• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Wed, Jul 28, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

Climate scientists

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

    #41
    Apology required

    JUNEAU, Alaska --
    A federal official says the suspension of Alaska wildlife biologist Charles Monnett is unrelated to a 2006 article Monnett wrote about presumably drowned Arctic polar bears.

    Michael Bromwich also says it's unrelated to Monnett's scientific work and instead a result of new information on a separate subject recently brought to light.
    Having totally jumped the gun and smeared a whole discipline, some might think an apology was in order...?
    Last edited by pjclarke; 29 July 2011, 21:10.
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

    Comment


      #42
      We don't seem to have had many of these BB/pj threads for a while. Is it just coincidence that when one starts a thread the other appears from the woodwork? Or are both Sas' sock-puppets?
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        We don't seem to have had many of these BB/pj threads for a while. Is it just coincidence that when one starts a thread the other appears from the woodwork? Or are both Sas' sock-puppets?
        Who always starts these threads?

        Comment


          #44
          Spencer & Braswell paper

          That didn't take long. Climate scientists are lining up to point out the flaws in this paper. Follow the links for the analysis, as a service for the time-poor, I've extracted the soundbites.

          The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.
          Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo

          out of touch with reality
          Kevin Trenberth again (NCAR)
          Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you. [...][Spencer's] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs.
          Andrew Dessler

          Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.

          Discover Magazine
          .

          Have a great weekend, don't read any pseudoscience.
          My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

          Comment


            #45
            Huh?

            Blaster, in response to a request for long term graphs you gave us Easterbrook's chart loosely based on GISP2 Greenland ice core data. There are numerous problems with the graph, and the guy who curates the data says this is a misuse of it, but let us take just the fact that it appears to show temperatures higher in medieval and Roman times by 2-3C.

            Yet the graph ends 95 years before present. Thus it excludes the period of modern manmade global warming. What has happened in Greenland in recent decades? Well, it has warmed by 3-4C



            Plot this on your graph and it would literally go off the scale. Please explain your thinking.

            In answer to the question, here's the graph since we had reasonable thermometer coverage.

            My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by pjclarke
              Usual completely bogus Don Easterbrook graph from BB. Here's the dissection.

              The data is sourced from Richard Alley, a bona fide expert, who opines



              When the expert you're citing says you're full of it, time to rethink the position, one might think.....
              You seem to be resorting to non-scientific bloggers, who´ve never done a jot a climate research in their lives to support your arguments. Desperate times.

              Really undescores how dead and buried AGW is.
              Last edited by BlasterBates; 30 July 2011, 09:23.
              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by pjclarke
                Well, that's a pretty good example of a pure ad hominem argument. But Gareth Renowden (Hot Topic blogger) is a distinguished science writer and comfortably has the skills to debunk Easterbrook's nonsense.

                And the GISP2 graph you keep posting up is based on a paper by Richard Alley. Alley has authored 150 reviewed publications and also and also wrote the standard text on ice cores.

                Alley says using this data to argue against modern global climate change is 'stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible'

                I am going with stupid. What do you think?
                An interesting point.

                Gareth Renowden suggests that ice core temp data is up to 1855, which is b"llsh*t. The temperature is derived from isotopes which are available up until 1987. Think about it....is he saying there´s no ice in the intervening years?

                When someone uses a Bullsh*t tó support their argument, the question is what should we think? That they´re misguided or they are themselves full of b*llsh*t.

                I would say that they´re full of b*llsh*t. What do you think?
                Last edited by BlasterBates; 30 July 2011, 16:51.
                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by pjclarke
                  I am going with stupid.
                  Well that has, traditionally, always tended to be your default position pj.

                  “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

                  Comment


                    #49
                    BS Indeed.

                    Gareth Renowden suggests that ice core temp data is up to 1855, which is b"llsh*t.
                    Er, BB your graph ends at 95 years Before Present does it not? Before Present by archealogical convention means prior to 1950, hence your graph ends in 1950-95 = 1855.

                    Of course ice is still forming, but it takes decades to compact down to form the strata used for dating.
                    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      As I say Bllsh*t:

                      The ratio of 18O to 16O depends on the temperature at the time snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. Ocean volume may also play a role in δ18O values, but δ18O serves as a good proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotopic composition of a sample is expressed as a departure of the 18O/16O ratio from an arbitrary standard

                      δ18O =

                      (18O/16O)sample ‒ (18O/16O) x 103
                      ____________________________________
                      (18O/16O)standard

                      where δ18O is the of ratio 18O/16O expressed in per mil (0/00) units.

                      The age of each sample is accurately known from annual dust layers in the ice core. The top of the core is 1987.
                      Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 ice core data | Watts Up With That?

                      Who do you believe a blogger or a professor of geolology who has specialised in glaciers.

                      Relying on programmers who blog about glaciology doesn't really help your credibility does it.

                      Perhaps you can cite someone other than a "nobody" or some paper that refutes Easterbrooks analysis.
                      I'm alright Jack

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X