Doug1029 Posted September 24, 2013 #151 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Most data is available to everyone. Sure you might have to spend some money getting it but to be fair collecting data isn't cheap, in some cases. In dendrochronology, the written datasets are proprietary and owned by the person who created them, but the cores are the property of the sponsoring institution. In Europe they tend to get positively nasty about protecting their rights. In America, most dendro datasets are available from the NOAA tree ring site (So are a few European ones, usually unbeknownst to the authors.). There are some that are kept at the place where they were first created, but if you ask, the authors are usually highly flattered that somebody is interested in their data and will email it to you for free. If you really want to double-check the work, you will need to go to the place where the cores are archived, borrow a microscope and re-read them yourself. It makes little sense to say that somebody made a mistake in analysis, then trust that same person to have read the cores correctly. Most reading mistakes can be detected using correlation or pointer analysis using the data at hand. Often, the exact year that is misread can be determined. If you find such a mistake, the easy solution to the problem is to delete that one reading from the dataset. As there are cracks, knots, hazel marks, fire scars and other defects in cores, it is routine to delete readings that can't be made accurately. You won't usually find that kind of mistake, though because the author will have run the tests himself. If all else fails, take an increment borer and go to the place where the cores were collected and make your own collection. It is polite to get permission from the owner first, but I know of one collection that the National Park Service still hasn't found out about. If you have gone to all the trouble to make your own collection, you have something that you can publish, so work it up and publish it. Many dendro publications are beginning to insist that ownership of datasets be turned over to them prior to publication. They then make the dataset available to anyone who wants it, usually for a fee. This allows readers to re-run analyses they are suspicious of. Doug P.S.: If you make your own collection, take an extra increment borer. A broken bit can be a disaster - take it from an experienced hand at core collecting. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 24, 2013 #152 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Completely agree. Don't get my started on the whole polar bear thing. Polar Bears are not dying out because of global warming. Actually in recent years there have been an increase in polar bears. Polar bears don't need ice to survive. We had polar bears on this planet, when we had an ice free arctic in the past. Your point is one I have been trying to advocate so many times. There are to much politics in climate science, way to much. Which you should know was due to a decrease in hunting, right ? Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 24, 2013 #153 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Which you should know was due to a decrease in hunting, right ? Br Cornelius As I recall, large parts of the Arctic were ice-free during the Altithermal. Polar bears survived that just fine. I'm not worried about an ice-free Arctic exterminating polar bears. Apparently the increase in brown bear populations has forced some of them to explore what has always been polar bear habitat. There are a few brown bear/polar bear crosses showing up. Very nasty-tempered critters, I hear. Doug 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted September 26, 2013 #154 Share Posted September 26, 2013 But actually his data does show an increase in major hurricanes over the last 30 yearsit's not statistically significant, he comments on wuwt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 26, 2013 #155 Share Posted September 26, 2013 I admire patience of Little Fish. Im mean it is scientificly prooven that AGW is myth. But Little Fish realy have patience with fringe theorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 26, 2013 #156 Share Posted September 26, 2013 I admire patience of Little Fish. Im mean it is scientificly prooven that AGW is myth. But Little Fish realy have patience with fringe theorists. And that about says it as far your understanding of science goes. Science can't "prove" anything, except in the probabilistic sense used in statistics. And these days, nearly all science is statistics-based. And from where I sit, YOU TWO are the fringe theorists, with apologies to the theorists. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted September 27, 2013 #157 Share Posted September 27, 2013 What do you mean? TSI or total solar irradiance is the amount of solar energy that's hits Earths atmosphere. Meaning that its TSI which can change the earth energy budget. Hoyts figure 10 is a TSI reconstruction. "In this paper we examine several different solar indices measured over the past century that are potential proxy measures for the Sun's irradiance. These indices are (1) the equatorial solar rotation rate, (2) the sunspot structure, the decay rate of individual sunspots, and the number of sunspots without umbrae, and (3) the length and decay rate of the sunspot cycle. Each index can be used to develop a model for the Sun's total irradiance as seen at the Earth. Three solar indices allow the irradiance to be modeled back to the mid-1700s. The indices are (1) the length of the solar cycle, (2) the normalized decay rate of the solar cycle, and (3) the mean level of solar activity. All the indices are well correlated, and one possible explanationf or their nearly simultaneousv ariationsi s changesi n the Sun's convectivee nergy transport. Although changes in the Sun's convective energy transport are outside the realm of normal stellar structure theory (e.g., mixing length theory), one can imagine variations arising from even the simplest view of sunspots as vertical tubes of magnetic flux, which would serve as rigid pillars affecting thee nergfylo wp atternbsy ensurinlagr ger-scaelded iesA. composisteo lairr radiancmeo delb, ased upon these proxies, is compared to the northern hemisphere temperature departures for 1700-1992. Approximately 71% of the decadal variance in the last century can be modeled with these solar indices, although this analysis does not include anthropogenic or other variations which would affect the results. Over the entire three centuries, -•50% of the variance is modeled" http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf other TSI reconstructions, would use cosmogenic proxies,c14, be10 etc to model TSI, Hoyt is a composite of various solar effects, for instance sunspots which not only effect TSI, but are a measure for magnetic effects. Hoyts reconstruction maybe a better representation of solar influence on climate than other proxies that model just TSI. Hoyt is remarkably well correlated with temperatures in the arctic which would suggest that solar activity (rather than just TSI) accounts for the majority of warming in the arctic, sunspots and flares after all produce more plasma above the arctic cirlce, its not unreasonable to suggest this may effect climate. true TSI measurements would not include any of this, I'm not an expert but I follow the discussions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyLove Posted September 27, 2013 #158 Share Posted September 27, 2013 "4 Climate Myths You'll Hear This Week" http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #159 Share Posted September 27, 2013 And that