I always know I've won a debate when the loser goes off topic and starts the ad hominem attacks against my intellect.
Thank you for the opportunity to kick your butt.
(Were you there? You haven't answered that yet.)
See ya. Been swell.
Printable View
I always know I've won a debate when the loser goes off topic and starts the ad hominem attacks against my intellect.
Thank you for the opportunity to kick your butt.
(Were you there? You haven't answered that yet.)
See ya. Been swell.
^
Typical of the head-banger Libs on here. All they have is insult and flame.
But, but, the Science is In!
Careful Mr. JBaker, it's heresy to whisper any doubts re Globull Warming.
Remember... The Narrative...:chitown:
^^ Yeah, libs don't need facts. They have each other, LOL. It's fun to ask them to back up their claims and watch them squirm. If they couldn't quote each other they'd have nothing to say, LOL.
It's really difficult to debate with you when you don't actually understand what the terms mean or what the rights terms are, and all you can do is resort to name calling. It doesn't really reflect on you very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
e.g.:
"client modelling" is not a thing I've ever indulged in or "felt with", but if I was to model you (and bsnub), the results might look a bit like this:
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
etc...
Do you get my point? It's not very constructive; a bit like starting with "Hardy [sic] my dear boy" etc...
The point about "good quality english" is *attention to detail*. If you've rushed through and not checked your spelling, then it suggests you may not have checked the content of what you are saying.
I mean, using words like "dataset" doesn't really lend extra weight to anything - a receipt from a fastfood joint is a dataset.
When you say "richard miller", you seem to mean "Richard Muller", correct?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...ptic.html?_r=0
Do you actually have a link to the paper you're trying to use for your argument?
Do you mean the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project" "Land+Ocean Dataset"?
Berkeley Earth
If so that's fine, but it doesn't contradict what I said.
I don't quite get what you mean by "my stance". I'm absolutely not in a minority, I'm describing the terms that are normally used, and the consensus I've seen about the need to collect more data.
Here's a blog post by a scientist that illustrates my point:
Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science | Climate Etc.
What I said was that the correct term is not "global warming", but "anthropogenic climate change", which encompasses the full complexity of changes that occur both globally and locally that are not always all in the same direction.
It is pedantry perhaps, but that's the point of science, the terms you use matter.
That's the term you have to use when you write a paper, otherwise you sound like a journalist, and not very credible, because you're using the wrong terms, and simplistic terms that just state that only one simple thing is happening, when it's known that it's more complex than that.
...or to quote myself, in case you missed it:
I also said that the equipment deployed to collect data is limited and there is a lot more data out there that isn't collected, and you need a lot more data to have a more complete and useful picture of what is happening. Just having a pretty set of technicolor maps is not the end of the story - all science is, is a better guess. You need to ask the questions about the resolution of the data (how much guessing is the computer model doing to fill in the gaps); and then there's the reliability of the sensors and whether there are things affecting the data they are collecting (the list is extensive). Taking the numbers at face value is wrong, you need to repeat, check, repeat, check, repeat, check, etc... and once you've run out of track, you say, well, it looks like this is what's happening; and then someone else has a go.Quote:
The term "global warming" is the incorrect one; the correct term, is "anthropogenic climate change", because there's lot more going on than just "warming", and it really does depend on what what you're looking at, where, when, how, and over what timescale.
There's nothing here that is out on a limb, how much data do you think there is?! Your focus on data is too narrow, and you seem to have a bit of confirmation bias. It's important to remember that there have been a number of times in science where the prevailing view turned out to be completely wrong. Don't fall into the trap of treating your favourite scientists like demi-gods, and having tunnel-vision about the facts - that's exactly the failing you accuse climate change deniers of!Quote:
There's a massive dearth of evidence, and lots more to find out, and (despite constraints on funding) lots of initiatives to develop technology to collect data over larger temporal and spatial scales, rather than simply dunking stuff at a few favourite sites that are easy to get to - how do you know how true your true is without collecting more extensive datasets and cross-referencing them?
I will concede that I'm talking from the perspective of someone who always wants more evidence, and who knows that so much of the ocean and climate is unknown and unmapped - there's so much out there that is not yet accurately and consistently detected, but soon will be. The maps and graphs will become better.
A model is a just a model, and they get adjusted all the time, when you get real data, and the big push is to expand the capacity to get real data using high-tech solutions - e.g.: thousands of autonomous systems sending near-real-time data back to be constantly injected into the massive computers that run the models, working in unison with satellites as well as just expensive and inconsistent manual sampling, where you're not always sure whether data is being contaminated.
You probably won't be interested in this article about "Climate Data v Climate Models"
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...egv36n3-6n.pdf
...but you might be interested in this short one about the different types of models:
Big Data Analytics: Descriptive Vs. Predictive Vs. Prescriptive - InformationWeek
Read:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBakerI don't Google shit for Shinola. You got proof, post it please. I post my own references, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
BTW, concerning ice cores, how do they know or prove that temperature and gas measurements are correlated? How do they measure The Temperature(TM) aka Global Warming(TM) from an ice core? Answer: They Can't(TM).
Were They There?
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/
I just read it. It doesn't say one word to prove that gases in the atmosphere cause climate change. It doesn't prove cause and effect. That is guess work, Not Science(TM).Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNemoRead:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBakerI don't Google shit for Shinola. You got proof, post it please. I post my own references, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
BTW, concerning ice cores, how do they know or prove that temperature and gas measurements are correlated? How do they measure The Temperature(TM) aka Global Warming(TM) from an ice core? Answer: They Can't(TM).
Were They There?
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/
When one area of the Earth warms while another cools they try to explain it away. "Climate" has never been stable. In the words of John D. Rockefeller when he was asked what the stock market would do he said: "Fluctuate". That's not science but at least he was honest.
These climate change scientists aren't honest. They don't have the empirical evidence to back their claims. They also can't answer:
"Were You There?"
Of course they're not. Their funding comes from folks like Al Gore. A man with a real agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBakerI just read it. It doesn't say one word to prove that gases in the atmosphere cause climate change. It doesn't prove cause and effect. That is guess work, Not Science(TM).Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNemoRead:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBakerI don't Google shit for Shinola. You got proof, post it please. I post my own references, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
BTW, concerning ice cores, how do they know or prove that temperature and gas measurements are correlated? How do they measure The Temperature(TM) aka Global Warming(TM) from an ice core? Answer: They Can't(TM).
Were They There?
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/
When one area of the Earth warms while another cools they try to explain it away. "Climate" has never been stable. In the words of John D. Rockefeller when he was asked what the stock market would do he said: "Fluctuate". That's not science but at least he was honest.
These climate change scientists aren't honest. They don't have the empirical evidence to back their claims. They also can't answer:
"Were You There?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
We have enough of those trolls active right here on Teakdoor today. I can't get myself to believe they actually believe their nonsense.
You need to go back and read through the thread apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker
There is proof all through this thread. At this point the burden of proof lies with you science deniers. Boon mee attempts to post and repost long debunked articles written by a handful of discredited hacks who are almost all funded by the oil and gas industry and that is all he has got. You are even worse. Asking questions that most high school kids could answer and clearly showing that you have not one inkling of scientific knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker
If you consider that an attack you will not last long on this forum. Just stating a fact. Dont ask stupid pointless questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker
Well well. Another sound bite quoting right wing lemming. You have that backwards progressives come armed with facts right wing wackos take in a steady diet of propaganda and regurgitate cliched talking points pounded into your heads by the right wing alternate reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker
Maybe another record,……..
The warmest year on record so far may have claimed another milestone, and this time it's a big one.
According to preliminary data from NASA along with information from the Japan Meteorological Administration, July 2015 was the warmest month on record since instrument temperature records began in the late 1800s.
Research using other data, such as tree rings, ice cores and coral formations in the ocean, have shown that the Earth is now the warmest it has been since at least 4,000 years ago.
According to NASA's data, which is subject to refinement in coming weeks and months as more is analyzed, July 2015's average temperature nudged past July 2011 by 0.02 degrees Celsius, or .36 degrees Fahrenheit.
Every month this year has ranked in the top four warmest months, according to NASA's data.
July is typically the hottest month on Earth, due to the peak of heating in the Northern Hemisphere, which has a far greater land area than the Southern Hemisphere.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has not yet released its monthly temperature data for July, but it is likely to also report that July was in the top 4 warmest Julys, if not the warmest July and warmest month, period, the globe has yet seen.
NASA, the NOAA and other agencies use different methods of analysis to compute monthly and annual averages and rank years, although there is considerable overlap between the data sets each agency uses.
In the Japan Meteorological Agency's data, five of seven months so far this year have ranked warmest on record, including July. The JMA, NASA and NOAA have all shown that 2015 is on track to beat last year for the title of the warmest year on record.
___________
Asia's Rapidly Shrinking Glaciers Could Have Ripple Effect
The glaciers in Asia's Tian Shan mountains have lost more than a quarter of their total mass over the past 50 years — a rate of loss about four times greater than the global average during that time, new research shows.
By 2050, half of the remaining ice in the Tian Shan (also spelled Tien Shan) glaciers could be lost, and these shrinking glaciers could reduce valuable water supplies in central Asia and lead to fuel conflicts there, the study found.
The Tian Shan mountain range stretches across 1,550 miles (2,500 kilometers) of central Asia. Melting snow and glaciers from these mountains supply much-needed water to the lowlands of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which form one of the world's largest irrigated zones. The melt also supplies water to China's northwestern Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, whose coal, oil and natural-gas reserves are critical to the country's economic growth.
"If water resources really will decline there in the future, there is a big potential for conflicts," said the study's lead author, Daniel Farinotti, a glaciologist at the German Research Center for Geosciences and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research.
Despite the importance of this water supply and the growth of populations dependent on it, information about the conditions of glaciers in the Tian Shan is sparse, and estimates of how these glaciers might change in the future have been limited to the past decade.
To learn more about the Tian Shan glaciers, Farinotti and his colleagues analyzed data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE), a satellite launched in 2002 that is jointly operated by NASA and the German Aerospace Center; and NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which launched in 2003. They also developed computer models of these glaciers based on field observations from snow pits and readings taken from glacier surfaces.
The scientists reconstructed how glaciers across the Tian Shan changed in mass from 1961 to 2012. They found that the region's glaciers shrank at the rapid rate of about 5.4 billion tons per year on average.
The researchers linked the decline to increased summer temperatures in the region, possibly due to climate change. "In central Asia, you have really dry winters, meaning glaciers do not get much snow then," Farinotti told Live Science. "During the summer, at higher elevations, it will snow. However, if you see increasing summer temperatures in central Asia, not only will you get increased melting, but you'll also reduce the amount of snow they'll get, for a double impact."
Climate models suggest that summer temperatures will continue to rise in the coming decades, suggesting that the glaciers in the Tian Shan may shrink even further.
"In the long term, the only way people are going to save glaciers is to reduce the increase of global temperatures," Farinotti said. "Another way to deal with the decline in water supplies in this region is to improve irrigation practices there. Irrigation there dates back to the Soviet era 40 years ago, and increasing the efficiency of irrigation there could help grow crops even with less water."
____________
An example,…….Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker aka Captain Baker, Proud to be associated with a person responsible for killing innocent Native Americans
well dear boy, you are quite right... the 'let the ghost of steve jobs substitute random but simular words for you' speeling corrector has been quite a step back in terms of usability... proably the worst step back since dictionaries were invented. but then its nice to know that apple is far from the emboddyment of perfect that the fanboys would ahve you belive. Still I would rather have my issues than the OCD issues that inevitably plague those with an over keen interest in the 'corrcet' use of language. perhaps I am just too confortable and don't care, or maybe I just lack the respect for the posters of TD... that I show to my paying customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNemoIt's really difficult to debate with you when you don't actually understand what the terms mean or what the rights terms are, and all you can do is resort to name calling. It doesn't really reflect on you very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
e.g.:
"client modelling" is not a thing I've ever indulged in or "felt with", but if I was to model you (and bsnub), the results might look a bit like this:
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
etc...
Do you get my point? It's not very constructive; a bit like starting with "Hardy [sic] my dear boy" etc...
The point about "good quality english" is *attention to detail*. If you've rushed through and not checked your spelling, then it suggests you may not have checked the content of what you are saying.
I mean, using words like "dataset" doesn't really lend extra weight to anything - a receipt from a fastfood joint is a dataset.
