-supported research university, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), an American private research company, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    You are saying that the dataset from the ECMWF, an independent intergovernmental organisation supported by 34 states, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

    Etc.






    Scientists Find Observed Satellite Temperature Data Sets from Three Independent Research Groups Have Less Than a One-in-3.5 Million Chance of Occurring in the Absence of Human-Induced Global Warming
    http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/scient...lobal-warming/

    Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/aafd4e
    If you are repeating the same thing I will repeat my messages.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  11. #431
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,829

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    A major blow to the AGW alarmists has occurred. The creator of the "hockey stick" made famous by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth has lost his lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball who claimed the hockey stick was fraudulent. This is big news because the "stick" is still being used by the IPCC and other alarmists.

    Man lost his lawsuit because he would not reveal his data source. I should have said fake data source. Man was "validated" by his own university when the data was called into question. So much for university peer review. It was all about the Benjamin's.

    The AGW "theory" is going down. It's just a matter of time. The really frightening thing is that so many young people were so thoroughly indoctrinated that they still support it even though it has been shown that the data was doctored to fit the computer model. Truly incredible.

    https://principia-scientific.org/bre...imate-lawsuit/

  12. #432
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    A major blow to the AGW alarmists has occurred. The creator of the "hockey stick" made famous by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth has lost his lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball who claimed the hockey stick was fraudulent. This is big news because the "stick" is still being used by the IPCC and other alarmists.

    Man lost his lawsuit because he would not reveal his data source. I should have said fake data source. Man was "validated" by his own university when the data was called into question. So much for university peer review. It was all about the Benjamin's.

    The AGW "theory" is going down. It's just a matter of time. The really frightening thing is that so many young people were so thoroughly indoctrinated that they still support it even though it has been shown that the data was doctored to fit the computer model. Truly incredible.

    https://principia-scientific.org/bre...imate-lawsuit/
    Actually... nobody won. It does not prove or disprove anything about the Hockey Stick. The lawsuit has been dismissed. https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...10044414189568

    By the way, the Hockey Stick has been reproduced by other research groups with different data:

    Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
    https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a

    Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...imate_evidence

    Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
    https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

    Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

    Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
    http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

    A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

    Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  13. #433
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,829

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Actually... nobody won. It does not prove or disprove anything about the Hockey Stick. The lawsuit has been dismissed. https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...10044414189568

    By the way, the Hockey Stick has been reproduced by other research groups with different data:

    Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
    https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a

    Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...imate_evidence

    Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
    https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

    Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

    Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
    http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

    A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

    Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

    Class, take note. This is example A.

    I make a comment that AGW proponents are so indoctrinated that they are willing to believe manipulated data and guess what?...responder replies by citing a list of publications that were produced with manipulated data.

    By the way, Dr. Ball was awarded court costs and lawyer fees which amount to several million dollars. The suit was dismissed because Mann refused to reveal his sources for the hockey stick graph.

  14. #434
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    responder replies by citing a list of publications that were produced with manipulated data.
    Different groups from different countries and different institutions, using different methodology on different data, all found a Hockey Stick trend. But they are "manipulated". How comfortable it is to be blind...

    By the way, Dr. Ball was awarded court costs and lawyer fees which amount to several million dollars.
    Lawyer fees it doesn't seem so: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...10044414189568
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  15. #435
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,829

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Different groups from different countries and different institutions, using different methodology on different data, all found a Hockey Stick trend. But they are "manipulated". How comfortable it is to be blind...



    Lawyer fees it doesn't seem so: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...10044414189568
    Extrapolating data from a singe tree's rings and using it to determine world wide tree growth in order to perpetuate a global economic scam is criminal.

    Mann can tweet all he wants. Sure he won't have to pay court costs until his appeal is resolved. There is nothing to indicate that there will be a different result. The man won't release his sources for data. That says all there is to say.

  16. #436
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Extrapolating data from a singe tree's rings and using it to determine world wide tree growth in order to perpetuate a global economic scam is criminal.
    At least you are demonstrating that you didn't have even read the titles of the other studies. There are plenty of different proxies that showed the same trend. Even ice cores.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  17. #437

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Different groups from different countries and different institutions, using different methodology on different data, all found a Hockey Stick trend. But they are "manipulated". How comfortable it is to be blind...



    Lawyer fees it doesn't seem so: [url]https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568[a/url]

    All the evidence in the world if people don't trust the those presenting the data. There are a number of ways that scientist could adjust the results to get their

  18. #438
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,829

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    At least you are demonstrating that you didn't have even read the titles of the other studies. There are plenty of different proxies that showed the same trend. Even ice cores.
    I went through the list. All except one are quite dated and are known to have been created with manipulated data at that time. The ice core data has been interpreted differently and the article you posted is questionable and I believe I posted an article about it. You must not have read it.

  19. #439

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    All the evidence in the world if people don't trust the those presenting the data. There are a number of ways that scientist could adjust the results to get their
    But that is just an argument against the concept of science and scientists. If they are just going to be dismissed when somebody doesn't like the findings they get, why even have scientists?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #440
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    888

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The man won't release his sources for data. That says all there is to say.
    I found that statement weird and improbable. The data are publicly available for more than 15 years. This is why different groups have made an analysis of Mann's methodology. So what's going on? What Tim Ball is asking?

    I found details on the AmericanThinker:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    R2 regression numbers are in the supplementary information associated with the original article on Nature.com:



    So it smells fishy. I think we have a typical behavior from Tim Ball here... Exactly the same with Weaver's case against him:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    And here the statement from Mann's lawyer to Mann as an explanation of the situation:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •