Select to expand quoteremery said..
MAROHASY: "What I do have are whizz-bang gaming computers that can run artificial neural networks (ANN), which are a form of machine learning: think big data and artificial intelligence. My colleague, Dr John Abbot, has been using this technology for over a decade to forecast the likely direction of particular stock on the share market - for tomorrow.
...
During the past year, we've extended this work to build models to forecast what temperatures would have been in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide - for the last hundred years. 
jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
v
v
v
v
READFEARN: "[Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies] told me by email the paper was worthless "on a number of measures" and in his opinion demonstrated "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work".
Schmidt wrote that "conceptually this methodology can't possibly work" because the way the authors had calculated the climate's sensitivity had assumed that all the natural variability was part of the planet's internal systems, rather than being "forced" externally by volcanic eruptions or changes in the output of the sun.
...
Schmidt also says "something went wrong" when Abbot and Marohasy digitised their results, meaning that for the northern hemisphere the data had shifted by about 35 years "so what they think is 2000, is actually 1965". This meant that a huge part of modern warming had been missed.
There's more to it! Their time axis is off by ~35 years and magnitude is too large by ~10%. So their '20th C' is actually 1845-1965.
www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Guardian article is a great example of a hit piece. All heresay and no actual rebuttal of the science. All they were trying to do was build a data set from long term proxy records to model natural variations prior to industrialisation. I would encourage anyone to read the actual article by Marohasy rather than the hitpiece to understand it.They come up with a climate sensitivy of 0.6 rather than the stupid numbers Goddard push which are unsupported by even modern observations. It is hardly groundbreaking and is well supported by many other realistic caculations of CO2 climate sensitivity and indeed even the modern temperature record. Even the basic physics says it can't be more than 1 without factoring in huge positive feedback loops of which there are no evidence.
Schmidt's comments are hypocritical as he is the godfather of going into science with preconcieved and uncompromising views. Then again he was trained by his predecessor James Hansen who was a self confessed climate activist and arrested multiple times doing it until he was removed by Obama. It doesn't suggest he has an unbiased outlook.
This interview with Schmidt says it all really, he has no ability to actually defend his position whatsoever.
www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/stossel-show-video-schmidt-vs-spencer/
"Dr Marohasy identified that the BOM has been making adjustments to physical temperature records - what the Bureau terms 'homogenisation' - and that in the absence of those adjustments, what appears to be a rising temperature trend actually often ends up being a declining temperature trend. Her research was published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, and the BOM subsequently attempted to have the report of her research either changed or withdrawn. The journal publishers considered the request from the Bureau, but subsequently rejected it."
"BoM points out that the differences between the non-homogenised record and the homogenised data are minor, and both datasets show a clear warming trend (see graph)."
"Conclusion
Dr Marohasy's analysis of temperature records is at best inadequate and at worst totally mistaken. She appears to be unaware of several key principles of data collection, she makes many unsupported assertions and accusations, she carefully chooses only the data that can be made to appear to be erroneous, and she has not shown significant mistakes on BoM's part."
h2bh.home.exetel.com.au/who-said/jennifer-marohasy/
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Dr Marohasy identified that the BOM has been making adjustments to physical temperature records - what the Bureau terms 'homogenisation' - and that in the absence of those adjustments, what appears to be a rising temperature trend actually often ends up being a declining temperature trend. Her research was published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, and the BOM subsequently attempted to have the report of her research either changed or withdrawn. The journal publishers considered the request from the Bureau, but subsequently rejected it."
"BoM points out that the differences between the non-homogenised record and the homogenised data are minor, and both datasets show a clear warming trend (see graph)."
"Conclusion
Dr Marohasy's analysis of temperature records is at best inadequate and at worst totally mistaken. She appears to be unaware of several key principles of data collection, she makes many unsupported assertions and accusations, she carefully chooses only the data that can be made to appear to be erroneous, and she has not shown significant mistakes on BoM's part."
Sometimes I struggle to understand the points you make and it seems you just post stuff that you think rebuts a statement but it doesn't. Mostly it is random comments from unidentified people with irrelevent data. This one is from a politically motivated blog by an environmental activist that reads like a grade 12 science report.
In this post you provide a graph Marohassy presented on the difference between raw maximum temperature data at Bourke and the BoM homogenised maximum temperature graph at Bourke. The graph puts the importance of when the hottest recorded day was in context that Bourke has clear declining maximum temperatures. The BoM Homogenisation process removes this trend at that location. The question is why? That is apparently rebutted using a graph of the mean Australian temperature anomoly...... How does a completely different graph with different data rebut the other? Why is stating there is a clear warming trend relevent when the claim is that the homogenisation process BoM is using is artificially cooling the past and warming the present, therefore making the trend higher?
The provided BoM homogenisation data on Australian mean temperature anomoly clearly shows a bias of cooling the past and warming the present. They are not denying it and that is all Morahasy is highlighting, Why is this occuring? It is not "minor" and given that Australia is spending 100s of billions of dollars based on the advice that there is a significant warming trend, even if the ACORN bias it was minor, an explanation needs to be provided. There should be no bias at all.
If you want a much more in depth analysis of the results of ACORN homogenisation and why many think it contains significant problematic trend bias across all stations, this website will explain a lot. www.waclimate.net/acorn2/index.html.
The same site also provides an enlightening graphic on the number of hot days in Australia as changed by the ACORN homegenisation process. www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days.html
There is also independent analysis done by a working climate scientist that shows a difference of 0.4 deg between Australian surface data trends and Satellite data over the last 40 years, most of which departs since 2000. This is not insigificant.
www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/australia-surface-temperatures-compared-to-uah-satellite-data-over-the-last-40-years/
"Now we can see evidence of an enhanced warming trend in the Tsfc data versus the satellite over the most recent 20 years, which amounts to 0.40 deg. C during April 1999 - March 2019. I have no opinion on whether this is some natural fluctuation in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperatures, problems in the surface data, problems in the satellite data, or some combination of all three"
This bias is not disputed by the BoM. Nor is it adequately explained. It seems to be a matter of we know best stop questioning our methods or outputs. Thats not how science works, that is how arrogant public institutions operate.
I think you need to apply some critical thinking to the info you post.
Apparently Fox reckon smoke isn't bad for your health.
And of course Fox wouldn't recommend you wear a mask to protect your lungs from smoke inhalation
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Apparently Fox reckon smoke isn't bad for your health.
And of course Fox wouldn't recommend you wear a mask to protect your lungs from smoke inhalation
Interesting comments. Notably it was from an ex EPA Lawyer, not Fox. Thats a bit like saying the ABC endorses comments from Jordan Peterson or Pauline Hanson because they have been on one of thier shows. Diversity of opinion is important in any news source. Notably the topic they were discussing was the comments by AOC and Sanders that the fires and resultant smoke were a direct result of climate change, which is of course unsupported and should be called out as false and missleading.
Frankly I have no idea if that level of smoke is harmful. Logic would say it maybe is to some people, but he seemed confident in his assertions. I would be interested in the actual studies and data he was referencing and would not be surprised if he is correct given the penchant for false claims from the media. It may well be he is incorrectly referencing the studies too, the point is I bet you have no clue either, but you seem to have a strong opinion on it.... why? You did get the full context before forming an opinion didn't you?
His full comments relating to the level of smoke in NYC that day were:
"Look, it's ugly, it's unpleasant to breathe, and for a lot of people, they get anxiety over it," Milloy said. "But the reality is, there's no health risk, Okay? There's EPA research; they've done lots of clinical research on asthmatics, on elderly asthmatics, on children, on elderly with heart disease - not a cough or a wheeze from any of them."
Select to expand quoteParadox said..D3 said..
Apparently Fox reckon smoke isn't bad for your health.
And of course Fox wouldn't recommend you wear a mask to protect your lungs from smoke inhalation
Interesting comments. Notably it was from an ex EPA Lawyer, not Fox. Thats a bit like saying the ABC endorses comments from Jordan Peterson or Pauline Hanson because they have been on one of thier shows. Diversity of opinion is important in any news source. Notably the topic they were discussing was the comments by AOC and Sanders that the fires and resultant smoke were a direct result of climate change, which is of course unsupported and should be called out as false and missleading.