When you say "richard miller", you seem to mean "Richard Muller", correct?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...ptic.html?_r=0
Do you actually have a link to the paper you're trying to use for your argument?
Do you mean the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project" "Land+Ocean Dataset"?
Berkeley Earth
If so that's fine, but it doesn't contradict what I said.
I don't quite get what you mean by "my stance". I'm absolutely not in a minority, I'm describing the terms that are normally used, and the consensus I've seen about the need to collect more data.
Here's a blog post by a scientist that illustrates my point:
Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science | Climate Etc.
What I said was that the correct term is not "global warming", but "anthropogenic climate change", which encompasses the full complexity of changes that occur both globally and locally that are not always all in the same direction.
It is pedantry perhaps, but that's the point of science, the terms you use matter.
That's the term you have to use when you write a paper, otherwise you sound like a journalist, and not very credible, because you're using the wrong terms, and simplistic terms that just state that only one simple thing is happening, when it's known that it's more complex than that.
...or to quote myself, in case you missed it:
I also said that the equipment deployed to collect data is limited and there is a lot more data out there that isn't collected, and you need a lot more data to have a more complete and useful picture of what is happening. Just having a pretty set of technicolor maps is not the end of the story - all science is, is a better guess. You need to ask the questions about the resolution of the data (how much guessing is the computer model doing to fill in the gaps); and then there's the reliability of the sensors and whether there are things affecting the data they are collecting (the list is extensive). Taking the numbers at face value is wrong, you need to repeat, check, repeat, check, repeat, check, etc... and once you've run out of track, you say, well, it looks like this is what's happening; and then someone else has a go.Quote:
The term "global warming" is the incorrect one; the correct term, is "anthropogenic climate change", because there's lot more going on than just "warming", and it really does depend on what what you're looking at, where, when, how, and over what timescale.
There's nothing here that is out on a limb, how much data do you think there is?! Your focus on data is too narrow, and you seem to have a bit of confirmation bias. It's important to remember that there have been a number of times in science where the prevailing view turned out to be completely wrong. Don't fall into the trap of treating your favourite scientists like demi-gods, and having tunnel-vision about the facts - that's exactly the failing you accuse climate change deniers of!Quote:
There's a massive dearth of evidence, and lots more to find out, and (despite constraints on funding) lots of initiatives to develop technology to collect data over larger temporal and spatial scales, rather than simply dunking stuff at a few favourite sites that are easy to get to - how do you know how true your true is without collecting more extensive datasets and cross-referencing them?
I will concede that I'm talking from the perspective of someone who always wants more evidence, and who knows that so much of the ocean and climate is unknown and unmapped - there's so much out there that is not yet accurately and consistently detected, but soon will be. The maps and graphs will become better.
A model is a just a model, and they get adjusted all the time, when you get real data, and the big push is to expand the capacity to get real data using high-tech solutions - e.g.: thousands of autonomous systems sending near-real-time data back to be constantly injected into the massive computers that run the models, working in unison with satellites as well as just expensive and inconsistent manual sampling, where you're not always sure whether data is being contaminated.
You probably won't be interested in this article about "Climate Data v Climate Models"
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...egv36n3-6n.pdf
...but you might be interested in this short one about the different types of models:
Big Data Analytics: Descriptive Vs. Predictive Vs. Prescriptive - InformationWeek
However the way that you create pejoratives to undermine what you don't like is harly going to be something you simpy practice on me. it can be quite intellectually crippling if you cannot get it under control.
when one bothers to do search for 'global warming' in one of the journal search engines one finds journals like nature, journal of climate, who do print articals that mention "global warming" that do get used. This is not what I would define as 'Journalism', so clearly not everyone agrees with you on this, I would suggest its a manifestation of your excessive interest in tidy use of langauge... And yes I am fully aware that gobl worming is more complext than suggesting that all parts of the planet will warm, but thenif one considers what the physical manifestation of heat is.... this comes naturally
Now you did say you had soem kind of professional background inall of this, so I am somewhat surprised that you have demonstrated very little knowledge about how these models work and with you use of the pejorative 'model is a just a model' does somewhat suggest you have little interest in finding out.... as does you other little perjorative about fancy technicolor diagrams. gives the impression you know very little about climatology, less than me and I am no climatologist
You also seem the know little about the process of scientific discovery and the differences between proponents, skeptics and denalists. Just that monumental changes do take place in our understanding of how the universe works and that this means you can choose the dismiss anything you like. The process between the proponent and the skeptic is one based upon proposals which are then tested with experiment and research... with the experimental evidence being the arbitor of truth.
