• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

James Hansen's Multiple Failed Global Warming Doomsday Ultimatums

longview said:
There are large gaps in our understanding of the climate, and plenty of room for legitimate scientific
skepticism with the dogma preached by the IPCC.
CO2 is supposed to be optical insulation, allowing short wavelengths in while keeping long wavelengths out.
While this appears to be happening, it seems to mostly happen at night, and during the winter. (cooler months)
Click to expand...

The studies & models and their failures would ordinarily make a person conclude that while science can accurately predict the effects of chemical & physical properties on each other in a control environment, Nature has a way of doing what it wants to do with those elements because it resists control. Influenced, yes, but not controlled.

And in any event AGW promotion has become too big financially & politically to be taken as settled science.
 
Threegoofs said:
Once again, please explain how these errors have somehow been completely missed by both the editors of Nature and seemingly the entire climate science community, since the most complete paleoclimate data on record shows.... the same thing.

And MW11 dosent seem to be referenced in too many subsequent papers on this at all.. demonstrating a dead end, scientifically speaking.

Marcott_PAGES2k.png
Click to expand...

You know when you posted that information that the Northern ice sheet (a tiny thin one) on Greenland had melted during the early bronze age showing that the climate was warmer then than now, where is the medeval warm period in your graph? Normally that appears on such graphs.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You know when you posted that information that the Northern ice sheet (a tiny thin one) on Greenland had melted during the early bronze age showing that the climate was warmer then than now, where is the medeval warm period in your graph? Normally that appears on such graphs.
Click to expand...

The Bronze Age is before this date.

Maybe you don't see a MWP because...it doesn't exist?
 
bubbabgone said:
Now really, Jack.
Did you expect anything different?
Does it not always end this way with him?
He screams for attention but when cornered he can't respond on point.
Like the last one ...
View attachment 67204081
A classic.
The history of threads on this topic are replete with the same kind of thing.
Click to expand...

humbolt said:
You have time to spend? And here I thought you were running around in scientific circles....
Click to expand...

Then perhaps, when the time comes, he might be a good candidate for the Black Knight award.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think you got it wrong again.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:
Gergis Australian hockeystick is back: How one typo took four years to fix


UPDATED: See below for Stephen McIntyre’s response, with details of emails showing that Joelle Gergis did not independently discover the problem but learnt of it from Climate Audit.
The Gergis hockeystick was heralded in the media for a week in 2012 before it was cut apart online and months later, quietly withdrawn. Headlines raved that Australia was having the “hottest years in the millennium”. As I said at the time, it was all silly beyond belief – the whole study relied on two bunches of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand to tell us that the greater continental area was 0.09°C warmer now than it was in 1000AD. If trees in yonder Tassie can tell the whole continental temperature to a tenth of a degree, who needs thermometers (especially the kind which need 2 degree corrections)? Why does the BOM bother today?
Part II of this sorry paper has arrived under this auspicious headline at The Conversation:
[h=3]. . . . UPDATE: From Stephen McIntyre[/h]Gergis’ account of events is a fantasy. Among other things, her claim to have discovered the error two days prior to Climate Audit is a fabrication. The issue of ex post screening was raised at Climate Audit on May 31, with particular concern over spurious regression between trends. Gergis et al was defended by a couple of commenters who pointed out that Gergis’ correlations were (supposedly) done using de-trended series. Jean S then checked this claim, pointing out that their correlations failed with detrended data, from which we concluded that they had not done their calculation the way that they claimed. Jean S comment was posted on June 5 16:42 blog time (-5). This was 23:42 Swiss time (+2) and 7:42 am June 6 AET (+10).
Neukom sent Gergis an email notifying her of the problem at June 6 9:46 am AET (+10), June 6 1:46 am Switzerland (+2). Neukom, Gergis and Karoly then discussed the bad news.
Both at the time and in her recent article, Gergis claimed that they had discovered the problem “independently” of Climate Audit, but this is contradicted by emails showing that they had been reading Climate Audit and by the above timeline.
There are of course many other untruths in her article.
 
bubbabgone said:
I like Galas.
We have Pixie Crunch, Honeycrisp, and Sundance.
All very nice ... when they & the wildlife co-operate.
Click to expand...

These little Galas are heavy for a squirrel, but they seem to have no problem hauling them off. They're about 2-1/2" diameter.
 
Threegoofs said:
The Bronze Age is before this date.

Maybe you don't see a MWP because...it doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Right, that street in York called Vine street was named in hope rather than because they had vinyards about the place. Greenland was not farmed by the Vickings. Just like they cannot farm it today, even though they did farm it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Guess the photos of the barley fields must have been too difficult for you to process....
Click to expand...

The winter barley that we have bred for it's ability to grow in very cold environments not the wheat the Vickings were growing.

I know it's hard this thinking for yourself but do try.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The winter barley that we have bred for it's ability to grow in very cold environments not the wheat the Vickings were growing.

I know it's hard this thinking for yourself but do try.
Click to expand...

Sure.

You clearly know lots about 'Vickings'.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think you got it wrong again.
Click to expand...

Steve McIntyre dismisses Gergis again.

[h=2]Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer[/h]Jul 21, 2016 – 5:05 PM
In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single word. Rather than “taking the easy way out” and simply correcting the “typo”, Gergis instead embarked on a program that ultimately involved nine rounds of revision, 21 individual reviews, two editors and took longer than the American involvement in World War II. However, rather than Gergis et al 2016 being an improvement on or confirmation of Gergis et al 2012, it is one of the most extraordinary examples of data torture (Wagenmakers, 2011, 2012) that any of us will ever witness.
Also see Brandon S’s recent posts here here. Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
Steve McIntyre dismisses Gergis again.

[h=2]Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer[/h]Jul 21, 2016 – 5:05 PM
In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit. Now, more than four years later, a successor article has finally been published. Gergis says that the only problem with the original article was a “typo” in a single word. Rather than “taking the easy way out” and simply correcting the “typo”, Gergis instead embarked on a program that ultimately involved nine rounds of revision, 21 individual reviews, two editors and took longer than the American involvement in World War II. However, rather than Gergis et al 2016 being an improvement on or confirmation of Gergis et al 2012, it is one of the most extraordinary examples of data torture (Wagenmakers, 2011, 2012) that any of us will ever witness.
Also see Brandon S’s recent posts here here. Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Blogger 'dismisses' scientist's peer reviewed published paper. Again.

Yawn
 
Threegoofs said:
Blogger 'dismisses' scientist's peer reviewed published paper. Again.

Yawn
Click to expand...

In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 mysteriously disappeared from Journal of Climate after being criticized at Climate Audit.
 
Threegoofs said:
Blogger 'dismisses' scientist's peer reviewed published paper. Again.

Yawn
Click to expand...

From the comments section at Climate Audit:

Steve again documents here the dysfunctional peer review that infects climate science:
Steve McIntyre:
“One wonders whether the editors and reviewers of Journal of Climate fully understood the extreme data torture that they were asked to approve. Clearly, there seems to have been some resistance from editors and reviewers – otherwise there would not have been nine rounds of revision and 21 reviews. Since the various rounds of review left the network unchanged even one iota from the network used in the PAGES2K reconstruction (April 2013), one can only assume that Gergis et al eventually wore out a reluctant Journal of Climate, who, after four years of submission and re-submission, finally acquiesced.”
 
Welcome to the Adjustocene.

Ridiculae
[h=1]NASA: Global Warming Observations Need a Further 19% UPWARD Adjustment[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall NASA researcher Mark Richardson has completed a study which compares historical observations with climate model output, and has concluded that historical observations have to be adjusted, to reconcile them with the climate models. The JPL Press Release; A new NASA-led study finds that almost one-fifth of the global warming that…
 
Jack Hays said:
Welcome to the Adjustocene.

Ridiculae
[h=1]NASA: Global Warming Observations Need a Further 19% UPWARD Adjustment[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall NASA researcher Mark Richardson has completed a study which compares historical observations with climate model output, and has concluded that historical observations have to be adjusted, to reconcile them with the climate models. The JPL Press Release; A new NASA-led study finds that almost one-fifth of the global warming that…
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

This link was initially a surprise to me because it seems to agree with those who are suggesting that global warming is an immediate threat to humankind, and I read it with a "huh?" since there has been a proven multi-year pause in warming.

Then I read that it might be necessary for scientists to fudge the data to fit their models, since "it actually seems their funding is inversely correlated with the accuracy of their predictions," according to one of the people responding to this new study. Ah so! :shock: I will stick with Svensmark and Shaviv, and their theory... thank you very much! :yawn:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

This link was initially a surprise to me because it seems to agree with those who are suggesting that global warming is an immediate threat to humankind, and I read it with a "huh?" since there has been a proven multi-year pause in warming.

Then I read that it might be necessary for scientists to fudge the data to fit their models, since "it actually seems their funding is inversely correlated with the accuracy of their predictions," according to one of the people responding to this new study. Ah so! :shock: I will stick with Svensmark and Shaviv, and their theory... thank you very much! :yawn:
Click to expand...

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

Yup, it's all about the fudge.:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom