Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We love charts so here is an interesting one.



    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...17996/abstract
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      We really aren't talking about the peer review system anymore but what would have to amount to a conspiracy.
      The peer review system, across a wide range of disciplines, is in dire need of reform. In many medical fields, the peer review system is even more screwed up than it is in the environmental and climate science areas.

      It's a common misconception that "peer-review" is some sort of verification process. Reviewers do not check the work or attempt to reproduce the results. They simply proofread the paper to see if there are any glaring errors and determine if it merits publication. Since they don't check the work, the errors have to be glaring like a supernova.

      "Pal-review" and other willful efforts to undermine the process compound the problem...
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      The aspect of scientific publication is broken...



      The purpose of peer-review is not to "check the work." The purpose is simply to determine if a paper merits publication. This is problematic because the public perceives peer-review as a confirmation of the paper's conclusions...
      From 2001 to 2009, the number of retractions issued in the scientific literature rose tenfold. It remains a matter of debate whether that’s because misconduct is increasing or is just easier to root out. Fang suspects, based on his experiences as a journal editor, that misconduct has become more common. Others aren’t so sure. “It’s easy to show — I’ve done it — that all this growth in retractions is accounted for by the number of new journals that are retracting,” Fanelli said. Still, even with the rise in retractions, fewer than 0.02 percent of publications are retracted annually.

      Peer review is supposed to protect against shoddy science, but in November, Oransky, Marcus and Cat Ferguson, then a staff writer at Retraction Watch, uncovered a ring of fraudulent peer reviewing in which some authors exploited flaws in publishers’ computer systems so they could review their own papers (and those of close colleagues).

      Even legitimate peer reviewers let through plenty of errors. Andrew Vickers is the statistical editor at the journal European Urology and a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. A few years back, he decided to write up guidelines for contributors describing common statistical errors and how to avoid them. In preparation for writing the list, he and some colleagues looked back at papers their journal had already published. “We had to go back about 17 papers before we found one without an error,” he told me. His journal isn’t alone — similar problems have turned up, he said, in anesthesia, pain, pediatrics and numerous other types of journals.

      Many reviewers just don’t check the methods and statistics sections of a paper, and Arthur Caplan, a medical ethicist at New York University, told me that’s partly because they’re not paid or rewarded for time-consuming peer review work.

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-isnt-broken/

      Since conclusions are often drawn from statistical analyses, it is shocking that these methods are almost never checked for repeatability. Quite often the problem is that the authors are rarely well-grounded in statistical analysis, despite being "experts" in their respective fields.
      That said, the current system is better than nothing.

      Regarding conspiracies...
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact that this conspiracy occurred.

      Look up the word "conspiracy" in the dictionary and then explain how this is not a conspiracy...
      “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

      --Phil Jones, University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

      There's nothing theoretical about this particular conspiracy...
      In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

      "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

      In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

      "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112102186.html
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        We love charts so here is an interesting one.

        [IMG...ttp://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm98/wolfhnd/seaice.jpg[/IMG]

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...17996/abstract
        Where did he get Arctic sea ice data prior to 1979? There are no actual measurements prior to the satellite measurements began in 1979.

        A cross plot of CO2 vs Arctic sea ice would yield totally unrealistic results if extrapolated back to 280 ppmv.

        Furthermore, the fact that the CO2 vs polar sea ice extent correlation for the Antarctic, invalidates a cause and effect relationship.

        Last edited by The Doctor; 20 Oct 15, 04:32.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • The bulk ice pCO2 values observed during the present study
          in the Antarctic are within the same range as those few
          records existing in the Arctic at Barrow, Alaska (Geilfus et
          al., 2012b), and Resolute Bay, Canada (Geilfus et al., 2014)
          (Fig. 10a and b), where sampling also included melting,
          nearly isothermal first-year landfast sea ice in late spring.
          Higher pCO2 values were reported from early spring sea ice
          at Barrow (Geilfus et al., 2012b) and from SW Greenland
          (Crabeck et al., 2014). Albeit based on limited data, Antarctic
          sea ice may have lower pCO2 values than Arctic sea ice at
          the same ice temperature however, differences in the sea
          ice texture and dynamical forcing between the two poles are
          important and may have substantial effects on permeability
          (and therefore fluxes) and should be further investigated. It
          is noteworthy that the observed range of concentrations suggests
          that Antarctic sea ice becomes undersaturated in CO2
          relative to the atmosphere early in the winter–spring transition
          and reaches levels not observed in Arctic sea ice until
          much later in the spring decay process (Geilfus et al.,
          2012a, b, 2014; Crabeck et al., 2014).

          http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/176906
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            The bulk ice pCO2 values observed during the present study
            in the Antarctic are within the same range as those few
            records existing in the Arctic at Barrow, Alaska (Geilfus et
            al., 2012b), and Resolute Bay, Canada (Geilfus et al., 2014)
            (Fig. 10a and b), where sampling also included melting,
            nearly isothermal first-year landfast sea ice in late spring.
            Higher pCO2 values were reported from early spring sea ice
            at Barrow (Geilfus et al., 2012b) and from SW Greenland
            (Crabeck et al., 2014). Albeit based on limited data, Antarctic
            sea ice may have lower pCO2 values than Arctic sea ice at
            the same ice temperature however, differences in the sea
            ice texture and dynamical forcing between the two poles are
            important and may have substantial effects on permeability
            (and therefore fluxes) and should be further investigated. It
            is noteworthy that the observed range of concentrations suggests
            that Antarctic sea ice becomes undersaturated in CO2
            relative to the atmosphere early in the winter–spring transition
            and reaches levels not observed in Arctic sea ice until
            much later in the spring decay process (Geilfus et al.,
            2012a, b, 2014; Crabeck et al., 2014).

