PART 10/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data
| 02-02-2020 19:39 | |
crank ★★★★★(2455) |
John Niclasen skrev: John, Delphi, Jørgen og flere andre > Det er for billig propaganda, kun at interessere sig for at finde et sted på kloden, hvor der stadig er koldt. Det er aldeles uinteressant, da det store billede tegner varmerekorder. Ud af de sidste 6 år har vi haft 6 år med global varmerekord! Der findes ikke gyldige modargumenter til det faktum. Har i en hensigt med jeres vanvittige agenda? . ☯ |
| 02-02-2020 22:02 | |
delphi ★★★★★(7581) |
Ud af de sidste 6 år har vi haft 6 år med global varmerekord! Ja men det er jo så det der med stor sandsynlighed ikke har været, fordi man manipulerer data så det ser varmere ud end det egentlig er! Redigeret d. 02-02-2020 22:03 |
| 02-02-2020 22:14 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
delphi skrev:Ud af de sidste 6 år har vi haft 6 år med global varmerekord! OMG |
| 02-02-2020 22:41 | |
| crank★★★★★ (2455) |
delphi skrev:Ud af de sidste 6 år har vi haft 6 år med global varmerekord! Det er jo bare endnu en påstand - ikke et modargument. . ☯ |
| 02-02-2020 23:02 | |
| delphi★★★★★ (7581) |
Det er en kendsgerning at temperaturdata fra varmeperioden under anden verdenskrig er fordrejet/forfalsket i de officielle data som ligger til grund for denne graf se  Og dermed er de varmerecorder fra krigens tid ikke anderkendt mere. |
| 03-02-2020 01:05 | |
| crank★★★★★ (2455) |
delphi skrev: -en justering i en graf; men det bliver man da også tydeligt oplyst om? Hvad vil du fortælle med den fine graf? Især i, hysteriske 'realister', burde da holde jer til, hvad der kan måles og vejes. Og ikke agere spindoktorer for et system, der virkede engang. Køb jer et termometer. Der er ikke fiflet med temperaturerne. Det er selve naturen, der fifler med jeres virkelighedsopfattelse. Det kaldes fortrængning. I kan ikke stikke hovedet i busken længere. Nu får i brug for noget angstdæmpende. - kære realister . ☯ |
| 03-02-2020 01:46 | |
| delphi★★★★★ (7581) |
Når man ikke fra officielle regeringsdatabaser forholder sig til fakta men bevist forfalsker unikke og fastsatte gamle temperaturdata, så er det snyd for at underbygge et politisk mål... Se 11 min. og 30 sec inde i videoen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWwIKV3KG0&t=373s Når det islandske metrologiske institut har indberettet temperaturdata for fortiden så skal GISS jo ikke begynde at rette data til, så der kommer til at fremstå, som det man ønsker, nemlig at der var koldere i fortiden og varmere i dag. Redigeret d. 03-02-2020 01:48 |
| 03-02-2020 05:50 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Delphi, mener du alvorligt, at en video er et bevis? Frank Lansner forsøgte tidligere langt mere ihærdigt at påstå en konspiration af forskere, der ville misinformere menneskeheden. Problemet er blot, at beviset ikke findes. Og hvis der er tvivl om nogen justeringer, så skal alle parter jo høres. Det sker ikke, og du er derfor ude i overtro. Så afvist, datamanipulation med konspirationsteori er junk news. |
| 03-02-2020 11:24 | |
| delphi★★★★★ (7581) |
Problemet er blot, at beviset ikke findes. Når konkrete målinger fra målestationer på island som laves gradvis om over 30 - 40 år. Det er et klokkeklar bevis på bevist vildledning og fordrejning og ikke andet. Redigeret d. 03-02-2020 11:54 |
| 03-02-2020 15:37 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Delphi har fuldstandig ret. Peter - hvad for en bevis har du brug for? |
| 03-02-2020 15:47 | |
| Peder Kruse★★☆☆☆ (220) |
Beviser tæller ikke, når Kong Sensus råder Hvis virkeligheden ikke følger teorien, må virkeligheden jo bøjes. |
| 03-02-2020 20:59 | |
| Peder Kruse★★☆☆☆ (220) |
DMI holder sig ikke tilbage |
| 03-02-2020 21:07 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Peder Kruse skrev: Mærkværdigt og ligegyldigt synspunkt. |
| 04-02-2020 20:35 | |
| Klimatis★★☆☆☆ (187) |
Peter Villadsen skrev: Jamen Peter så får du lige et videobevis mere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMc1o2tUBds&t=22s |
| 04-02-2020 21:39 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Klimatis skrev:Peter Villadsen skrev: Jeg ser desværre ikke ulødige indslag som Tony Heller. Ham kan Fox news have for sig selv. |
| 05-02-2020 12:02 | |
| delphi★★★★★ (7581) |
Jeg ser desværre ikke ulødige indslag som Tony Heller. Ham kan Fox news have for sig selv. Hvad med krystal klare fakta om at rådata er blevet ændret præcis som mails fra Klimagat beskrv de skulle ændres. Når man bare uden videre ændre rådata med helt op til 2 grader i officielle regeringsdatabaser for at få perioden under krigen til at se koldere ud, så er det grov svindel. Redigeret d. 05-02-2020 12:03 |
| 05-02-2020 12:10 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Hvornår var Climategate? Var det 2009? Det blev undersøgt på kryds og tværs, læs selv om det på nettet. Men delphi synes vi skal leve videre i fortiden, for den er sikkert den samme idag. Come on. |
| 05-02-2020 13:20 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Peter Villadsen skrev: Peter, havde du været født for omkring 110 år siden, du kunne have lavet en fremragende karriere i Tyskland. Med din talent - hetze, propagandere, nedgøre, og misbruge eller fordreje eller ignorere fakta, og din udprægede hang til at sige alle mulige ting om og i videnskabens navn, uden at du har skygge af anelse hvad du egentlig snakker om - du ville have været en stor kanon. |
| 05-02-2020 13:21 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Peter Villadsen skrev: Peter, havde du været født for omkring 110 år siden, du kunne have lavet en fremragende karriere i Tyskland. Med din talent - hetze, propagandere, nedgøre, og misbruge eller fordreje eller ignorere fakta, og din udprægede hang til at sige alle mulige ting om og i videnskabens navn, uden at du har skygge af anelse hvad du egentlig snakker om - du ville have været en stor kanon. |
| 05-02-2020 14:41 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Climategate er ikke glemt, heller ikke i videnskaben. Global Warming and Climategate: An Excerpt from Sustainability: Higher Education's New Fundamentalism Peterson, Rachelle & Wood, Peter In: Academic Questions, Vol. 30, Iss. 4, 2017-12, p. 442–455 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-017-9668-y Climategate One cause for skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is because of high-profile scandals in the field of climatology. One of the best known, "Climategate," implicated some of the world's top climate scientists in a plan to keep out of the IPCC's publications any article skeptical of global warming, "even if we have to re-define what the peer-review literature is!" Footnote 27 They also worked together to selectively cull data that told the right story and modify or leave out data that did not. One of the most famous graphs implicated in Climategate was the "hockey stick" developed by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann that showed centuries of flat temperatures followed by rapidly increasing temperatures in the twentieth century. On November 19, 2009, just prior to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, and again on November 22, 2011, before the UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa, several thousand e-mails involving top climate scientists from the United States and United Kingdom were posted online (whether they were leaked or hacked is still unknown). The e-mail threads involved Mann and UK-based researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University who wrote the core of the IPCC's reports. When their independent research showed conflicting temperature graphs, they struggled with how to present their data. In a 1999 e-mail, Mann wrote to his colleagues, Keith's series...differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.Footnote 28 Keith Briffa, the climatologist at the Climatic Research Unit whose tree-ring data showed declining temperatures since 1960, wrote, I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data" but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.Footnote 29 In the end they omitted some of the tree-ring proxy data showing temperature declines, and inflated other dissenting data. They also suppressed the Medieval Warm Period, the well-documented period of warm temperatures from about 900 to 1300 AD. Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mann and several others about his successful massaging of his data to reflect the "consensus" temperature charts: I've just completed Mike's [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.Footnote 30 Michael Mann's "trick" was to substitute thermometer data for proxy data and vice versa as necessary to produce the hockey stick-shaped graph, without noting these substitutions. The Climategate e-mails followed and confirmed earlier doubts about Mann's data. As early as 2003, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and mining executive Stephen McIntyre began requesting original surface temperature data from Mann and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit and scrutinizing the numbers they found. The results of their examination, published in the journal Environment and Energy, found "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."Footnote 31 Reversing Mann's errors and updating his data, they found that the temperature of the fifteenth century (at the end of the Medieval Warm Period) was warmer than any period in the twentieth century. McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann's computing model that synthesized different data series gave more weight to the handful of series that showed hockey stick shapes and depressed the weight of those that did not. The weighting of Mann's model was so strong that when McIntyre and McKitrick experimented with feeding random data into his model, they found the result was still the flat hockey stick handle followed by a sharply rising paddle.Footnote 32 In response, Mann argued that McIntyre and McKitrick had used a faulty version of his data and had failed to replicate his computer modeling system. Mann supplied McIntyre and McKitrick with a corrected version of his climate data, which they found to be nearly identical to the first set. He declined to release his full computer model. In response to the Climategate scandal, the Climatic Research Unit announced that it no longer had the original data.Footnote 33 The University of East Anglia appointed two investigations. One, a Scientific Appraisal Panel of six university academics and chaired by Lord Ronald Oxburgh, investigated for three weeks and then released a five-page report. It cleared the Climatic Research Unit of any charges of "deliberate scientific malpractice" but acknowledged the Unit was "slightly disorganised" and that it would benefit from "close collaboration with professional statisticians."Footnote 34 A second UEA report, the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review of five panelists under Sir Muir Russell, released a longer, 160-page report that found a "consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness" but no reason to doubt the scientists' "rigor and honesty" or to "undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." The House of Commons reviewed the incident as well. After five weeks it announced, In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones' actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community....We are content that the phrases such as "trick" or "hiding the decline" were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.Footnote 35 Mann is now embroiled in a lawsuit with his critics Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute—though he is not the defendant but the accuser, charging them with libel. Mann is also suing in Canada skeptical scientist Tim Ball for alleged libel Redigeret d. 05-02-2020 14:43 |
| 05-02-2020 15:29 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Men du har ret_ Den er blevet diskuteret og analyseret på kryds og tværs: Min database gav mig 64 hits på publikationer hvor "climategate" er et nøgleord. De seneste publikationer fra 2019. Og i overvejende grad med anbefalinger om, hvordan IPCC kunne forbedre deres kommunikation med offentligheden. Der var sågar en artikel der mente, at den videnskabelige metode (det med at søge efter sandheden) var ikke moderne længere, givet at vi har så store globale udfordringer. Så videnskaben, den står mere på IPCC's side, og det er temmelig skræmmende. |
| 05-02-2020 15:56 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
UlrikePielmeier skrev:Peter Villadsen skrev: Se sådanne indlæg er jo komplet meningsløse og et udtryk for dårlig stil. Jeg sagde blot, at climategate er historie, der har været nedsat et udtal af kommissioner med diverse konklusioner. Læs selv - det absurde er at Delphi bruger det som et argument om, at der er kraftige justeringer i de data, vi ser idag uden overhovedet at kunne komme med nogetsomhelst validt. |
| 05-02-2020 16:04 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