The denalist, the dogmatist, the propagandist, they start by knowing what the trust will be, they need no experimental evidence as they already know the truth... they do not do reaserch, all they do is market and publise their truth. Initially its hard to tell the difference between the skeptic and the denalist... but as the eviddnce gets better the skeptic's and propoents will modify their views of the truth to fit with the evidence and the denalist will not.
During the process of discovery there is a point where the evidence is suffently strong that there are no sceptics left only denialists. in the case of hiv/aids that was then the second generation anti virals came out, the discovery of pions is another good lesson.
the berkely study which was part funded by the koch brothers is an example of sceptics carrying out reaserch to prove their point. in it's case that you concerns about dataset quility along with many ofther issues were remove from the new modle. the results of the phase 1 study confrimed that the existing modle and new model created very simular results, proving the skeptics. they then moved on to the next phase of the reaserch, this time without the koch brothers and the other denialists who suddenly did not like the reaserch that did not give them the result they wanted.
given this, that the cato institute is hevily funded by the kock brothers, who do not fund stuff that does not provide the evidence they would like to be true... why would you choose to quote a paper written by employees of an institute whos jobs depended on saying the right thing? could you not find someone a little less conflicted? its rather like asking RT for the truth about the Ukraine or Greenpeace for the truth about GM
So in this great controverfy, which organisations are doing the reaserch and which is doing the marketing. which organiations is ignoring rebuttles to their statments and just carry on repeating them?
What is interesting is how the tobacco industry laid out this whole template for the denialist movement, something that was adopted wholesale by others such as the sugar industry and, now, the oil industry.
It all devolves back to a deliberate muddying of the waters and obfuscation. Funding people to give you the conclusions you want so you can pretend that there is doubt where there is actually consensus.
There's also a template that applies to those who fall for it each time.
and the tea party as well
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...12-050815.full
Trouble is that Booners has invited a few like minded feebs from TV to add to the background noise.
Now NOAA (Land & Ocean)
July 2015, hottest month ever recorded
Hottest year to date: January – July 2015 ever recorded
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u..._on_record.jpg
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Thursday, August 20, 2015, 12:09 PM - Three major climate records - from NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency and now NOAA - all confirm: July 2015 was not only the hottest month of July on record for the planet, but it also beat out every other climate record to become the hottest month of any month ever recorded.
Dig in deniers,………
Last month was not just the hottest July on record. Since July is “the warmest month of the year globally,” NOAA’s latest monthly State of the Climate Report, notes that July 2015 “was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880.”
There never was any slow-down in surface temperature warming, and indeed the NOAA report confirms that 2015 is all but certain to crush previous global temperature records. That’s especially likely since the strong underlying global warming trend is being boosted by an emerging “Godzilla El Niño,” as a NASA oceanographer put it.
Here are some of the other records NOAA identifies for “combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces” in the dataset for the month of June from the years 1880 to 2015:
• Hottest first seven months of any year “at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F).”
• “Austria recorded its hottest July since national records began in 1767.”
• “A high pressure dome over the Middle East brought what may be one of the most extreme heat indices ever recorded in the world on July 31st … a heat index of 74°C (165°F).”
The long-awaited speed up in global warming appears to starting now.
If you’re living along the coast you might want to rethink the investment you made. If you want to live along the coast (low coastal areas),… rent don’t buy.
Sea level rise is a natural consequence of the warming of our planet.
We know this from basic physics. When water heats up, it expands. So when the ocean warms, sea level rises. When ice is exposed to heat, it melts. And when ice on land melts and water runs into the ocean, sea level rises.
For thousands of years, sea level has remained relatively stable and human communities have settled along the planet's coastlines. But now Earth's seas are rising. Globally, sea level has risen about eight inches (20 centimeters) since the beginning of the 20th century and more than two inches (5 centimeters) in the last 20 years alone.
All signs suggest that this rise is accelerating.