Frankly I have no idea if that level of smoke is harmful. Logic would say it maybe is to some people, but he seemed confident in his assertions. I would be interested in the actual studies and data he was referencing and would not be surprised if he is correct given the penchant for false claims from the media. It may well be he is incorrectly referencing the studies too, the point is I bet you have no clue either, but you seem to have a strong opinion on it.... why? You did get the full context before forming an opinion didn't you?
His full comments relating to the level of smoke in NYC that day were:
"Look, it's ugly, it's unpleasant to breathe, and for a lot of people, they get anxiety over it," Milloy said. "But the reality is, there's no health risk, Okay? There's EPA research; they've done lots of clinical research on asthmatics, on elderly asthmatics, on children, on elderly with heart disease - not a cough or a wheeze from any of them."
Fox guest: There's just no health risk...We have this kind of air in India and China all the time, no public health emergency... this doesn't kill anybody, this doesn't make anybody cough, this is not a health event... particulate matter is just very fine soot, they're innocuous.
I think there are some articles around that show just how the air quality in China and India impact on lifespans in those impacted areas
Or
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278223000081
Found " In a large prospective cohort of never-smoking patients studied over 26 years, there was a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality for every 10 mg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentrations [11]."
According to Asthma Australia, smoke from the 2019 fires was responsible for 33 direct deaths and over 400 premature deaths.
I would take your comments about whether Fox endorsed his comments or not a bit more seriously if they had a medical expert on the show to either back up his statement or provide the medical evidence contrary to his claims.
Does his previous position as working for Philip Morris to combat Second Hand Smoke legislation have any bearing on context in this discussion?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
It may well be he is incorrectly referencing the studies too, the point is I bet you have no clue either, but you seem to have a strong opinion on it.... why? You did get the full context before forming an opinion didn't you?
Why do you assume I have a strong opinion based on insufficient context?
While you clearly state you haven't checked his claims yourself?
"Rather than using their data to claim that recent global warming was natural, it would instead be more appropriate to say that detecting the signal of anthropogenic climate change is hard given the noise of natural variability, especially at local scales. This topic is often referred to as the "emergence" of the climate signal. Ed Hawkins has a nice blogpost on it here. In the maps on that webpage, it shows that climate change (the signal) would not have emerged from natural variations (the noise) until after the end of the proxy records used by Abbot & Marohasy."
climatefeedback.org/claimreview/incorrect-claim-global-warming-mostly-natural-based-on-study-that-cant-support-conclusion-jennifer-marohasy-john-abbot/
"However, it is often considered that the climate change signal should be measured relative to the amplitude of local variability (termed signal-to-noise), especially to describe risks of climate impacts. For example, ecosystems are likely to be adapted to the levels of local variability and so changes outside this past experience are more damaging."
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/signal-noise-emergence/
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Rather than using their data to claim that recent global warming was natural,
See that is the problem with your posts, you are not comprehanding the topic and so are not able to critique the comments you parroting.
Marahasy's paper didn't claim the recent global warming was all natural. That is a strawman argument and so is irrelevent. As previously advised thier paper used temperature proxy's and machine learning models to predict a possible natural warming component of observed Temperature.
The component of Natural v CO2 driven warming is the most debated aspect of the whole argument, anyone claiming there could be no natural component is not in the mainstream view just as is anyone claiming there is no possible input from CO2.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Fox guest: There's just no health risk...We have this kind of air in India and China all the time, no public health emergency... this doesn't kill anybody, this doesn't make anybody cough, this is not a health event... particulate matter is just very fine soot, they're innocuous.
I think there are some articles around that show just how the air quality in China and India impact on lifespans in those impacted areas
Or
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278223000081
Found " In a large prospective cohort of never-smoking patients studied over 26 years, there was a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality for every 10 mg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentrations [11]."
According to Asthma Australia, smoke from the 2019 fires was responsible for 33 direct deaths and over 400 premature deaths.
I would take your comments about whether Fox endorsed his comments or not a bit more seriously if they had a medical expert on the show to either back up his statement or provide the medical evidence contrary to his claims.
Does his previous position as working for Philip Morris to combat Second Hand Smoke legislation have any bearing on context in this discussion?
