Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
questionmark

The big climate-change myth

360 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But actually his data does show an increase in major hurricanes over the last 30 years
it's not statistically significant, he comments on wuwt.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Big Bad Voodoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Big Bad Voodoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Global-Warming.jpg

http://www.retronaut...global-warming/

However...

I will PM you since Mods deleted my insights...

Its all about money! :tu:

IIPC=NWO

They want to earn on myth!

Thats whats all about.

Edited by Big Bad Voodoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global-Warming.jpg

http://www.retronaut...global-warming/

However...

I will PM you since Mods deleted my insights...

Its all about money! :tu:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.