35 of 35
35
Science, science, science.
Posted: 20 December 2017 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 511 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  2013-06-01
DougC.V2 - 19 December 2017 04:56 PM

a boy and his sock puppet…


I do what I can to help save the life on earth. How’s your Russian collusion going. You are getting real quite about the collusion. Makes me think that its all political for you and not about the democratic system. Kind of like your views on Global Warming. The Russian collusion is looking like it might be a bigger story than Watergate. The biggest story about back room government undercover operations to hit the news in decades. This week should give us some idea where this Russian collusion is going to go.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2017 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 512 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24


FYI

A cool review of how science, science, science works, and is explained, among serious professionals trying to teach serious amateurs.  grin

The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Scientific practice skeptics Sun-earth connections — stefan @ 16 January 2017
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-nasa-data-conspiracy-theory-and-the-cold-sun

When climate deniers are desperate because the measurements don’t fit their claims, some of them take the final straw: they try to deny and discredit the data.

The years 2014 and 2015 reached new records in the global temperature, and 2016 has done so again. Some don’t like this because it doesn’t fit their political message, so they try to spread doubt about the observational records of global surface temperatures. A favorite target are the adjustments that occur as these observational records are gradually being vetted and improved by adding new data and eliminating artifacts that arise e.g. from changing measurement practices or the urban heat island effect. More about this is explained in this blog article by Victor Venema from Bonn University, a leading expert on homogenization of climate data. And of course the new paper by Hausfather et al, that made quite a bit of news recently, documents how meticulously scientists work to eliminate bias in sea surface temperature data, in this case arising from a changing proportion of ship versus buoy observations.

To illustrate the shenanigans of self-styled “climate skeptics”, take for example the following graph, which has been circulating for a while on climate denier websites. It beautifully illustrates two of the favorite tricks of climate deniers: cherry picking and deceptive trick graphics.

. . .

Conclusion

I have discussed this example here in some detail because it exemplifies the methods of so-called “climate skeptics”. People like Vahrenholt and Lüning trust that a layperson won’t notice their various tricks. An outsider can ultimately hardly recognize these unless he studies intensively the available data and scientific literature. However, applying some common-sense criteria can give a layperson a clear indication of the lack of credibility: the source is a “climate skeptics” website, there is no research institution and no professional climate scientists behind these claims, and there is no peer-reviewed publication with the cooling forecast, rather it is directed exclusively at a lay audience. Finally there is a connection of the authors to the fossil energy business.

As in professional journalism, ...

None of this is infallible, and professional scientists sometimes make mistakes. For this reason, one should not necessarily believe every individual statement by a scientist, not even each peer-reviewed publication. It is better to base ones assessment on the bigger picture. There is good reason why every few years, hundreds of climate scientists from around the world voluntarily and unpaid tackle the big task of sifting through the scientific literature and debating it and summarizing the state of knowledge in the reports of the IPCC. There has long been an overwhelming consensus about the basic facts of global warming. Anyone who finds serious, defensible counter-evidence would quickly become famous – a place in the top journals Nature, Science or PNAS would be assured. The likelihood that you will find a scientific sensation on a shrill layperson website like WUWT is infinitely smaller than that you are simply being fooled there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2018 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 513 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7917
Joined  2009-02-26

A little tid-bit:
https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_and_chris_anderson_mammoths_resurrected_geoengineering_and_other_thoughts_from_a_futurist?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=image__2018-01-05

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2018 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 514 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

One of the recurring memes Mike tossed out was that we need to learn more about the Milankovitch Cycles and figure out where we were in it.
He ignored all the information I offered explaining that question, since it’s among the early first fundamental discoveries in our climate understanding.

Now I’ve come across a wonderful talk by Colin Summerhayes PhD, that discusses those exact questions with the vantage of the latests science.
Very interesting, as a speaker Summerhayes, I’d rate: 4 stars.

Colin Summerhayes: Earth’s Climate Evolution- a Geological Perspective 03 June 2015-
Grantham Imperial
Published on Jun 16, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0pgrzGnpv0
A Grantham Seminar by Dr Colin Summerhayes, University of Cambridge.
Our knowledge of the variability of past climate underpins our understanding of the present day climate as well as allowing us to anticipate future changes.
In this seminar, Dr Summerhayes reviews how advances in geology have informed climate change theory since the 19th century.

Profile
 
 
   
35 of 35
35