I am not endorsing his comments as correct. I don't know and I agree that at some level particulate smoke has to become a health issue, but below that level is generally ok.
What he seems to be saying is the levels on that day were not an issue according to some studies the EPA did. Without referencing those studies it is impossible to know what he was talking about and if he was right.
Your view that every comment on news media has to be fact checked by an expert or censored is ludicrous. Every single media organisation would shut down or have a suite of bought and paid for experts sprouting all sorts of rubbish as fact. I bet AOC and Sanders comments on linking the fires to climate change were spread around most sites without asking for data to back them up. I see more missinformation and dodgy views from every media site, Fox is no worse or better.
People need to be able to sort out opinions from fact themselves without help from others. We have seen enough dodgy and incorrect censorship from our own governments recently to highlight the folly in that.
Received this email today.....
Back on the subject of climate change.
Now i am not picking on your sister just saying she represents the majority out there.
And a few things she referenced piqued my interest.
I think the best way to get to the bottom of this is to go back to the beginning.
In 1972 the book 'Limits to Growth; was released.
It was an exercise in computer modelling. and explained how the earth would run out of resources from high population growth and high living standards.
A Malthusian diatribe if ever I've heard one.
And yes, The Club of Rome were involved in this.
Although what their actual involvement was i do not know.
So the year 1972 seems to be the start of the climate issues.
Shortly after that scientists were going around the world screaming if we do not change our habits, we will create another Ice Age.
Then for some reason possibly the data was not adding up or cold weather is more visible in its physical properties and was therefore a harder sell in the long run they flipped to Global Warming.
Lying is not easy!
Sometimes you have to add to it.
Lots of scientist were thrown bundles of cash and told to find 'evidence' of it.
And guess what? Thet did!
Lots of 'evidence'. 'Evidence everywhere'.
And the more they found the more cash they got.
Of course the U.N got involved right from the beginning.
Mr Strong was advising Governments this was the defining issue of our lives and urgent action was needed.
Now Mr Strong worked for a family business.
Quite a successful business.
Actually, the most successful business of all time.
Pretty freaky eh?
Points if you said Rothschild.
The bloke who was advising Governments on climate change just happened to work with the Central Banking system.
Who'd have thunk? And this was my point.
You, myself and Sherri we know this stuff.
For 20 years we have gathered bits of information from all over the place, in fact we have forgotten most of it and is only accessed when is needed.
Where as the average person gets up and goes to work and that is pretty much it.
It is not possible for 99 percent of people to understand the issues properly as they do not have access to the information.
So from now on i am going to ease up on people. Its called pattern recognition.
But you have to know what you are looking for.
Please read TWICE AS IT TOOK ME 20 MINUTES TO TYPE OUT AS IT WOULD NOT COPY AND PASTE FROM MY EMAIL
Select to expand quoteParadox said..D3 said..
Fox guest: There's just no health risk...We have this kind of air in India and China all the time, no public health emergency... this doesn't kill anybody, this doesn't make anybody cough, this is not a health event... particulate matter is just very fine soot, they're innocuous.
I think there are some articles around that show just how the air quality in China and India impact on lifespans in those impacted areas
Or
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278223000081
Found " In a large prospective cohort of never-smoking patients studied over 26 years, there was a 15-27% increase in lung cancer mortality for every 10 mg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentrations [11]."
According to Asthma Australia, smoke from the 2019 fires was responsible for 33 direct deaths and over 400 premature deaths.
I would take your comments about whether Fox endorsed his comments or not a bit more seriously if they had a medical expert on the show to either back up his statement or provide the medical evidence contrary to his claims.
Does his previous position as working for Philip Morris to combat Second Hand Smoke legislation have any bearing on context in this discussion?
I am not endorsing his comments as correct. I don't know and I agree that at some level particulate smoke has to become a health issue, but below that level is generally ok.
What he seems to be saying is the levels on that day were not an issue according to some studies the EPA did. Without referencing those studies it is impossible to know what he was talking about and if he was right.
Your view that every comment on news media has to be fact checked by an expert or censored is ludicrous. Every single media organisation would shut down or have a suite of bought and paid for experts sprouting all sorts of rubbish as fact. I bet AOC and Sanders comments on linking the fires to climate change were spread around most sites without asking for data to back them up. I see more missinformation and dodgy views from every media site, Fox is no worse or better.
