| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5561
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Why did Spencer submit his paper to Remote Sensing, a <fledgling> journal and PAY them... benevolence? As I wrote in previous post, he could not get his paper published in anywhere else. <refining our knowledge> is when prior work on same is taken into consideration. Spencer failed on that big time [he has made it regular practice]. Had the reviewers been aware, the paper would not have been accepted until corrected. The failure to see that on your part is classic. Wagner saw what Spencer did and took the consequences.
About the paper, at RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...d-the-process-of-science/. So where does S&B11 fall on this spectrum? The signs of sloppy work and (at best) cursory reviewing are clear on even a brief look at the paper. Figure 2b has the axes mislabeled with incorrect units. No error bars are given on the correlations in figure 3 (and they are substantial - See figure 2 in the new Dessler paper). The model-data comparisons are not like-with-like (10 years of data from the real world compared to 100 years in the model - which also makes a big difference). And the - bottom-line - implication by S&B that their reported discrepancy correlates with climate sensitivity is not even supported by their own figure 3. Their failure to acknowledge previous work on the role of ENSO in creating the TOA radiative changes they are examining (such as Trenberth et al, 2010 or Chung et al, 2010), likely led them to ignore the fact that it is the simulation of ENSO variability, not climate sensitivity, that determines how well the models match the S&B analysis (as clearly demonstrated in Trenberth and Fasulloâs guest post here last month). With better peer review, Spencer could perhaps have discovered these things for himself, and a better and more useful paper might have resulted. By trying to do an end run around his critics, Spencer ended up running into a wall. Reads like he did a great job of ''refining knowledge'', or? Now, dancing and prancing around No doubt as to the warming Sek Just a differing opinion on root cause Where's that root cause of yours? As suspected, you've got none and continue around the bowled turd. Always wanting others to broaden their horizon. When will you? It's simple, one book: The Discovery of Global Warming Try that first step. Could it be *puny* man? this is a bulletin board not a peer reviewed paper Yup, license to stretch the facts in any way you like. CO2 does it's job, even at 0.0392% and rising. The planet balanced itself at around 0.0280% and stored everything else long term away as C without the O2 affixed, which is why we HAD a stable climate for humanity to thrive in... the root cause! Regrettable, there's a hard way ahead to ween us from the largest part of fossil fuel dependency. Wars will be fought over it, over water and food as well. Past wars were too. Food for thought, but not to all, and do watch out for others ... --//-- P.S. On the publication fees: See http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/apc/. |
||
|
|
toss
Senior Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Jan 3, 2007 Post Count: 220 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
P.S. Is that English or archaic English? Ilk dates from the 13th century or so. My reference is directly from the current Chambers (UK) Dictionary. I have never heard of the slightly derogatory interpretation before you posted it. As suggested I suspect it is an Americanism and my intent was simply to ease any tension you may have felt from DA's use of the word as I clearly comprehended his intent would have been without malice. Don't know where you got your list. Got a link? It was sent to me some time ago by an academic and posted from my HDD so no link. I have source checked a sampling of the references and found them accurate. I see the pretty picture but will ignore it. I long ago retired from debating the "science" as the waters are so muddied that it is beyond my skills and resources to filter it into any usable or comprehensible form. It is my opinion that very few people in the whole world now have any true understanding of the "science". So much collected data has been proven invalid, so many interpretations shown to be corrupt and the myriad of lobbying agendas often counterfeit, that there is little hope that debating the "science" will enhance our collective understanding and even less so could lead to useful outcomes. My posting was rather to question political intent over time. The actual public debate (and the IPCC) is after all dominated by political interests. Those interests usually quote selected "science" to support their contentions as they stand before the masses via the media and proclaim that they alone can save us from the impending doom (usually by raising taxes). And of course the media do love dramatic headlines as portrayed in the list I offered. Read that list again.... Politicians saying it is necessary to push their agenda even if it is completely wrong. The media promoting warming one year and an ice age the next. How can we possible determine the reality? Climate change has long been a political issue - the science is not settled and is of little consequence to the debate. Cheers Toss |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks, toss, but seen it all. The masses are inert, and the *Merchants of Doubt* have made it in their long term efforts necessary to get louder. Obama just stepped back from an air pollution regulation, instructing the EPA, "because it would hurt the economy" (his predecessor blew). At 7 billion, a few more or less is not relevant, by cold numbers. Underlying, he's right, no one is indispensable in the grand scheme of things.
------------------------------------------//-- PS, the Alfred Wegener Institute [they had a research ship at the very North Pole] also made a press release few days ago in German, low key, about current state observations, the Healy and the St Louis of St. Lawrence were very near there too at the same time. Read it in the MSM in 3-4 weeks. The "pretty picture"'s green line is going ... edit: Who said the science was settled? How much confidence do you have it Ain't True? Man build the atom bomb from theory. Man is able to pinpoint rocket a research packet of electronics to meet with a comet blazing through our solar system, steer a rover to the cm exact on Mars. Really think we don't know what CO2 does in our atmosphere? [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 7, 2011 6:56:09 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Pretty picture from JAXA:
 Pretty [big] picture from Bremen (with a former "normal" line): http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png Something has not settled out yet, at September 7, but it can be as late as September 24 going by recent decade history. DMI shows it too: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Not as cold as it used to be, with a steady going sun. --//-- |
||
|
|
toss
Senior Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Jan 3, 2007 Post Count: 220 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Who said the science was settled? Al Gore et al. Widely promulgated by the mass media. How much confidence do you have it Ain't True? 100% confidence it isn't settled. Revelations such as for example.... 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda 'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734 To save typing I stole the following to express my opinion... Science is never completely "settled." Of course, much our understanding of the way the universe works has long been nailed down to the point where there's little to no controversy among scientists. But even on the most fundamental matters generally taught to students as an established fact, there are always scientists poking around the edges, looking for flaws in the ointment. Nothing is ever settled. Indeed, almost every scientist makes his or her living challenging what others have already agreed. Papers are being written every day that remind us that our understanding of nature is an evolving and never ending process. We're forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is "settled" is missing the point. So if ever there was a straw man in climatology circles, it would be that the science of anthropogenic global warming is "settled." It isn't and never will be. Man build the atom bomb from theory. Man is able to pinpoint rocket a research packet of electronics to meet with a comet blazing through our solar system, steer a rover to the cm exact on Mars. Really think we don't know what CO2 does in our atmosphere? Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare today's climate predictions to the 1970's forecast of an impending mini ice age? I see no merit in comparing global warming theory to the successful construction of an atom bomb, nor to the other wonderful achievements you cite. One could equally postulate that if we can do a Mars Rover then we must be able to cure the common cold. Cheers |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
toss,
----------------------------------------31,000 of how many in total scientists? A previous analysis of who rejected global warming were [posted on this forum], well pretty much a handful are that climate/geoscience field. Proctologists signing the list is kind of ... well you get the gist. NOAA/NSIDC/MET/KNMI/DMI/CRU/GISS etc would not consult such professions on their *opinions*. CO2 is a pretty inert matter, does not change shape, just likes the long wave incoming and outgoing radiation. A cold virus does change shape, that's why it keeps coming back. AIDS virus does so too. That's why we're here. Science moved on since the 70s as much as we now know more about the cold virus, we have 40 years more of climate data. Those that discussed global cooling were a handful too, then. Just out, PIOMAS Sea ice volume. It's a model based on many inputs, in situ too by said AWI ship [polarstern], Healy and St Louis. Those ships measured a mean Ice thickness of under 1 meter thick. When one takes the PIOMAS ice volume of 4,275 cubic kilometers and equates that out to the current 3 million km square of Sea ice per Cryosphere today, their ribbon chart posted here quite a few times, the mean thickness works out at 1.425 meters. PIOMAS plotting out all 33 years looks presently like this... a new record low [red line]:  This is only a bulletin board I'm reading where accuracy is not a must. Yes, that's long been proven. Still, not the politics, nor the consequences [less ice and snow and glaziers, the tip of the iceberg consequences, continue looking for those root cause(s) suggested to exist that explains the global warming (that are not of puny man made origin)... this per NOAA:  Common David Autumns, out with it. Not a wishy washy handwave list from Watts soon to cause RSI, no, a nuts and bolds root cause(s), those that in a ISO 9000 process would be identified, so a permanent solution can be developed and implemented. We've had the