IntenseDebate - Andrew30

16 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Guest opinion: The pol... · 2 replies · +1 points

The ice caps melt. The water is pulled to the Equator, this raises the tides. With the increased mass at a slightly increased distance from the rotational axis of the Earth the Earths rotation slows to maintain angular velocity. Since the force of gravity is inversely proportional to distance; the pull on the Moon in increased slightly by the bulge of water at the Equator. This combined with the slowing of the rotation of the Earth increases the pull on the Moon and slows the Moons orbit. The Moons orbit decays and it slowly begins to fall into the Earth. It eventually strikes the Earth and the combined mass of the Earth and the Moon in the existing Earth orbit, with the orbital velocity of the Earth, are not sufficient to maintain an orbit around the Sun, so the Earth is pulled into the Sun.

If we do not stop breathing the Earth will fall in to the Sun.

Let’s see the IPCC top that one!

16 years ago @ KUSI - News, Weather a... - Breaking News: Top UN ... · 0 replies · +1 points

" The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias"

Subject: Re: Your Reply to: GISS Temperature Correction Problem?
From: Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
Date: 19 Feb 2008 14:38:47 -0500
To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov

I had a look at the data, and this whole business seems to be related to the infilling of seasonal and annual means. There is no evidence for any step change in any of the individual months.

The only anomalous point (which matches nearby deltas) is for Set 2005. Given the large amount of missing data in lampasas this gets propagated to the annual (D-N) mean – I think – with a little more weight then in the nearby stations. The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias. But I’m not sure on how the filling-in happens.

Gavin

16 years ago @ Big Journalism - Peer-to-Peer Review: H... · 0 replies · +1 points

Science Fiction from the Climate Research Unit.

The CRU is has not been practicing the scientific method for almost two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish all the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are writing fiction.

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work. The outputs from the CRU are in comparison junk, so I ask, why are these fictional 'research' papers allowed to remain in the realm of scientific publications? Why do people continue to quote the CRU as if they were the work of Albert Einstein rather than the work of Mark Twain?

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 1 reply · 0 points

". In fact, there would be warming on a global scale. Just not on a local or regional scale. "??

So every region could stay the same or get colder but the collection of all the regions (the planet) would get warmer.

Colder Everywere = A Warmer Planet.

OK, got it.

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 1 reply · +3 points

I think you might be mistaken.

Each research unit does not have their own set of Stevenson Screens or ocean buoys thought the world. Each location on the planet has one Stevenson Screen or ocean buoy. Each countries organization maintains their own set and makes it available to other countries organizations. The data is collected by an organization and then trimmed, merged and altered in some yet to be determined way and then given a data set name. HadCRUT would be an example of such a result.

There may be many different modified, homogenized, altered and prepared result sets, but there is only one original data set.

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 3 replies · +2 points

Nothing at all can be said either way. That is the issue.

The 'others' that you refer to are all using the same data set, there is only one global data set (because there is only one earth) and different parts of 'others' have adjusted and homogenized it is a similar way. There is no documentation that describes the affect on the data or logic used to determine the application of an adjustment on one data point and not on another. There are also alleged intentional and perhaps some unintentional omissions of data.

Without all the data there can be no verification of the input, let alone the output or any conclusions or theories based on the output. The entire idea is suspect, not in the nefarious meaning of the word suspect, but rather the sense that it needs some investigation.

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 0 replies · +1 points

Consensus is not science;

It is not the role of the skeptic to propose an alternate explanation, their role is to analyze the methods, models, data and results of the original researcher and if possible conduct a test, or make an observation that has a result that contradicts any of the predictions made by the researchers’ theory.

Any result, any single result or observation that should be, but is not predicted by the theory disproves the entire theory. That is how science works.

That is why something like the inability to ‘explain the lack of warming’ is ‘a travesty’, because it is an observation that conflicts with the theory. This would be a serious problem for a real scientific theory and turn it back into a hypothesis or a guess.

Without all of the original data, models, methods and procedures then skeptic can not begin their job. If the skeptics are not able to do their job then the scientific method is defeated.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 5 replies · +2 points

Craig O;
I used the word publish in the sense of ‘to make public’, not as you seem to have understood ‘to have printed in a journal’, I should have been more clear. I used the word original, in its singular definition, as I did with the word all.

The idea that the ‘data has been roughly reproduced’ does not exempt the researches from ‘making public’ their original data. Any skeptical person should be able to take the data, the programs and the descriptions of the methods and reproduce the same output. The methods would of course have to explain anything that was done to the data, and why. The prepared data is not the original data.

I have no way to verify what they claim to have found. Science can not be performed in secret but magic must be.

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 0 replies · +3 points

Dave;

So can you and all the other climate scientologists please stop with the skeptics in the pockets of Big Oil thing, it is getting old. These companies have been funding the CRU for years and years. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were in there right at the start in 1974.

16 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The truth is out there... · 1 reply · +3 points

Dave;
On www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
The CRUs own web site you'll find a partial list of CRU funders.
Including

British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, 'Food to Ethanol'
The United States Department of Energy, 'Nuclear'
Irish Electricity Supply Board. 'LNG, Nuclear'
UK Nirex Ltd. 'Nuclear'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
Tate and Lyle. 'Food to Ethanol'
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 'Nuclear'
KFA Germany, 'Nuclear'

This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.

They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for.

Same as Merck, their 'researchers' and Vioxx, the government and 'thousands and thousands' of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Andrew30

People I'm following

Andrew30