People need to be able to sort out opinions from fact themselves without help from others. We have seen enough dodgy and incorrect censorship from our own governments recently to highlight the folly in that.
My Original post was more along the lines that Fox was not going to write or put to air anything supporting the use of N95 Masks to protect lungs from the wildfire smoke. Particularly as the Host and Guest were ridiculing people for wearing them and implying that there was some conspiracy between "Climate Scare Tactics" and the whole "its all about control" and "people to wear masks". Banners on bottom of the screen read "Radical Left Uses Wildfire Smoke as Climate Cudgel", "Masked Media Manipulation", "Climate Cult Uses Canadian Fire to Co-Opt Freedom"
I'll retract that allegation, as Fox has since had medical experts and articles stating that Yes, the EPA has declared the smoke dangerous in NYC (but only after this fella was on)
Milloy was on the show on the 7th of June, that day had highest levels of fine particle pollution seen since they started records in 2000, so fair to say that is they day he was talking about.
Regarding fact checking of experts by the Media, I thought it was obvious that this is a prime role that Journalists are supposed to undertake (Journalists first obligation is to the Truth). Fox regularly has "experts" on that spout all sorts of rubbish as fact, which was part of the reason for the start of this thread I imagine.
Other news Outlets that get called out for airing rubbish frequently offer retractions and apologies and provide the more accurate information, but rarely does Fox (unless they get sued and settle out of court and fire one of their headliners)
If someone spouts rubbish and mis-information on a national tv network, then gets called out on the bullsheet, that is not censorship.
and I love what you manage to achieve in this paragraph.
Frankly I have no idea if that level of smoke is harmful. Logic would say it maybe is to some people, but he seemed confident in his assertions. I would be interested in the actual studies and data he was referencing and would not be surprised if he is correct given the penchant for false claims from the media. It may well be he is incorrectly referencing the studies too, the point is I bet you have no clue either, but you seem to have a strong opinion on it.... why? You did get the full context before forming an opinion didn't you?
Because he is confident he is probably correct? Really, is that you start sorting opinion from fact?
Because media makes false claims therefore this guy is correct? Surely it is more likely that they have selected an 'Expert' whose views align with theirs?
You assert that the point of your reply is that I'm clueless, based on nothing (but maybe I'm confident in my strong opinion, doesn't that mean I'm right?)
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
I get emotional with people who insult (for example) scientists by stating that their bias is "appalling". You've repeatedly abused the BoM by claiming that they are being dishonest and biased. Yes, you are abusing people, by claiming that they are breaching their professional duties and being dishonest. Don't lie and claim you are not.
It's a fact that Marohasy is paid to apply political ideals to policy questions. Scientists outside the government do not have to apply political bias to policy issues, or to scientific studies. Many professionals are paid to be objective, and many scientists are among them. Marohasy is NOT one of those, as the IPA itself states. Her job is to apply political ideals to policy questions, NOT to be an objective scientist.
Pointing out that it is a fact that Marohasy is paid to apply political ideals to policy questions has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please try to understand the English language. A conspiracy is a secret. The fact that the IPA pays Marohasy to promote a political approach is not a secret.
Pointing out an admitted fact (like the fact that the IPA pays Marohasy to apply political ideals) is NOT a conspiracy theory and no honest person who knows English can claim it it. However, Marohasy is implying conspiracies by the BoM and scientists.
By the way, I have never said that science is perfect - however conventional science is much better than fake "science" by people like Marohasy, who remember is paid to apply specific politics to policy issues as a specific task. The second link you gave refers to "the excellent work of independent analyst Nick Brown" in sniffing out bad science. Someone I know very well works with Nick; for instance they are co-authors on a current paper on the Data Badge. Nick and his other "data thugs" have devised methods like the GRIM test (which Nick created with James Heathers) to identify bad science. They do this in their spare time, out of a passion for the truth - and then someone like you abuses all scientists for "appalling" bias. That's a disgusting lie.