answer since the late 19th century, since the mid 50's it's confirmed fact and since the 70s we're putting up one after the other satellite because it's not that we don't know, but want to see real time how bad it becomes and on the go use systems such as Envisat to issue alerts on ongoing and impending disasters. Another big flooding in Pakistan to name one. Are the masses ready for the full truth? Many think not, but as per the Vatican's own scientists, we've certainly advanced into the Anthropocene. We're changing the planet as a whole. --//-- P.S. Sadly on sats, not Al Gore's TRIANA. G.W Bush made sure it remained grounded and when it was finally reassigned, the military took control. No good for us to directly know that the amount of energy going out is less than the energy going in... which is why it's warming... with that steady sun. The official news could look like it was lost in space when it finally does. Inconvenient Truths cost money, so maybe there will eventually dawn a taxation motivation... the more polluting, the more you pay, just like smoking, the more you do the more the customs and excise folk are happy... health care has to be paid by something. [Edit 3 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 7, 2011 11:59:47 AM] |
||
|
|
GeraldRube
Master Cruncher United States Joined: Nov 20, 2004 Post Count: 2153 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
health care has to be paid by something.--Yes by the fools that compromise their own health ------------- CERN CLOUDs the future for global warming alarmists-- The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), established in Geneva in 1954, is a leading laboratory for physics research, involving over 2,400 employees and nearly 8,000 physicists and engineers from universities around the world. In July the head of CERN issued an interesting gag order, prohibiting scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The director is not speaking about leaking results, since scientists often do, in fact, just that by making conference presentations prior to publication. What worried the director was discussion of the whether the results might be counter to the politically popular paradigm that human CO2 emissions will end life as we know it. What should have worried the director is the possibility that scientists would quash exciting results because of politics. In an interview with a German newspaper, he said the following:-- I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. http://www.wanliss.com/2011/09/cern-clouds-th...global-warming-alarmists/
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Good news for the unsettled science department: A Professor, Igor Semiletov, has, so is the rumor, rushed off from Vladivostok, to take stock of the expanding methane bubbling in the Arctic.
“It is high time to warn people,” Semiletov told the conference attendees, but then took a pause, and offered an apologetic smile before adding: “We can do nothing about it, of course.” http://tyeebridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/methane1_h1-1024x643.jpg Courtesy the NSF. Click for article. The usually staid NSF recently backed up Semiletov in a press release. “Permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” http://tyeebridge.com/?p=608 Can someone please shut that fridge door please. --//-- P.S. More refinement of knowledge, underway as I write. CH4 does what CO2 does, at about 23 times the power. P.P.S. Acute methane clathrate releases are thought of being the cause of ships and planes being swallowed in the Bermuda triangle. Ships don't float well in such gas boiling seas, nor do semi-sub drilling rigs when the blow out preventer fails. |
||
|
|
GeraldRube
Master Cruncher United States Joined: Nov 20, 2004 Post Count: 2153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times
----------------------------------------September 7, 2011 Paper or plastic? For shoppers in Los Angeles, the choice may soon be neither. Hoping to reduce the billions of grocery bags circulating throughout the city, an L.A. councilman Tuesday called for a sweeping ban on single-use paper and plastic bags.-- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grocery-bags-20110907,0,3498662.story |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Totally agreed. Here we have to pay for the bags [it's illegal to give them for free], so we bring our own, highly durable [the oldest is probably 25 years]. If you buy a bag at the cashier, the print on it asks to reuse the bag, so either that or they go as lining for the kitchen bin, and get disposed off when full. Our segregated waste is:
plastic paper/carton organic chemical glass metals non-descript. At every tabacchi there's a battery container and old cloth containers are at select parking spots and malls. We can call for any home equipment/appliances to be collected and they'll come and fetch it within 48 hours. By law, if you buy a new fridge, the old fridge has to be taken back for save disposal and removal of the coolant [ozone layer damaging]. And surprise, there's actually money made with all of this recycling effort and it gives a good feel too, to have actively contributed to preserving the environment and the worlds finite resources. Good for you, GeraldRube, you recognized that too. --//-- |
||
|
|
|