            http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/176906
            And?
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              The bulk ice pCO2 values observed during the present study
              in the Antarctic are within the same range as those few
              records existing in the Arctic at Barrow, Alaska (Geilfus et
              al., 2012b), and Resolute Bay, Canada (Geilfus et al., 2014)
              (Fig. 10a and b), where sampling also included melting,
              nearly isothermal first-year landfast sea ice in late spring.
              Higher pCO2 values were reported from early spring sea ice
              at Barrow (Geilfus et al., 2012b) and from SW Greenland
              (Crabeck et al., 2014). Albeit based on limited data, Antarctic
              sea ice may have lower pCO2 values than Arctic sea ice at
              the same ice temperature however, differences in the sea
              ice texture and dynamical forcing between the two poles are
              important and may have substantial effects on permeability
              (and therefore fluxes) and should be further investigated. It
              is noteworthy that the observed range of concentrations suggests
              that Antarctic sea ice becomes undersaturated in CO2
              relative to the atmosphere early in the winter–spring transition
              and reaches levels not observed in Arctic sea ice until
              much later in the spring decay process (Geilfus et al.,
              2012a, b, 2014; Crabeck et al., 2014).

              http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/176906
              Don't have time to read the whole link but "landfast" and seasons mentioned lead me to think they are mostly seeing the effects of coastal flora and fauna in the Arctic Ocean's O2~CO2 exchange. Longer to total dark Winter puts flora out of sunlight and nearly non-functional on the convert CO2 to O2 cycle which could explain the higher CO2 that doesn't decline until into warmer and more light Summer.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
              Present Current Events are the Future's History

              Comment


              • Due to the seasonal variations in co2 levels in the arctic I'm beginning to think the ice cored data may not be very reliable. It seems most of the snow falls in the summer.

                As far as the sea ice it's just another factor to consider.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  Due to the seasonal variations in co2 levels in the arctic I'm beginning to think the ice cored data may not be very reliable. It seems most of the snow falls in the summer.

                  As far as the sea ice it's just another factor to consider.
                  Ice cores, for historical purposes, for aren't drilled in sea ice.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Ice cores, for historical purposes, for aren't drilled in sea ice.
                    No kidding,
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      No kidding,
                      The ice cores are reliable to the limits of their resolution.

                      The problem is that the Gorebots tend to disregard resolution.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        The ice cores are reliable to the limits of their resolution.

                        The problem is that the Gorebots tend to disregard resolution.
                        Reliable onto themselves but if projected to global levels I think they could easily be misused.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          Reliable onto themselves but if projected to global levels I think they could easily be misused.
                          Short answer: Ice cores are useful tools for estimating pre-instrumental atmospheric CO2 concentrations and have been misused, frequently and fraudulently.

                          Long answer: Dissertation to follow over the next day or so.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Hello all...All the undoubted intellectuals posting here, (myself excluded).

                            The Doc mentioned the number of 'papers' that have been submitted and retracted are on the rise, and offered a nice diagram to explain it.

                            I'm going to support this view.

                            One night, I heard a very interesting BBC documentary on radio. It was the Science Show, and they were looking at EXPERT OPINION.

                            The BBC claims to have made a long study into expert view, as opposed to amatuer viewpoints.
                            They compared differing views from all sorts of fields, and contrasted them to the results actually published and proven later on.

                            Their astounding conclusion was that 'expert' viewpoints, in any field you care to name, where NO MORE LIKELY to come to a reasoned conclusion, by a hefty margin.

                            The Doc's table is, therefore, backed up in other fields, not just scientific, and definately not in the climate change Debate that rages throughout the world.

                            Good one The Doctor....I would add to your already oversized 'bag' of reputation points, but i feel that any more points to your score would give me more of a case of inferiority than I already possess.

                            Don't let that stop you from throwing a point or two my way, now!

                            I have also been under much hilarity for suggesting that The Doc is impartial (I don't mind a good laugh at my own expense!). Well, I expect ANY scientist to be impartial. After all, his avatar shows "Bones" from Star Trek, the most impartial man on the ship. even "Spock" is guilty of opinionated logic, but "Bones" is the quintessential scientist.

                            Or am i placing to much sway on avatars? My Avatar is a result of my inability to post a bloody picture, making me look like a Communist sympathizer. I wish the site would offer a set of generic pictures, like Axis History Forum do.

                            Christopher
                            My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                            Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                            GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                            Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                            Comment


                            • Old textbooks can be so cool. Way back in the fall semester of 1976, this was my Physical Geography textbook...



                              It was my first introduction to climatology. I just noticed that one of the authors was the late Reid Bryson, the "father of scientific climatology" and AGW skeptic...



                              This is what it had to say about the so-called greenhouse effect...





                              "As a planet, the Earth is not warming or cooling appreciably on average..."

                              The book was published in 1974.

                              Green = "not warming or cooling appreciably on average"
                              Red = Gorebal Warming crisis.



                              The rate of warming from 1975-2010 is almost identical to the rate of.warming from.1910-1945 (smack in the middle of "not warming or cooling appreciably on average").





                              Green = "not warming or cooling appreciably on average"
                              Red = Gorebal Warming crisis.

                              Green ≈ Red

                              Therfore AGW is

                              QED
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • "After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

                                Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3piuH4wNa"

                                http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/sa...lobal-warming/
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X