Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 9001 - 9020 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

BASE104

Social climber

An Oil Field

Oct 28, 2013 - 11:34am PT

What finally moved me into the AGW camp, which is downright heresy in the oil business, was the analogy with the Cretaceous event, which is well studied. There was a period of global ocean acidification that laid down the high organic shales which sourced the Middle East oilfields. Most of the mid-continent shales are from a Devonian event that is poorly represented in the rock record.

I keep telling you guys to google

cretaceous hothouse
gingko balboa stomata index
ocean acidification

That should get you heading in the right direction.

I'm out. Gotta go drive today.

raymond phule

climber

Oct 28, 2013 - 11:37am PT

Discussing with the chief et al. is similar to trying to teach my four year old daughter simple math. She just don't seem to be able to understand it. There are two important differences though, she wants to learn and she is going to learn it in the future.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Oct 28, 2013 - 11:47am PT

Yes, already familiar with it from long before participation on this thread Base. The huge quantities of volcanic GHG's lofted into the atmosphere are far beyond mankinds meager abilities.

Why don't you take a good look at the science as represented by the NIPCC climate change reconsidered II. Fifty scientists, 1098 pages, better fit to the observations, Ed.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 11:53am PT

The Miller et al. (2013) paper discussed upthread, in which researchers found that some retreating Canadian ice sheets are exposing ancient moss that has been ice-covered for more than 100,000 years, has predictably drawn blog attacks by the usual suspects. But their arguments have been weak even by denialist blog standards.

One good thing to come of this circus has been to make me aware of the blog "Musings on Quantitative Paleoecology," by paleoecologist Richard Telford (University of Bergen). He nicely explains with crayons how the same ice sheet, melting back, can expose vegetation of different ages. If you'd like to understand what Steve McIntyre could not, you might check this out.

Since I discussed the presumed Eemian mosses being exposed on Baffin Island discovered by Miller et al (2013) and the clueless response from WUWT, I’ve seen that others are discussing this paper, including Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry, and Jim Bouldin.

Curry’s contribution can be summed up as

The reasoning behind the Miller et al. conclusions is rather complex, with a number of assumptions, I’m not sure what to make of their arguments.

Both Bouldin and McIntyre comment that at some of the icecaps’ margins, the moss appearing from under the melting ice is mid-late Holocene, at others it is >~40,000 years old, presumably Eemian. For example, from McIntyre,

A question: How does one reconcile the supposed in situ continuity of the little “ice cap” in the vicinity of sample M10-B231v (1395 m) since 44000 BP with recession in the vicinity of nearby higher M10-B226v (1438 m)?

Let’s get the virtual crayons out to try to explain what is happening.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 12:04pm PT

The huge quantities of volcanic GHG's lofted into the atmosphere are far beyond mankinds meager abilities.

Mankind's meager abilities are currently lofting about 35 gigatons per year for CO2 alone. That's something like two Yellowstone Caldera supereruptions per year.

Why don't you take a good look at the science as represented by the NIPCC climate change reconsidered II. Fifty scientists, 1098 pages, better fit to the observations, Ed.

The NIPCC report has no credibility among scientists. For example, see discussion upthread.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Oct 28, 2013 - 12:23pm PT

Thanks for that paleo link, Chiloe.

And no Sketch, not an echo. They commented on the same post, with different info. Is that ok with you?

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 02:03pm PT

Ron, it happens I did just read that paper, it's in the issue of Oct 4 Science. Very interesting paper. But I'm gonna guess that you did not read it, and don't understand what hypothesis the author was testing, or what he found out. Think you do? Take a shot.

raymond phule

climber

Oct 28, 2013 - 02:38pm PT

Ron once again show a very impressive understanding of something...

How is it possible to be wrong all the time?

raymond phule

climber

Oct 28, 2013 - 02:50pm PT

You just completely missed for example Chiloe's point. I should try to explain.

Someone (Buhannon?) wrote a fake paper and send it to a group of journals.

He then wrote a serious paper that was published in "science" about his findings.

You draw a incorrect conclusion about that paper.

Chiloe has read the paper in science and asked you to read it.

You thought he meant the fake paper.

The serious paper published in "science" have information that show that your first conclusion of that paper are wrong.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 02:55pm PT

that paper had NOTHING to do with my post OTHER THAN its falseness

Ron, you could not sound more witless if you held your breath until you turned blue. "That paper" is not the fake paper that was accepted, "that paper" was about the fake paper that was accepted. Which is the whole point of your post. You're not a reading or thinking man so this still goes over your head, but for others, here's the abstract to "that paper" which has Ron hopelessly befuddled.

Science 4 October 2013:
Vol. 342 no. 6154 pp. 60-65
DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
John Bohannon

A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.

On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.

In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

Why did Bohannon run this experiment, and which journals fell for his bait? Anyone (who can read) can learn that by checking out this neat paper themselves.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 03:17pm PT

see second link i posted for further clariffication.,. Holeeeeshite.

Say it in your own words, Ron, clarify your own thinking for us.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 03:55pm PT

Bohannon's real paper about a fake paper is part of this thematic issue on "Communication in Science: Pressures and Predators."

We've heard much about pressures but what are these predators? you might wonder. Well, they are what Bohannon is writing about: the new flood of open-access journals [and meetings] that make money by charging the authors. His experiment shows that many such journals just pretend to do peer review. Some really do, however. For example, the respectable PLOS ONE bounced his fake paper.

But OA predators aside, there certainly is room for experiment and reform ideas to improve the process of peer reviews. As someone who has been through this many times as author and as reviewer, I could tell bad stories but also plenty of good ones, where the system worked more or less as it should. Peer review seems necessary to science, and I'm sure there is not one answer to make it all work better.

Peer review is mistakenly described at times as a "gold standard" for whether research is good. It is nothing of the sort, just one step in the process. Closer to a gold standard is whether the research findings can be replicated by other studies (are they real?) and whether they open further research or practical doors (are they useful?).

Publication of peer reviewed papers is in this respect just a first step toward scientific confirmation. And if other scientists give a damn about your topic there will almost certainly be later studies that say something like "Yes, but it's more complicated than that...."

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Oct 28, 2013 - 04:02pm PT

Chief...You don't look so bad all dressed up..RJ

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 04:53pm PT

NOW do you get my point????>?>?>!

No Ron, you made an idiot of yourself by not understanding what your own cut and paste was about, or what other people meant when they pointed this out to you. In case you've forgotten, here's what you actually wrote. I've bolded your paper references.

Ed did you hear the one about the FALSE paper being sent for review that was accepted by MANY?

edit : And Chiloe,, No m not going to read that bogus paper, as that had NOTHING to do with my post in and of itself eh.

Let me clear it up for you,, that paper had NOTHING to do with my post OTHER THAN its falseness and the fact it was accepted. Thats what i was refrencing after all- the PEER REVIEW process. Not the individual paper. So in your zest to demean and insult,, youve made yourself clearly the stooge here.

But then finally a light dawns and you try to retcon: pretending you knew all along.

CEEEZUS RICE,,, I KNOW THE FAKE PAPER WASNT THE PAPER
That wasnt even my point. see second link i posted for further clariffication.,. Holeeeeshite.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Oct 28, 2013 - 04:59pm PT

I'm smart enough to read, Ron. And write.

Brandon-

climber

The Granite State.

Oct 28, 2013 - 05:29pm PT

The Chief, your attempt at humor has hit an all time low lately.

Is it your knee jerk reaction to be an as#@&%e and conduct personal attacks when you feel threatened?

Or, are you just an a-hole?

I'm going with the former.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You try to make a point, but your dickish writing makes everyone think that you're a kook with no knowledge who yells like a child when questioned. Apparently, shame or personal responsibility aren't a part of your lexicon.

Why do you bring this derision upon yourself?