UlrikePielmeier skrev: Ved du hvad IPCC er? IPCC er en samling forskere, der er udnævnt til at gennemgå al tilgængelig forskning og udfra al den viden, der kan samles sammen, at fremstille en rapport, der gengiver med diverse usikkerheder, hvordan verden står, og hvilke risici, der er forbundet ved yderligere opvarmning, samt forsøge at forudsige hvordan udviklingen bliver baseret på forskellige udledningsscenarier. Videnskaben står ikke på IPCCs side, som du skriver. Videnskaben udfører videnskab, IPCC bruger videnskaben til give et samlet overblik. Det er ikke så svært, at forstå, at der er brug for IPCC eller i fremtiden måske en anden uvildig organisation, der kan fortsætte dette arbejde med at give alle interesserede en ide om, hvilke konsekvenser vi må imødese i fremtiden. Det er ganske enkelt nødvendigt at kunne foretage en planlægning, og digerne skal jo ikke bygges til 7 meter vandstand, hvis 3 er nok. Det er ganske enkelt. |
| 05-02-2020 18:50 | |
| Jørgen Petersen★★★★★ (4852) |
@ Peter Villadsen Det er bindegalt hvad du skriver. IPCC er som nævnt mange gange tidligere et politisk organ og ikke et videnskabeligt organ. Det ses bl.a. af, at deres konklusioner (Summary for Policymakers) altid skal godkendes af deres bagland. Det vil sige politikerne i de respektive lande, som jo er dem, som bevilger pengene til alle IPCCs aktiviteter. Havde IPCC været et videnskabeligt organ, så ville man aldrig sende konklusionerne ud til lægfolk/politikere til godkendelse før frigivelsen. |
| 05-02-2020 19:28 | |
| Klimatis★★☆☆☆ (187) |
crank skrev:delphi skrev: Du kan i denne video se hvad fifleriet går ud på og det såkaldte "rationale" for "justeringerne. Det er endda værre end dette. Man bruger ikke kun målte temperaturdata, nej man estimerer op mod 50% af temperaturdata h.h.a. modeller. DVS at 50% af temperatudata IKKE er målt men "fabrikeret". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hElTSfQEdsk |
| 05-02-2020 19:34 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Jørgen Petersen skrev: Det er ren galimatias. Du aner ikke hvad du taler om, tag dig sammen og sæt dig ind i tingene istedet for bare at sludre løs. Det hele hviler på den videnskabelige del. Udfra denne del, der beskriver hvor den samlede videnskab står følger så oversættelsen, der skal forklare politikerne om konsekvenser, priser og handlemuligheder. Læs for fanden den tekniske del af ipcc rapporten før du ytrer dig. Der er gjort et kæmpe arbejde for at skabe overblik over klodens tilstand. Redigeret d. 05-02-2020 19:37 |
| 05-02-2020 19:37 | |
| crank★★★★★ (2455) |
Klimatis skrev:crank skrev:delphi skrev: Hvis man vil være klimabevidst, bør man ikke klikke på alle de videolinks. Streaming udgør i dag en stor del af det overforbrug, der er årsag til klimaproblemerne. Kom med noget rå tekst - helst et nyttigt argument. Eller noget. . ☯ |
| 05-02-2020 19:42 | |
| Klimatis★★☆☆☆ (187) |
crank skrev:Klimatis skrev:crank skrev:delphi skrev: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest |
| 05-02-2020 20:38 | |
| Frank Lansner★★★★★ (5727) |
Ulrike , Du skriver: "Min database gav mig 64 hits på publikationer hvor "climategate" er et nøgleord. De seneste publikationer fra 2019." Dig kan man ikke løbe om hjørner med |
| 07-02-2020 09:25 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
De originale Climate gate emails er stadigvæk offentligt tilgængeligt. http://sealevel.info/FOIA/ For eksempel: Urban Heat Effect: Wigley: there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets -- we don't want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting]. Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites. |
| 07-02-2020 10:19 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Det største problem omkring climategate er, at der er personer, der klipper enkelte sætninger ud af en sammenhæng og bruger det som kritik. Det giver desværre ingen mening og tjener som vildledning. For dem, der vil forstå climategate historien, så rummer internettet masser af forklaringer på, hvad der egentligt skete og hvad konklusionerne blev, som følge af climategate. |
| 07-02-2020 10:26 | |
| UlrikePielmeier★☆☆☆☆ (117) |
Derfor er der link til hele samlingen med de originale email tekster. |
| 07-02-2020 18:11 | |
| kfl★★★★★ (2167) |
Med hvilken begrundelse tages denne sag op igen ? Er den ikke afklaret ? Hvad er det i påstår ? |
| 07-02-2020 20:08 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
