Anti Warming News

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4259
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by j-c-c » Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:46 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:04 am
Friday’s report, the fourth National Climate Assessment, is the latest in a line of federal research into climate change. Mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, it seeks to assess the environmental, economic, and health and safety consequences of climate change. It builds on a 2017 report in which federal scientists found “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

Msm, so richard knows ware it is from.

I am no climatologist but i would think mankind's input to the system must have an influence .
And if you are 100% wrong, what is the real harm?

And if DT and posse are wrong, what is the harm?

Who cares who is 100% provable correct.

Seems many here are rather cavalier about the worlds future when we are all long gone. [-X

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:36 pm

BREAKING::: hundreds of Dead Sea turtles washed up on shore at cape cod..apparently from "cold shock " an extremely quick cooling of the water environment..

Experts say Global warming is the cause.

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 pm

I guess this helps explain what happened to the turtles then!! =D>

The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review, and Kudos to Nic Lewis
November 14th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.

Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.

If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.

A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.

Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.

(more here)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:08 pm

Chukchi Sea polar bears number almost 3000 according to new survey results
Posted on September 3, 2018
The Chukchi Sea finally has a polar bear population estimate! According to survey results from 2016 only recently made public, about 2937 bears (1522-5944) currently inhabit the region, making this the largest subpopulation in the Arctic. This is exciting news — and a huge accomplishment — but the US Fish and Wildlife Service responsible for the work has been oddly mum on the topic.

Not only that, but an extrapolation of that estimate calculated by USFWS researchers for Chukchi plus Alaska (the US portion of the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation) was estimated at 4437 (2283-9527), although with “significant uncertainty.” Nevertheless, it means the 2016 estimate for Alaska could be roughly three times what it was in 2010: a whopping 1500 or so, up from about 450 (or about 225-650) for the same area estimated during the last survey (Bromaghin et al. 2015: Fig. 5a).

Even if the real number for Alaska is only twice as large (~1000), that’s still a huge improvement. It would eliminate the Southern Beaufort as the only polar bear subpopulation in the Arctic to have shown a significant decline blamed on human-caused global warming (Crockford 2018). If the recovery is real, it means the 2004-2006 decline was a temporary fluctuation after all, just like previous declines in the region. I expect, however, that it will take a dedicated SB population survey for officials to concede that point.

There is not yet now a detailed report to cite (Regehr et al. 2018 in prep, see update below), but the numbers were announced at the 10th meeting of the Russian-American Commission on Polar Bears held at the end of July this year (AC SWG 2018) by Eric Regehr (formerly of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, as of 2017 at the University of Washington). [h/t to G.H.] This was the same report that raised the quota for subsistence hunting in the Chukchi from 58 to 85, based on these new figures, as I discussed last week.

Much more HERE including graphs and pics!
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Firedome8 » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:19 pm

Ken0069 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 pm
I guess this helps explain what happened to the turtles then!! =D>

The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review, and Kudos to Nic Lewis
November 14th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.

Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.

If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.

A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.

Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.

(more here)
The authors now acknowledge, key word acknowledge.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:24 am

Ken0069 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 pm
I guess this helps explain what happened to the turtles then!! =D>

The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review, and Kudos to Nic Lewis
November 14th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.

Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.

If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.

A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.

Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.

(more here)
They are all singing from the same song sheet.

God help any person within the cult who questions ANYTHING!!!

I'll bet it would have been peer reviewed to death internally and never seen the light of day if it showed the oceans were cooling significantly

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:24 am

gmrocket wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:24 am
Ken0069 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 pm
I guess this helps explain what happened to the turtles then!! =D>

The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review, and Kudos to Nic Lewis
November 14th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.

Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.

If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.

A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.

Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.

(more here)
They are all singing from the same song sheet.

God help any person within the cult who questions ANYTHING!!!

I'll bet it would have been peer reviewed to death internally and never seen the light of day if it showed the oceans were cooling significantly
You are correct on the god cult...science is not a cult like the Roman catholic church, key word Roman.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pastoral office, the office of shepherding the Church, that was held by the apostles, as a group or "college" with Saint Peter as their head.

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8154
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by pdq67 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:34 am

gmrocket wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:36 pm
BREAKING::: hundreds of Dead Sea turtles washed up on shore at cape cod..apparently from "cold shock " an extremely quick cooling of the water environment..

Experts say Global warming is the cause.
They might, if they bother to look, find out that our NAVY is playing with high power SONAR that might kill the turtles?

Because wasn't they found guilty of hurting some smaller whales several years back due to their SONAR? Caused them to beach or some such stuff to get away from the damage/pain in their hearing organs, (read, ears!)..??

pdq67

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by 1989TransAm » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:45 pm

Looks like the Artic Sea ice is getting close to normal. I think this is tied into the Atlantic ocean cooling down.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:38 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:45 pm
Looks like the Artic Sea ice is getting close to normal. I think this is tied into the Atlantic ocean cooling down.
NASA has said we are in for some long term colder than normal climate

wonder why that wasnt BLASTED all over the msm's propaganda sites?

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:27 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:38 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:45 pm
Looks like the Artic Sea ice is getting close to normal. I think this is tied into the Atlantic ocean cooling down.
NASA has said we are in for some long term colder than normal climate

wonder why that wasnt BLASTED all over the msm's propaganda sites?
Simple really. It doesn't fit the "warmers" narrative!!
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:20 pm

This isn't part of the "pause " it's actually going the other way.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by GRTfast » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:23 pm


gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:37 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:19 pm
Ken0069 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:48 pm
I guess this helps explain what happened to the turtles then!! =D>

The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review, and Kudos to Nic Lewis
November 14th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.

Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.

If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.

A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.

Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.

(more here)
The authors now acknowledge, key word acknowledge.
uh no dude..thats a huge organization with hundreds of scientists who obviously peer reviewed it...it wasnt just the authors. many eyes and brains went over it with a fine tooth comb. and it was still dead wrong,,by a bunch

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4230
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:01 am

j-c-c wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:46 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:04 am
Friday’s report, the fourth National Climate Assessment, is the latest in a line of federal research into climate change. Mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, it seeks to assess the environmental, economic, and health and safety consequences of climate change. It builds on a 2017 report in which federal scientists found “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

Msm, so richard knows ware it is from.

I am no climatologist but i would think mankind's input to the system must have an influence .
And if you are 100% wrong, what is the real harm?

And if DT and posse are wrong, what is the harm?

Who cares who is 100% provable correct.

Seems many here are rather cavalier about the worlds future when we are all long gone. [-X
The harm is we lose things over a lie. Oh and they are correct about human influence. All they have to do is dump the airplane smoke trails and turn on the high power devices and there ya go. But they want us to believe it just happens by magic from an engines exhaust pipe.
The huge harm is global governance and no more liberties, just like how they lie and create gun problems to take them away. Same MO all the time.
Make a problem and then come up with a cure to it. Its like a bad mechanic sabotaging your car so you will bring it back and pay more.

Post Reply