 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| ^^^ This. Fatuous tripe is fatuous tripe, however long you waste considering it. |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I love how you link to your favourite hugbox blog site while discounting all the skeptical blogs. Here's some quotes from scientists about Cook from skepticalscience.
"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | David wrote: | | While it's probably true that most of these dissenters are cranks or hustlers (or both), I would also like to see a little more engagement with the actual science from defenders of the mainstream view. |
Read the report David. Roberts is a one world government conspiracy theorist who uses climate change to push the same old bullshit agenda that is pushed by all the anti-illuminati, Rockefeller, bildeburg, Mount pelerin society, money power fearing fruitcakes. It is the modern day equivalent of the protocols with a sprinkling of populist pseudo science on top.
Genuine scientific, evidence-based questioning of climate change theories and modeling is desperately needed. This is not even close unfortunately. |
I'll be the first to admit I have no time for NWO fruitcakes, so fair enough. But there is dissenting science out there—yes, bad science is still science—so I'd be happy to read a little more discussion of it, even if it is funded by Exxon. That sponsorship in its own right is not sufficient to invalidate the argument; after all, they'd still fund it if it were true, wouldn't they?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Those Cretans and Romans must've really been ramping up their industrial capacity. Science says we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, it's been a hell of a lot hotter before than it is now, and times of warmth were GOOD for humanity.
If you want to look at climate, stop looking at 100 year records, stop looking at projections and take a look at global temperatures from ice cores. You can even find graphs that show 65M years of temperatures and whether you look at 10,000 or 65M, the current climate is cold.
I also posted a link about some scientists predicting cooling due to sun inactivity. Ignored. Cooling is the horror we have to worry about. People DIE in their hundreds of thousands during cold periods.
As for disparaging people who are against Agenda 21, I didn't know much about it but apparently the Republican Party is against it, even though Bush signed it. From wiki:
"During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that 'We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.'"
So these so called 'nuts' aren't on their own. |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That'll be dismissed as some paid petroleum scientists argument.
Your persistence is admirable but don't you realize.... this is Tannins forum? He's never wrong, can't believe he's not our PM.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Do you actually bother to read the original sources in the stuff you cite Wokko? Or do you just rely on crappy second hand analysis from circus freaks and industry mouthpieces?
The Cook et al paper is one source for the 97% consensus claim. The handful of authors you cite as having their abstracts misclassified are drawn from over 12,000 abstracts. The authors fully disclosed which abstracts were classified and how, yet climate change deniers have only been able to come up with a handful of cases where authors disagree with how their work has been counted. Tellingly, the same 97% figure was found when authors were asked to classify their own abstracts.
Did you miss this part of the paper or just ignore it because it doesn't fit your argument? |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The science demonstrates that Wokko's myth is a nonsense. This flawed argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.
| Denialist myth wrote: | Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton) |
Wokko's argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.
| Don Easterbrook wrote: |
Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present. |
It’s a graph he’s used before, in various forms, almost certainly copied and altered from the original, the NOAA web page for Richard Alley’s 2000 paper The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, though DE credits it as “Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997?, misspelling Kurt Cuffey’s name in the process:
| Easterbrook wrote: |
Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.
|
This is Wokko's silly graph above.
Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:
| Easterbrook wrote: |
The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.
|
Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.
And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like
(The original document at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm goes into careful detail here, complete with a number of very useful graphs. It's well worth reading. I'm going to skip ahead to the summary. )
Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. .....
| Easterbrook wrote: | | So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing. |
In fact, 1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.
- Adapted from http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm I encouragee you all to go there and read it in full.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
Those Cretans and Romans must've really been ramping up their industrial capacity. Science says we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, it's been a hell of a lot hotter before than it is now, and times of warmth were GOOD for humanity.
If you want to look at climate, stop looking at 100 year records, stop looking at projections and take a look at global temperatures from ice cores. You can even find graphs that show 65M years of temperatures and whether you look at 10,000 or 65M, the current climate is cold.
I also posted a link about some scientists predicting cooling due to sun inactivity. Ignored. Cooling is the horror we have to worry about. People DIE in their hundreds of thousands during cold periods.
As for disparaging people who are against Agenda 21, I didn't know much about it but apparently the Republican Party is against it, even though Bush signed it. From wiki:
"During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that 'We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.'"
So these so called 'nuts' aren't on their own. |
It's not opposition to Agenda 21 I'm talking about. Read through appendix 14 of Robert's report...It's one world government, black helicopter clap trap.
As for Easterbrooks work on ice cap temps in Greenland...Read the critique below...it's been thoroughly discredited, including by those that collected the original data he relies on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337 |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin found the critique pretty quickly...I'm surprised you didn't come across it wokko... |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | [quote="Wokko"][img]https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/greenland-history.jpg[/img]
Those Cretans and Romans must've really been ramping up their industrial capacity. Science says we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, it's been a hell of a lot hotter before than it is now, and times of warmth were GOOD for humanity.
If you want to look at climate, stop looking at 100 year records, stop looking at projections and take a look at global temperatures from ice cores. You can even find graphs that show 65M years of temperatures and whether you look at 10,000 or 65M, the current climate is cold.
I also posted a link about some scientists predicting cooling due to sun inactivity. Ignored. Cooling is the horror we have to worry about. People DIE in their hundreds of thousands during cold periods.
As for disparaging people who are against Agenda 21, I didn't know much about it but apparently the Republican Party is against it, even though Bush signed it. From wiki:
"During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that 'We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.'"
So these so called 'nuts' aren't on their own.[/quote]
It's not opposition to Agenda 21 I'm talking about. Read through appendix 14 of Robert's report...It's one world government, black helicopter clap trap.
As for Easterbrooks work on ice cap temps in Greenland...Read the critique below...it's been thoroughly discredited, including by those that collected the original data he relies on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337 |
My creator is a scientist. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So ignoring the point that the Minoan and Medieval warming periods were both warmer than now and quibbling about the end date of a ice core drilling? How where these periods warmer? Why were these warm periods not catastrophic but fertile and good for humanity? Why keep linking to a partisan blog site? I've already shown the author is biased and happy to misuse data and spit on the work of scientists. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I've already shown the author is biased and happy to misuse data and spit on the work of scientists. |
You have done nothing of the kind.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | So ignoring the point that the Minoan and Medieval warming periods were both warmer than now and quibbling about the end date of a ice core drilling? |
^ This is unbelievable pig-headed dishonesty.
As you know, these periods were not "warmer than now". They are claimed to be warmer than it was in 1855 - which is the end date of that ice core series which was before global warming even started. They are, in short, completely irrelevant to the course of global warming over the last 150 years, and it is grossly dishonest - knowing what you now know about them having read NJ's and my posts - to pretend otherwise.
It is beyond belief that you can cite a flawed and discredited study which takes 160-year-old pre-warming temperature measurements and claims 1855 as "the present" and then dismiss this massive fail as a "quibble".
Seriously, how can you pretend that mistaking an 1855 temperature measurement for a current one is a "quibble"? Note in your reply that we have confirmed this error on the part of the turkey with the graph, and confirmed it with no less an authority that the scientist who actually made the measurements and provided the data in the first place.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks Tannin. Unlike in the pages before, I feel like I've actually learned something. Amazing that Easterbrook could make such a fundamental error. Even a cursory look at the "Years Before Present" bar under the graph is enough to see that his conclusions are way off.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