An exhaustive six-month independent review into the Climategate emails has concluded that the "rigor and honesty" of the climate scientists caught up in the non-scandal are "not in doubt." The investigation, led by Sir Muir Russell, found no grand conspiracy among scientists brainwashed by the U.N. IPCC and Al Gore to dominate the planet by dreaming up man-made global warming, as the right wing media and blogosphere insisted in the wake of the Climategate nontroversy that followed the theft of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) late last year. The report confirms again that climate scientists' findings remain sound. Some of the report's key findings: "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." (pg. 11) While this 160-page independent report should settle once and for all any lingering suspicion about the actions of the handful of scientists most frequently cited in the emails, it is unlikely to appease the conspiracy theorists who fear the U.N. is going to steal their liberties and zombify their babies under a New World Order. As with birthers and truthers and others who cling to extreme conspiracy theories in the face of overwhelming evidence, once people are lured by the fear-induced frame suggesting that dark forces are at work to control them, they apparently can't tell reality from fiction. Even when handed a giant stack of scientific studies documenting what is known about climate change, some still deny the blatantly obvious conclusion that the world is warming, humans are driving that disruption, and we had better get cracking to confront this challenge. The Russell report did confirm earlier criticisms that the handful of scientists targeted by the Climategate attacks failed to display "the proper degree of openness" when dealing with public requests for information. Fair enough, that criticism has been previously acknowledged as valid, and efforts are already underway to ensure increased transparency at CRU and other scientific institutions. The call for greater transparency and openness among scientists and their institutions is necessary and welcomed, but certainly they aren't the only ones who deserve that reminder. What institution on the planet would pass muster under such intense scrutiny? Certainly not the U.S. government agencies, which often deny or impede FOIA requests, or global corporations like BP, Massey Energy and Koch Industries, which seem to revel in hiding information from the public all the time. More transparency is needed everywhere, not just among scientists in lab coats. But they get the message loud and clear. Professor Phil Jones, who stepped down as CRU's director during the investigation, will finally get back to work, having accepted a new title of Director of Research. Climate scientists at institutions around the world can continue to expand upon our understanding of global warming, with greater openness and interaction with the public than ever before. The overwhelming body of evidence and data underpinning our understanding of climate science remains intact, confirmed, and freshly exonerated yet again. The only real question left unanswered is who was behind the actual crime – the theft of the emails, as Joe Romm writes at ClimateProgress: "I would call this a CSI-type review, because of its incredible forensic thoroughness, except that it didn't look at the actual crime — the hacked emails — only the charges against climate scientists. The investigation found there was no fire, only smoke. Yes, the report found "that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA" — and they made many useful suggestions to improve that important failing. But they found no evidence of any wrongdoing that undermines climate science. And that is what this is all about — the science — not the scientists, no matter how much the anti-science crowd tries to change the subject." But will this thorough debunking of the main allegations made by the Climategate conspiracy bloggers and their fans at FOX News suffice to end the attacks on climate scientists? Will it deflate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's witch hunt of climate scientist Michael Mann? Will it be the "final nail in the coffin" of climate denial? Not a chance. Climate deniers like Cuccinelli have no respect for science. They are only interested in ensuring further political dithering while the planet burns. Expect