While NASA and other agencies continue to monitor the warming of the ocean and changes to the planet's land masses, the biggest concern is what will happen to the ancient ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica, which continue to send out alerts that a warming planet is affecting their stability.
"Given what we know now about how the ocean expands as it warms and how ice sheets and glaciers are adding water to the seas, it's pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet [0.9 meter] of sea level rise," said Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team. "But we don't know whether it will happen in 100 years or 200 years."
While the expansion of warmer ocean waters and tectonic movement of land masses play key roles in both global and local sea level changes, it's the fate of the polar ice sheets that will most determine how much coastlines change in the coming decades.
"We've seen from the paleoclimate record that sea level rise of as much as 10 feet [3 meters] in a century or two is possible, if the ice sheets fall apart rapidly," said Tom Wagner, the cryosphere program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "We're seeing evidence that the ice sheets are waking up, but we need to understand them better before we can say we're in a new era of rapid ice loss."
____________
Attorney Hounding Climate Scientists Is Covertly Funded By Coal Industry
Christopher Horner, an attorney who claims that the earth is cooling, is known within the scientific community for hounding climate change researchers with relentless investigations and public ridicule, often deriding scientists as “communists” and frauds.
Horner is a regular guest on Fox News and CNN, and has been affiliated with a number of think tanks and legal organizations over the last decade. He has called for investigations of climate scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA, and inundated climate researchers at major universities across the country with records requests that critics say are designed to distract them from their work.
New court documents reveal one source of Horner’s funding: big coal.
Last Thursday’s bankruptcy filing of Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal companies in America, includes line items for all of the corporation’s contractors and grant recipients. Among them are Horner individually at his home address, as well as the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, where he is a senior staff attorney.
Snip
Horner has played a prominent role in the climate science debate for many years, though he has failed to uncover wrongdoing.
In 2009, thousands of emails were hacked from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia. Horner quickly blogged that the “blue-dress moment may have arrived” and began appearing on media outlets to claim that the emails revealed “admissions of falsifying results, collaborating to subvert and violate the laws” in what he dubbed “Climategate.”
“Climategate” became a media phenomenon, with prominent politicians declaring that the emails revealed that climate change is a “hoax.” The Koch organization Americans for Prosperity traveled to international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 and proclaimed that the emails revealed a “scandal.”
Six official investigations later cleared the University of East Anglia scientists of accusations of any wrongdoing.
Snip
“He has been instrumental in orchestrating the attacks on climate scientists over the past decade in the form of vexatious and frivolous FOIA demands, efforts to force scientists to turn over all of their personal email,” says Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist targeted by Horner.
Horner has also often cast scientists as villains. He claimed on Alex Jones’ program “Infowars” that climate science is a backdoor strategy for enacting “global governance.” On Fox News, Horner mysteriously claimed that White House science adviser John Holdren is “if not borderline communist — communist.”
In an interview with The Intercept, Dr. Gretchen T. Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists said it is “reprehensible” to learn that coal companies are “funding the harassment of scientists.”
____________
Let’s See What Happens When This Group Of Scientists Retests Studies That Contradict Climate Science
The scientific consensus behind man-made global warming is overwhelming: multiple studies have noted a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming and human activities are primarily responsible. Scientists are as sure that global warming is real — and driven by human activity — as they are that smoking cigarettes leads to lung cancer.
But what if all of those scientists are wrong? What if the tiny sliver of scientists that don’t believe global warming is happening, or that human activities are causing it — that two to three percent of climate contrarians — are right?
That’s the hypothetical question that a new study, authored by Rasmus Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook, sought to answer. Published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the study examined 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research — published research that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change but doesn’t attribute it to human activity — and tried to replicate the results of those studies. The studies weren’t selected randomly — according to lead author Rasmus Benestad, the studies selected were highly visible contrarian studies that had all arrived at a different conclusion than consensus climate studies. The question the researchers wanted to know was — why?
“Our selection suited this purpose as it would be harder to spot flaws in papers following the mainstream ideas. The chance of finding errors among the outliers is higher than from more mainstream papers,” Benestad wrote at RealClimate. “Our hypothesis was that the chosen contrarian paper was valid, and our approach was to try to falsify this hypothesis by repeating the work with a critical eye.”