about says it as far your understanding of science goes. Science can't "prove" anything, except in the probabilistic sense used in statistics. And these days, nearly all science is statistics-based. And from where I sit, YOU TWO are the fringe theorists, with apologies to the theorists. Doug No Doug, in this story you are Fringie theorist. But I dont think you are source of it. You just retell what others "scientists" have spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 27, 2013 #160 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I have mentioned several times that all the popular science journals I respect and read regularly (Science, Nature, Scientific American, Science Weekly) regularly publish articles on human-caused global warming and regularly include editorials warning about it and debunking the deniers. I am not competent to assess all the stuff posted here, except in light of the above, which tends me to figure the denial of this process, which some of you act as though it were a given, is unscientific and political. Even though I have posted this point several times, no one has yet responded. Do all of the established scientific magazines have it wrong? Please don't tell me they are in someone's pocket or there is some sort of conspiracy, cause if you do I will know exactly what conclusion about you to draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #161 Share Posted September 27, 2013 (edited) Frankie, I know your mother language isnt English so I just want to correct you on above. On English and in science we said: Sceptics not deniers! Dont take it as law just as lession! Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #162 Share Posted September 27, 2013 (edited) Little Fish, if Saru decided that we vote for member of the year, you should get award! for patience, spreading truth, sceptical thoughts, insights, civil, easygoing, friendly debate. Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 27, 2013 #163 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Frankie, I know your mother language isnt English so I just want to correct you on above. On English and in science we said: Sceptics not deniers! Dont take it as law just as lession! Actually I know that. English allows one to coin words using accepted roots (deny) and accepted suffixes ("-er} for person who does the root. There is a considerable difference in meaning, since skeptic is one who questions and is open but a denier is one who denies outright. I sometimes do that when I cannot think of an acceptable translation for a Vietnamese word, although in this case I've been using the structure for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2013 #164 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I admire patience of Little Fish. Im mean it is scientificly prooven that AGW is myth. But Little Fish realy have patience with fringe theorists. Quite the opposite, little fish and yourself are firmly in a fringe minority. LF is on the hard fringe of CT so your welcome to his good company. If you actually bothered to follow upon many of his dubious "facts" you might start to change your mind. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #165 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Quite the opposite, little fish and yourself are firmly in a fringe minority. LF is on the hard fringe of CT so your welcome to his good company. If you actually bothered to follow upon many of his dubious "facts" you might start to change your mind. Br Cornelius Oh we have "consensus" here too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2013 #166 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Oh we have "consensus" here too? Consensus is the way that we organize information. Otherwise we would have no way of knowing if the one idea has any merit at all.We especially need consensus when we personally don't havew enough knowledge to know the likely probability of one fact against another been true. We cannot know everything and in many thing we have to respect the knowledge of those who know more and have studied the issues in ways that we can never achieve personally. Anything else is egotistical hubris. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #167 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Its good to have consensus. But I have problems when someone say we have consensus while half people dont agree with it. We call it "outgoing debate" then not consensus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2013 #168 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Its good to have consensus. But I have problems when someone say we have consensus while half people dont agree with it. We call it "outgoing debate" then not consensus! Half of the poorly informed may not agree(though the real figure is about 70% of the general public agree with climate scientists), but of those who are in a position to form a consensus (ie climate scientists) the consensus rises to about 97%. There is no serious ongoing debate outside of the details of how things are going to pan out. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted September 27, 2013 #169 Share Posted September 27, 2013 C02 affect on the atmosphere in regard to heating has been known and understood for a very long time. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 27, 2013 #170 Share Posted September 27, 2013 The UN climate panel has just issued a report, their 5th major report since 1990 each finding a greater certainty that the world is warming and that human activity is the chief cause. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all&r=0 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 27, 2013 #171 Share Posted September 27, 2013 (edited) C02 affect on the atmosphere in regard to heating has been known and understood for a very long time. http://www.aip.org/h...climate/co2.htm http://www.retronaut...global-warming/ However... I will PM you since Mods deleted my insights... Its all about money! IIPC=NWO They want to earn on myth! Thats whats all about. Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beany Posted September 28, 2013 #172 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Really? 97% of climate scientists are just in it for the money? It makes me happy you're not in charge of this. I, for one, am not willing to make that bet. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 28, 2013 #173 Share Posted September 28, 2013 The UN climate panel has just issued a report, their 5th major report since 1990 each finding a greater certainty that the world is warming and that human activity is the chief cause. http://www.nytimes.c...ewanted=all&r=0 Thanks for the link; Google news only sent me to the WSJ article, and you have to have a subscription to read it in full. I wish Google wouldn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 28, 2013 #174 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Really? 97% of climate scientists are just in it for the money? It makes me happy you're not in charge of this. I, for one, am not willing to make that bet. 97%? Who count it? Please. And yes. IPCC is all about, how Abba song goes: Money, money, money... New taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyLove Posted September 28, 2013 #175 Share Posted September 28, 2013 http://www.retronaut...global-warming/ However... I will PM you since Mods deleted my insights... Its all about money! IIPC=NWO They want to earn on myth! Thats whats all about. It should be the other way round, as more money is earned through increased production and consumption of goods, both of which require more oil and resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now