them to label it another whitewash, as usual, and continue their antics to distract the world from taking much-needed action. But the U.S. Congress and international negotiators must now accept that the science of climate change is completely sound, and use it to craft policies to protect future generations from the ravages of climate change. They no longer have any semblance of an excuse to delay. The world's engineers, physicists and entrepreneurs can work together to find solutions to global energy challenges and build resilience to cope with the damage already done to climate systems. But only with international cooperation can real progress be made to safeguard future generations. |
| 07-02-2020 20:44 | |
| Peder Kruse★★☆☆☆ (220) |
Muir Russell Climategate Findings: Superficial, Uncompelling By Chip Knappenberger -- July 26, 2010 Reactions to the findings of the last of the investigations into the "meaning" of the contents of the Climategate emails—the so-called Muir Russell report—are still trickling in. And truly, there have been few surprises. The Muir Russell panel—hired by the University of East Anglia (UEA)—concluded (some add, predictably) that the scientists from for the Climate Research Unit (CRU, which is part of the UEA) had not really done anything wrong aside from not being particularly cooperative with folks that they didn't like. The CRU scientists and their close colleagues who were caught up in the Climategate affair claim vindication (see RealClimate), alarmists love it (see ClimateProgress, Newsweek), those in the middle were a bit displeased (see The Atlantic, New Scientist) or wishy-washy (see DotEarth), and those feel that the Climategate emails revealed glaring problems with how climate change research is being conducted and brought to the public were crying "whitewash" (see Wall Street Journal, Watts Up with That). It makes me wonder why Muir Russell bothered in the first place. I find my reaction somewhere between the last two categories, which I guess would make me wishy-whitewashy. I don't think Climategate revealed any great fractures in the general concept that human greenhouse gas emissions are leading to a warmer world, but it most definitely did confirm what I felt had been the case all along—that the Climategaters were not playing fair. And not playing fair has a lot more consequences than the Muir Russell panel cared to admit—this is where the "whitewash" comes in for me. The lead editorial in the July 19th Wall Street Journal—which was largely reflects the op-ed by Patrick Michaels published a week prior by the WSJ—touches on some of the most glaring shortcomings of the Muir Russell panel and its findings—from non-independence, to circular logic, to evading the hard questions. But anyone who has spent anytime with the Climategate emails, or read any of the myriad of blogs detailing their contents and adding behind the scenes insight from the folks who were actually involved in what was going on (myself included) hardly needs Muir Russell, or any of the other "independent" reviews to tell them what to think. Aside from posing some questions directly to the CRU folks caught up in the whole Climategate affair (from scientists to administrators), there was little that Muir Russell's group had available to them that all the rest of us didn't already have. And just because Muir Russell queried CRU scientists Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, et al. directly about some of the allegations/implications of their emails doesn't really give Muir Russell any special insight. I think that pretty much everyone could already anticipate the CRU response—duck, dodge, and parry. And CRU didn't disappoint. So Muir Russell's "findings" shouldn't be given any more credence than anybody else's "findings." It really doesn't take any special talent to read through the Climategate emails and see that something was amiss—either in the layfolks' opinions as to how scientists conduct themselves or as to how the scientists actually conducted themselves. The shenanigans on display in the Climategate emails are just not right, no matter how you look at them. The (mis)behavior revealed in the Climategate emails not only negatively impacted the work of those who it was directed towards, but also the general scientific community as well—which in turn effects each and every one of us, as the topic of anthropogenic climate change and what and whether to do anything to try to mitigate it is among the burning topics of the day. Gaming of the science has huge implications—look no further than the EPA to see this. Since the EPA relied largely on appeal to authority (largely the IPCC) to base its groundwork for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, if the "authority" has been tainted by a misapplication of basic scientific principles, then the EPA's foundation is built on an unsure footing. The Muir Russell findings underplays this danger in its three main conclusions, reproduced below (emphasis in original, British spelling retained). * Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. * In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. * But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. Their second point is the one which rubs me completely the wrong way. It is a pretty broad statement considering that Muir Russell took a pretty narrow look at the potential abuses. Muir Russell focused specifically on the actions of only CRU scientists (the Climategate emails involved a lot of scientists other that those directly employed by the CRU) and involved only a few cases of the potential for abusing power. And even in those cases, they did not look very deeply and gave out free passes. For instance, in shrugging off the potential influence on science by the man-handling of the peer-review process evident in the Climategate emails, the Muir Russell panel defers to the opinions of editor of the medical journal The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton. Somehow, Horton dismisses the behavior on display as "ordinary." Regardless of what the Horton claims about the behind-the-scenes behavior of scientists regarding peer-review, organizing a boycott of specific journals is NOT "ordinary" behavior nor should it be condoned. And if all of the other activities that Horton claims are "ordinary"—then no one ever told me. For all these years I have been submitting papers to journals, respectfully arguing my case with the reviewers and editors when given the opportunity, and then waiting to see what happens. Silly me. I now find out that I should have been pressuring journals to remove editors who were responsible for papers that I didn't like, organizing everyone I could convince to boycott journals that occasionally published papers that I thought were bad, sending in unsolicited comments to journals and editors about papers which I found out through the grapevine were being considered, coercing editors to fast-track my submissions and delay publication of rival papers, writing nasty emails to people who found results that were a bit different than mine (and copying journal editors on the correspondence), generally creating an intimidating atmosphere, etc. If not everyone knows that this is how it it done, it is little wonder that the literature—and the assessment reports thereof—is dominated by those who do. In the closing thoughts of its editorial, the Wall Street Journal presages how the Muir Russell report may be used: We realize that, for climate change true believers, last week's report will be waved about as proof that the science of climate change is as "settled" as the case for action. It's never hard to convince yourself of what you're already disposed to believe. In a follow-up to this post, I'll look at an example of how the Muir Russell report may be "waved around"—in this case by the EPA in defending itself from myriad of challenges to its "Endangerment Finding"—that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions endanger the public health and welfare—a finding which paves the way for EPA to issue regulations of the GHG emissions. A string of recent petitions have implored the EPA to consider how the Climategate emails cloud the EPA's vision of the state of climate science and to look into the matter for itself. However, if the past is any indication of the future, the EPA will quite likely "wave around" the findings of the Muir Russell panel—as incomplete, superficial, and uncompelling as they are—and in one fell swoop, dismiss all the challenges. I'll discuss why this is both inappropriate and unsatisfying. Cut and pasted from https://www.masterresource.org/climate-change/muir-russell/ |
| 09-02-2020 11:59 | |
| Klimatis★★☆☆☆ (187) |
Peter Villadsen skrev:Klimatis skrev:Peter Villadsen skrev: Du siger datamanipulation med temperaturmålinger ikke findes????. 30'ernes temperaturrekorder (for det 20'ende århundrede) er veldokumenteret for USA, Europa og Australien - Det kniber for den øvrige del af verden p.gr.a. manglende dækning med vejrstationer. Det forhindrer dog ikke NOAA fra at påstå at mange af de højeste temperaturstigninger er foregået i Afrika, selvom der ingen data er at sammenligne med (de sammenligner med simuleringer af fortidige temperaturer!!!) Jamen, så kan du endnu en gang se at 30'ernes temperaturer er justeret ned i forhold til til de faktiske målte temperaturer. Det er bakket op med andre kilder fra 30'erne som dokumenteret i nedenstående link. (Gamle avisartikler er endnu ikke omskrevet som i George Orwells roman 1984). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhjZI0ceSBQ Jeg ved du bare vil sige det er underlødigt denier propaganda, fordi du ikke kan imødegå et eneste argument fra Tony Heller. Du er ikke i stand til at finde en eneste fejl eller usandhed. Du siger"Jeg ser desværre ikke ulødige indslag som Tony Heller. Ham kan Fox news have for sig selv". Der er vi helt enige. Jeg ser heller ikke underlødige indslag fra Tony Heller. Eneste lille forskel er "desværre". Jeg forstår dit "desværre" - det er altid hårdt at få sine indgroede religiøse forestillinger konfronteret med virkeligheden. PS. Hvilket tilhørsforhold har Tony Heller til FOX News??? Kan du dokumentere denne påstand? |
| RE: Globale temperaturekorder09-02-2020 12:20 | |
| Klimatis★★☆☆☆ (187) |
Her er en oversigt over de de højest målte temperaturer på de 7 kontinenter. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/hottest-ever-in-the-united-sta/220947 FYI 136 °F = 57.8 °C (Afrika og Verden, 1922) 134 °F = 56.7 °C (Nordamerika, 1913) 129 °F = 53.9 °C (Asien, 1942) 123 °F = 50.6 °C (Australien, 1960) 118 °F = 47.8 °C (Europa, 1977) 120 °F = 48.8 °C (Sydamerika, 1920) 59 °F = 13 °C (Antarktisk, 1974) Det er er lidt interessant at alle rekorderne er 46 år eller mere gamle, taget i betragtning at ekstrem vejr skulle blive mere hyppig i takt med stigningen i antropogen CO2 emission. |
| RE: Kulde i nord14-02-2020 23:29 | |
| John Niclasen★★★★★ (6429) |
De laveste temperaturer målt på Jorden det seneste døgn er inden for det danske rigsfællesskab. Hører man det i nyhederne og i medierne generelt i Danmark? Vedhæftede billede viser øverst den lave temperatur ved Summit Station i Grønland efterfulgt af kulde i Rusland. På de næste to pladser ligger Antarktis, hvor der er højsommer på denne tid af året og alligevel målt under -50°C. Under temperaturlisten ses temperaturkurven for den seneste uge målt ved Summit Station. Nederst ses situationen midt i atmosfæren ved 500 hPa (en halv bar tryk) set fra et punkt over Nordpolen d. 14-Feb-2020 kl. 0:00 UTC. Al det pink er temperaturer under -30°C. Det er en kold tid, vi lever i. Tilknyttet billede:  |
| 15-02-2020 11:14 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Klimatis skrev: For en uge siden kom det frem, at der var målt 18 grader på Antarktis, endnu en ny varmerekord, så hvor troværdigt er ovenstående? https://www.google.dk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/antarctica-logs-hottest-temperature-on-record-with-a-reading-of-183c Redigeret d. 15-02-2020 11:14 |
| 15-02-2020 11:20 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Tænkeligt er der ingen medier, der skriver om en enkelt kulderekord, når antallet af varmeekorder langt overgår de få kulderekorder, der registreres. Januar 2020 blev således den varmeste målte januar måned nogensinde. Dette sker samtidigt med, at klimaskeptikere år efter år snakker om, at nu kommer kulden snart. Indtil videre en and uden hold i virkelighedens data, der viser, at temperaturen ufortrødent fortsætter opad. Redigeret d. 15-02-2020 11:22 |
Deltag aktivt i debatten PART 10/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data:
Lignende indhold
| Debatter | Svar | Seneste indlæg |
| 2024 / Opdaterede Sol/Is/Temp/Hav Data | 103 | 23-04-2024 13:02 |
| PART 11 / Opdaterede Sol/Is/Temp/Hav Data | 750 | 06-04-2024 09:52 |
| PART 8/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data | 1195 | 29-04-2023 01:12 |
| PART 9/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data | 1461 | 14-07-2019 14:17 |
| PART 7/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data | 773 | 15-01-2017 22:49 |