It didn’t go well for the contrarian studies.
The most common mistake shared by the contrarian studies was cherry picking, in which studies ignored data or contextual information that did not support the study’s ultimate conclusions. In a piece for the Guardian, study co-author Dana Nuccitelli cited one particular contrarian study that supported the idea that moon and solar cycles affect the Earth’s climate. When the group tried to replicate that study’s findings for the paper, they found that the study’s model only worked for the particular 4,000-year cycle that the study looked at.
“However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes,” Nuccitelli wrote. “The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.”
The researchers also found that a number of the contrarian studies simply ignored the laws of physics. For example, in 2007 and 2010 papers, Ferenc Miskolczi argued that the greenhouse effect had become saturated, a theory that had been disproved in the early 1900s.
“As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth,” Nuccitelli wrote.
In other cases, the authors found, researchers would include extra parameters not based in the laws of physics to make a model fit their conclusion.
“Good modeling will constrain the possible values of the parameters being used so that they reflect known physics, but bad ‘curve fitting’ doesn’t limit itself to physical realities,” Nuccitelli said.
The authors note that these errors aren’t necessarily only found in contrarian papers, and they aren’t necessarily malicious. In their discussion, they offer a suite of possible explanations for the mistakes. Many authors of the contrarian studies were relatively new to climate science, and therefore may have been unaware of important context or data. Many of the papers were also published in journals with audiences that don’t necessarily seek out climate science, and therefore peer review might have been lacking. And some of the researchers had published similar studies, all omitting important information.
These same errors and oversights, the authors allow, could be present in consensus climate studies. But those errors don’t contribute to a gap between public understanding and scientific consensus on the issue, the researchers argued. The mistakes also seemed to be particularly present in contrarian studies, Nuccitelli wrote.
In the end, the researchers stressed the overall importance of reproducibility in science, both for consensus views and contrarian ones.
“Science is never settled, and both the scientific consensus and alternative hypotheses should be subject to ongoing questioning, especially in the presence of new evidence and insights,” the study concluded. “True and universal answers should, in principle, be replicated independently, especially if they have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
_____________
couple videos and one picture New NASA videos show stark ice loss from Earth's ice sheets,..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlzE8z0D5Tk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fAzXba5fo
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/08/1658.jpg
Change in ice mass from West Antarctica between January 2004 and June 2014, as measured by the GRACE satellite.
Science: climate change is real
Booners: silly meme
I'll take science FTW.
With all the news as of late about increasing sea levels I thought I might show the amount of land ice we are losing each year.
5 Trillion Tons of Ice Lost Since 2002
From 2002 to mid-November 2014—less than 13 years—the combined land ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland is more than 5 trillion tons.
Five. Trillion. Tons.
That’s beyond staggering; that’s almost incomprehensible. It’s a volume of about 5,700 cubic kilometers, a cube of ice nearly 18 kilometers—more than 11 miles—on a side. Place that cube on the ground, and the top of it would be above 90 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere, reaching twice the height of Mount Everest.
Five trillion tons. Remember that the next time some climate change denier starts spouting the usual nonsense about sea ice increasing. That claim is very close to a bald-faced lie. First, arctic sea ice is declining rapidly. Second, arctic sea ice loss is so huge that it easily overwhelms any temporary gains in Antarctic sea ice. And third, sea ice is very different than land ice. Land ice loss isn’t getting replaced anywhere near the rate it’s being lost. Once it slides into the sea, it’s gone.
From NASA,………
Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.
If any more proof were needed about just how fucked the eco system is...
algae blooms in the Baltic Sea :(
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/09/478.jpg
Oh dear Booners, looks like you're talking bollocks AGAIN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Quote:
Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming?
A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear's range were uneducated guesses.
Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/09/697.jpg
"Red shows the September 2012 minimum extent. Green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. The Arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.
Nobel Prize winning climate experts and journalists tell us that the Arctic is ice-free, because they are propagandists pushing an agenda, not actual scientists or journalists."
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...t-three-years/
Biggest Scam ever. :yup:
Booners I do believe this is the third time you've posted this scam of yours you poor tool. Bet you fell for this same same but different scam too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvLg4NuqZ-A
They have no actuall facts, the best they have is computer models which they keep changing to fit the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaker