The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

[Jutland]

Though she wouldn't have been the only one in such similar circumstances. Others like her await to see if they willmove on towards a tenure track.

The "ousted" term was that of the author of the article/link and you may want to take your quibble to them.

So she wasn't tenured, check. Also you did seem to parrot the tone of the article with this bit of commentary..

The "flat earth"ers are back and growing in numbers and influence/intimidation.

'Parrot', yeah that is a good description of what you do.

As pointed out in the article/link "peer review" is often far from objective nor an accurate gauge on validity of an article/concept. Most often it just reflects the "politically correct" consensus/majority opinions/views of an established thought line. See Galileo and how he was "peer reviewed" for one example.

Peer review isn't perfect,nobody says it is, it is only the lowest/first hurdle of proving the validity of papers. But any paper worth a **** has gone through the process.

I do data and math, not opinion/consensus, in my approach to science and related, you might want to try that BTW.

That sounds familiar...

No delusions just opinions based on research and analysis... you should try it some time.

Squack squack indeed

[Nick the Noodle]

Astronomy is a far older, more established science than "climatology", plus have a lot more instruments, more record of data and supposedly better "models", yet ...

How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?

By David Crookes - All About Space magazine 4 days ago Space
Space Mysteries: If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how can a star be more than 14 billion years old?

https://www.livescience.com/how-can-...-universe.html

So how can it be that they have a conundrum like this?
And if something seemingly this fundamental is causing contradictions, doesn't provide much endorsement for the "science" involved in ACC/AGW it would seem.

Once again, please read your sources before quoting what you believe supports your POV, when it clearly does not.

From the first article:

"The conclusion reached was that the age is about 14 billion years and, again, if one includes all sources of uncertainty — both in the observational measurements and the theoretical modelling — the error is about 700 or 800 million years, so there is no conflict because 13.8 billion years lies within the star's error bar," Bond said.

"The most likely explanations for the paradox are some overlooked observational effect and/or something big missing from our understanding of the dynamics of the cosmic expansion," Matthews said. Precisely what that "something" is, is sure to keep astronomers challenged for some time.

Again, please check your sources .

[G David Bock]

Once again, please read your sources before quoting what you believe supports your POV, when it clearly does not.

From the first article:





Again, please check your sources .

Nick,
Try doing that yourself also, like read the full article.

That "700-800 million year" variable is both a plus and a minus. If one applies as a minus then the star is just young enough to fit, but if applied as a plus than add to the about 14.5 billion year benchmark and you are up past 15 billion on that stars age.

Then further down in the article there is some indication that the Universe might be even younger than thought;
...
A higher value for the Hubble Constant indicates a shorter age for the universe. A constant of 67.74 km per second per megaparsec would lead to an age of 13.8 billion years, whereas one of 73, or even as high as 77 as some studies have shown, would indicate a universe age no greater than 12.7 billion years. It's a mismatch that suggests, once again, that HD 140283 is older than the universe. It has also since been superseded by a 2019 study published in the journal Science that proposed a Hubble Constant of 82.4 — suggesting that the universe's age is only 11.4 billion years.
...

And then there is the concluding paragraphs;
...
The mystery of the age of HD 140283 is leading to something bigger and more scientifically complex, altering the understanding of how the universe works.

"The most likely explanations for the paradox are some overlooked observational effect and/or something big missing from our understanding of the dynamics of the cosmic expansion," Matthews said. Precisely what that "something" is, is sure to keep astronomers challenged for some time.
....

So one of the take-aways here is how the more we know the more we seem to NOT know.
Which is the POV I'm tossing out for consideration.

[G David Bock]

So she wasn't tenured, check. Also you did seem to parrot the tone of the article with this bit of commentary..



'Parrot', yeah that is a good description of what you do.





Peer review isn't perfect,nobody says it is, it is only the lowest/first hurdle of proving the validity of papers. But any paper worth a **** has gone through the process.





That sounds familiar...



Squack squack indeed

Had you bothered to read the full article, you'd have noticed that the last two paragraphs do mention what "peer review" she has received;
...
Ms. Crockford has drawn the ire of environmental activists and scientists with whose views she disagrees, based in part on her associations with climate skeptical organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Her Polar Bear Science blog came under fire in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann, decrying the influence of “denier blogs,” which Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry blasted as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”
...
Note that is "hockey stick graph fraudster" Michael E. Mann, BTW;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

You are correct that "peer review" is far from perfect, or even accurate. Just ask Galileo how it worked for him during his lifetime of dealing with "flat-earthers", or more correctly, the science consensus of the Sun revolves around the Earth.

BTW, forum rules are to address the Post and not the Poster. You may be running risk of a brief vacation if you continue ...

[G David Bock]

A reminder, especially in regards to the above two posts, the Forum rules prohibit quoting in full any articles or published works under copyright. So like many here, I'll try to present a couple~few excerpt paragraphs that hint at the gist of an article that is linked, as well as provide a hopeful incentive to click and read the full link.

[marktwain]

Had you bothered to read the full article, you'd have noticed that the last two paragraphs do mention what "peer review" she has received;
...
Ms. Crockford has drawn the ire of environmental activists and scientists with whose views she disagrees, based in part on her associations with climate skeptical organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Her Polar Bear Science blog came under fire in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann, decrying the influence of “denier blogs,” which Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry blasted as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”
...
Note that is "hockey stick graph fraudster" Michael E. Mann, BTW;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

You are correct that "peer review" is far from perfect, or even accurate. Just ask Galileo how it worked for him during his lifetime of dealing with "flat-earthers", or more correctly, the science consensus of the Sun revolves around the Earth.

BTW, forum rules are to address the Post and not the Poster. You may be running risk of a brief vacation if you continue ...

\focusing on Ms. \Crockford, she does appear to have stepped on some toes with her claim that the science on the Hudson bay polar bear was 'FAKED' \while the \bear population slipped below 700, then recovered to more than 1,000
https://polarbearsinternational.org/...y-polar-bears/

[G David Bock]

\focusing on Ms. \Crockford, she does appear to have stepped on some toes with her claim that the science on the Hudson bay polar bear was 'FAKED' \while the \bear population slipped below 700, then recovered to more than 1,000
https://polarbearsinternational.org/...y-polar-bears/

Not seeing that statement or those numbers in your link
Did notice these;
...
With 19 polar bear populations across the Arctic, we are seeing 19 different scenarios play out as sea ice conditions change at different rates (and in different ways) across the polar bear’s range. ...
...
Population monitoring is complex and there are other factors involved.
...
So, is it all doom and gloom for the Western Hudson Bay population? Not yet. An odd quirk of climate may have slowed the predicted decline. The polar vortex may be helping the bears by giving Hudson Bay some extra frigid weather now and again. When the polar vortex detaches from the north (think of it as a southward bulge in Arctic weather), the sea ice in Hudson Bay gets a boost in thickness. Thicker ice can last longer and thus, the loss of sea ice in Hudson Bay hasn’t slipped away as fast I thought it might. Of course, the downside is that eastern Canada and the U.S. get blasted by wickedly cold weather. On the upside, the bears love it. The polar vortex isn’t going to save the Western Hudson Bay bears but it adds complexity to their story.
...
https://polarbearsinternational.org/...y-polar-bears/

[Nick the Noodle]

Nick,
Try doing that yourself also, like read the full article.

That "700-800 million year" variable is both a plus and a minus. If one applies as a minus then the star is just young enough to fit, but if applied as a plus than add to the about 14.5 billion year benchmark and you are up past 15 billion on that stars age.

Then further down in the article there is some indication that the Universe might be even younger than thought;
...
A higher value for the Hubble Constant indicates a shorter age for the universe. A constant of 67.74 km per second per megaparsec would lead to an age of 13.8 billion years, whereas one of 73, or even as high as 77 as some studies have shown, would indicate a universe age no greater than 12.7 billion years. It's a mismatch that suggests, once again, that HD 140283 is older than the universe. It has also since been superseded by a 2019 study published in the journal Science that proposed a Hubble Constant of 82.4 — suggesting that the universe's age is only 11.4 billion years.
...

And then there is the concluding paragraphs;
...
The mystery of the age of HD 140283 is leading to something bigger and more scientifically complex, altering the understanding of how the universe works.

"The most likely explanations for the paradox are some overlooked observational effect and/or something big missing from our understanding of the dynamics of the cosmic expansion," Matthews said. Precisely what that "something" is, is sure to keep astronomers challenged for some time.
....

So one of the take-aways here is how the more we know the more we seem to NOT know.
Which is the POV I'm tossing out for consideration.

The following is the actual smoking gun.

"Another factor that was important was, of all things, the amount of oxygen in the star," Bond said. HD 140283 had a higher than predicted oxygen-to-iron ratio and, since oxygen was not abundant in the universe for a few million years, it pointed again to a lower age for the star.

For the star to contain oxygen, it has to be younger than the universe .

What the article really states is that we do not yet fully understand many aspects of science and that you should not be posting such items as 'proof'.

[G David Bock]

The following is the actual smoking gun.



For the star to contain oxygen, it has to be younger than the universe .

What the article really states is that we do not yet fully understand many aspects of science and that you should not be posting such items as 'proof'.

Still some variables there, for one, iron is later on the periodic table of elements and in formation of such in stars so iron could be a greater indicator. IF their measures are correct/accurate.

"What the article really states is that we do not yet fully understand many aspects of science ..." Which is exactly why I posted and presented that article. You have problems understanding English?

Meanwhile, thanks for the censorship directive komrade Nick.

[Jutland]

Had you bothered to read the full article, you'd have noticed that the last two paragraphs do mention what "peer review" she has received;

And none of her peer reviewed work relates to Polar bears, check

Ms. Crockford has drawn the ire of environmental activists and scientists with whose views she disagrees, based in part on her associations with climate skeptical organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

She failed to disclose that she was getting PAID by the Heartland Institute, pretty naughty......

...
Note that is "hockey stick graph fraudster" Michael E. Mann, BTW;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Also I don't see how that Wikipedia backs up any of your claims; the hockey stick graph hasn't been debunked and Mann hasn't been found guilty of any fraud......

You are correct that "peer review" is far from perfect, or even accurate. Just ask Galileo how it worked for him during his lifetime of dealing with "flat-earthers", or more correctly, the science consensus of the Sun revolves around the Earth.

The thing is Galileo wasn't going against scientific consensus or a large body of contrary data, he was going against a politically and socially conservative organisation (the Vatican) and he didn't have the technology to prove his theories and he wasn't going 'fact for fact' with the authorities.

If Galileo was alive today he would look at Climate Change 'I agree with what the data/observation and analysis seems to indicate'

Which incidentally isn't the climate change denial blogosphere.

BTW, forum rules are to address the Post and not the Poster. You may be running risk of a brief vacation if you continue ...

I will keep that in mind.

[marktwain]

The following is the actual smoking gun.



For the star to contain oxygen, it has to be younger than the universe .

What the article really states is that we do not yet fully understand many aspects of science and that you should not be posting such items as 'proof'.

\the big question, Nick, is" are the polar bears thriving on that star?"

\\\\\\\\\\\\\regarding Crockford, there seems to be some petty pi$$iness on the U of Vics side \a 750.00 a month retainer from the \heartland Institute is pretty 'small taters'.

she does have a point- if the bear population is rebounding, then the
global warming link isn't as strong as postulated. The feeding on trapped beluga whales theory has some legs. IIRC, \belugas may be avoiding entering the Hudson and Davis straits for the winter due to the increased orcas, and end up trapped in small open water, then fished out by polar bears.
\a tonne of \beluga feeds a lot of \bears....





















vb

[G David Bock]

Again, for umpteenth time, those wanting to quibble over terms or words used should remember to precede with terms like "climate change" and "global warming" with the qualification of whether referencing "Natural" - which has been occurring for about 4 BILLION years, or the hypothesis of "anthropogenic" (human caused).

Few here are denying that natural climate change is ongoing, the issue is if human activity is having any significant and/or major impact~adjustment to the natural cycle. A good start is to PROVE that one part of Carbon dioxide(CO2) is really transferring heat to the other 2,499 parts of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.

[wolfhnd]

Again, for umpteenth time, those wanting to quibble over terms or words used should remember to precede with terms like "climate change" and "global warming" with the qualification of whether referencing "Natural" - which has been occurring for about 4 BILLION years, or the hypothesis of "anthropogenic" (human caused).

Few here are denying that natural climate change is ongoing, the issue is if human activity is having any significant and/or major impact~adjustment to the natural cycle. A good start is to PROVE that one part of Carbon dioxide(CO2) is really transferring heat to the other 2,499 parts of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.

You forgot> prove warming and higher co2 are "bad"

[G David Bock]

You forgot> prove warming and higher co2 are "bad"

That might be relative to some. The following graph shows we've had more time periods of glaciation=Ice Ages than of warming such as we have now. So one question is if the current claimed warming is holding off another due plunge back into an Ice Age ???



It also shows that often temperatures don't rise as much as claimed for the higher CO2 levels and often are lower than is currently being predicted; i.e. may not be any direct linkage as suggested.

A case has been made that CO2 and temperature have more a matter of coincidence than related cause. I'd wager one could make a graph showing that the increase in literacy among the planet's population over the period of the industrial age has a similar "connection" to "cause of" "global warming".

[G David Bock]

\the big question, Nick, is" are the polar bears thriving on that star?"

\\\\\\\\\\\\\regarding Crockford, there seems to be some petty pi$$iness on the U of Vics side \a 750.00 a month retainer from the \heartland Institute is pretty 'small taters'.

she does have a point- if the bear population is rebounding, then the
global warming link isn't as strong as postulated. The feeding on trapped beluga whales theory has some legs. IIRC, \belugas may be avoiding entering the Hudson and Davis straits for the winter due to the increased orcas, and end up trapped in small open water, then fished out by polar bears.
....edit...
vb

Especially 'small taters' compared to how much more she might have continued to bring in via grant money.
And 'small taters' to the compensation the pro-ACC/AGW "academics" receive.