Nick Brown (remember, this is the guy that YOUR source says does "excellent work") states that "science should be conducted with radical transparency" - and no one could say that promoting Marohasy without mentioning that she is PAID to put a spin on things is transparent.
I actually chatted about Marohasy's work with the excellent Nick Brown's co-researcher. They reckon Marohasy's work is crap; her obsession with minor details like the Bourke "record" temperature shows a failure to maintain a proper database. So co-researchers of people YOUR links praise say that Marohasy is unreliable.
I think your problem is that you are getting emotional over things I never said. Your claims just don't match my words and you build strawmen arguments on made up statements. For instance I clearly said that the inability of the scientific and professional community as a whole to rapidly accept new information and facts is appalling and I referenced the significant resistance to accepting bacteria as a cause of ulcers as an excellent example. I never targetted individuals or even an organisation with that comment. And it is of course entirely true. I link another below on the use of a breast cancer sample in research for 8 years after it was found to be a skin cancer cell.For you to turn that comment into me insulting or abusing scientists or suggesting the BoM or the people that work there are dishonest is the hight of hyprocracy and an excellent example of why I don't engage with you as a rule. I wish I had stuck with that. You have no credibility and your comments seem to be phrased to intentionally misslead. You seem hell bent on discrediting someone based on adhominem attacks, second hand ones at that. It is the tool of last resort of someone with a failed arguement.
I don't agree with everything Marohasy says or promotes and I have personally called her out on some of the things she has said. To her credit she discontinued those views when I corrected her. I, like most people have the abilty to assess and reject lines of arguments based on thier merits. However that does not mean all her work is rubbish. Much of it is valid and I especially agree with her questioning the BoM's methodologies on the temperature probe readings and the potential for data bias it causes when comparing to mercury thermometers. The fact they have now finally shifted thier methodologies to match an international standard (or even thier own) after sustained pressure highlights the benefit of these lines of questioning.
Marohasy is not the only scientist calling out these problems with data collection and manipulation. www.nature.com/articles/npjbcancer20152
I don't have a "problem" and your claim that I do is an ad hominem attack of the sort you are decrying.
You are utterly inconsistent when you claim that I have been getting emotional and making ad hominem attacks. My first post to you, for example, strictly dealt with Marohasy and Stewart's data and you responded by using emotive terms like "banal" and "rubbish" and silly claims that "cherry picking" that show that you don't know how papers are supposed to deal with the exclusion of data.
I am not building any strawmen. It IS insulting to scientists to claim that all of them breach their professional duty by being slow to resistant to new facts. Being acceptance of new facts is a basic tenet of the scientific approach. You are claiming that they are all failing at their job.
Scientists are also people, and your claim that they are "appalling" in their reception to new ideas is also an insult on them personally. I know many of them and I know that your claim is simply a lie. The fact that you insulted scientists as a whole - the aerodynamicists, the guys working on new carbon fibre, the astronomers, the ag science people working on cattle breeds, the physicists working on string theory - just shows how illogical your insults are, and how arrogantly you sneer at vast numbers of people.
While science is far from perfect, your "evidence" is silly. Although you didn't admit it, it is a fact that your first piece of "evidence" about scientists was actually about physicians (not scientists) and drug companies (which are also not scientists). It was simply dishonest to use that as evidence about scientists.
You claim that the breast cancer study shows "manipulation" of data, but that is simply false - the article never claims anything but mistaken use of a certain cell. That is not manipulation of data and it is a lie for you to claim that it is.
There are about two million papers published in science journals each year. To use (and mis-represent) one such paper as evidence for an insult to ALL scientists is utterly illogical and a classic piece of cherry picking.
Let's look at some evidence to see how dishonest it is to claim that scientists are appallingly resistant to new ideas. Just looking at my bookshelf shows the following examples;
1- Rontgen posts the first paper on X-Rays on New Years Day 1896.
10 January 1896 he gets his first award based on the paper;
15 January 1896 Poincare describes the paper to the French Academy of Sciences
By late January, X-rays are being used to treat dermatitis;
By February, the first paper was on its fifth printing;
On 1 March, after weather delays, Henri Becquerel uses the new idea to discover radioactivity;
By June, the technology is being used to make flourescent lights;
No reasonable person can say that scientists using a three-month old discovery to discover another entirely new and vast field (radioactivity) were being slow at picking up new ideas. The above is only a tiny sliver of the work being done; for example McGill U in the USA and J J Thomson and Rutherford at the Cavendish laboratory in the UK were deeply into the area by April 1896, just four months after X rays had been discovered.
2-
On 16 and 17 December 1938, Otto Hahn bombards uranium atoms with neutrons, expecting that it will form larger "transuranic" elements as predicted by Enrico Fermi. Instead, he finds barium. On 19 December he writes to colleague Lise Meitner, puzzled, saying that they knew that uranium could not burst apart into barium and that he is puzzled.
By January 1939, Meitner and Frisch have realised that atomic fission can occur, that Einstein's "E=mc2" formula showed that it would create an enormous amount of energy, and have written a paper about it in February's Nature. Fermi hears about fission, instantly realises that his own theory was wrong, and just as quickly realises that atom bombs are possible. In about February, fission is the sensation of the Third Annual Conference on Theoretical Physics. By March 3, Szilard has created the first chain reaction.
Obviously, the incredibly fast reception of these two discoveries doesn't prove that all scientists accept all new ideas automatically. But the extensive analysis into the Replication Crisis and the associated drives like "publish or perish" show that if anything, scientists are TOO fast to accept new ideas and theories.
Claiming that scientists are staid and in breach of their professional duties by being "appallingly slow" to adopt new ideas is wrong, insulting and complete BS.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Sometimes I struggle to understand the points you make and it seems you just post stuff that you think rebuts a statement but it doesn't.
In this post you provide a graph Marohassy presented on the difference between raw maximum temperature data at Bourke and the BoM homogenised maximum temperature graph at Bourke. The graph puts the importance of when the hottest recorded day was in context that Bourke has clear declining maximum temperatures. The BoM Homogenisation process removes this trend at that location. The question is why?
I think you need to apply some critical thinking to the info you post.
The answer about why the BoM has removed the data on the "hottest day" is easy - the data should be removed because it is inconsistent with the other data on more than one count;
1- the data did not follow the required format of the time because it did not include the wet bulb temperature which was the best measurement of atmospheric heat and which could have confirmed the maximum temperature;
2- because of the failure to include the best index of the heat, the sample is suspect. Why would an observer ignore the instructions of the era and the usual practise, if they were doing their job as carefully as they should have done? Why would someone who allegedly saw a record not be even more careful than usual?
3- the dataset is made up of observations from Monday to Saturday. Including extra data because it is extreme will cause a bias in the data. Specifically choosing data from outside the normal sample BECAUSE it is outside the normal sample will always skew a sample. That's not just stats 101, it's basic logic 1. Therefore excluding such data is perfectly reasonable.
4 - Newspaper reports - a source that Marohasy recommends although you hypocritically condemn me for using - indicate that the published temperatures of the time did not come from the usual recording station.
Also, one extreme day doesn't prove a trend, which is what scientists are interested in, and therefore there is no reason to break the normal sampling rules and include the data point.
Considering the double standards you have shown (ie claiming that others are biased but ignoring the fact that Marohasy's employers states that she is PAID to write biased papers and articles, saying that my use of newspapers is wrong while ignoring that Marohasy says using newspapers is correct, etc) and your weird claims (ie that physicians and drug companies are scientists), it's ludicrous that you can claim that others need more critical thinking.
It's also depressing how someone who accuses others of ad hominem attacks makes them so often.
However, given your dishonesty I'll bail out of this discussion and won't read any more of your lies.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Received this email today.....
...
So the year 1972 seems to be the start of the climate issues.
Shortly after that scientists were going around the world screaming if we do not change our habits, we will create another Ice Age.
"Obtaining copies of the peer-reviewed papers on climate, archived in the collections of Nature, JSTOR and the American Meteorological Society and published between 1965 and 1979, they examined and rated them. Would there be a consensus on global cooling? Alas! - no.
Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way."
journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f89$002f9$002f2008bams2370_1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f89%24002f9%24002f2008bams2370_1.xml
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Obtaining copies of the peer-reviewed papers on climate, archived in the collections of Nature, JSTOR and the American Meteorological Society and published between 1965 and 1979, they examined and rated them. Would there be a consensus on global cooling? Alas! - no.
Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way."
journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f89$002f9$002f2008bams2370_1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f89%24002f9%24002f2008bams2370_1.xml
It is an excellent point. Media and political activists run the narrative, the actual science is ignored. Imminent disaster sells news media and attracts government spending. All the better if the culprit can be taxed, celebrities can endorse it and the solution made money from.
The biggest losers from all this are the worlds poor. Despite all the altruistic hand wringing and virtue signalling from those promoting the narrative, they really don't care about who it effects.
As a counterpoint to this topic here is something you won't see on the ABC:
public.substack.com/p/imperialism-of-the-apocalypse?fbclid=IwAR0FFO6LdkbUDJpQE5L5VZSpiuxv2mwsm4FPoEnNG0Ut43044DdrZx-1-hU
Select to expand quoteParadox said..remery said..
"Obtaining copies of the peer-reviewed papers on climate, archived in the collections of Nature, JSTOR and the American Meteorological Society and published between 1965 and 1979, they examined and rated them. Would there be a consensus on global cooling? Alas! - no.
Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way."
journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f89$002f9$002f2008bams2370_1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f89%24002f9%24002f2008bams2370_1.xml
It is an excellent point. Media and political activists run the narrative, the actual science is ignored. Imminent disaster sells news media and attracts government spending. All the better if the culprit can be taxed, celebrities can endorse it and the solution made money from.
The biggest losers from all this are the worlds poor. Despite all the altruistic hand wringing and virtue signalling from those promoting the narrative, they really don't care about who it effects.
As a counterpoint to this topic here is something you won't see on the ABC:
public.substack.com/p/imperialism-of-the-apocalypse?fbclid=IwAR0FFO6LdkbUDJpQE5L5VZSpiuxv2mwsm4FPoEnNG0Ut43044DdrZx-1-hU
Read the link, lots to unpack.
One thing that jumped out at me was the claim Greta's sailing trip needed to fly 4 crew home.
Considering the crew who sailed her across actually lived on the boat, that claim is full of crap
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
...the data did not follow the required format of the time ..
Meh, you sure ?
I mean it was ****ing hot that day whichever reading you take.
I'd guess the Australian who was supposed to do the work knocked off early and headed straight for the cold beers. probably ****-faced by 3pm, the fact anything got written down was probably a miracle.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Read the link, lots to unpack.
One thing that jumped out at me was the claim Greta's sailing trip needed to fly 4 crew home.
Considering the crew who sailed her across actually lived on the boat, that claim is full of crap
I believe it was at least 2 crew that flew to meet the boat in the US, his comments were that was 4 times the emissions. Not sure how that was worked out. Either way it was a meaningless stunt.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Apparently Fox reckon smoke isn't bad for your health.
And of course Fox wouldn't recommend you wear a mask to protect your lungs from smoke inhalation
"Steve Milloy has been associated with the major American tobacco companies since at least 1997. In 1997, he took over as the executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group set up by Philip Morris in 1993 and run by the public relations firm APCO & Associates. The main objective of TASSC was to question the science showing detrimental effects of cigarette smoke."
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
...
As a counterpoint to this topic here is something you won't see on the ABC:
public.substack.com/p/imperialism-of-the-apocalypse?fbclid=IwAR0FFO6LdkbUDJpQE5L5VZSpiuxv2mwsm4FPoEnNG0Ut43044DdrZx-1-hU
When asked if he believes in climate change by ranking member James Comer, Shellenberger responded: "Well, yeah, I mean, of course, I think climate change is happening. I think it's being caused by humans."
Select to expand quoteParadox said..D3 said..
Read the link, lots to unpack.
One thing that jumped out at me was the claim Greta's sailing trip needed to fly 4 crew home.
Considering the crew who sailed her across actually lived on the boat, that claim is full of crap
I believe it was at least 2 crew that flew to meet the boat in the US, his comments were that was 4 times the emissions. Not sure how that was worked out. Either way it was a meaningless stunt.
A lot of the article was dedicated to accusing people of hypocrisy.
So here's arguably the highest profile climate change voice of the time committing to getting half her team to travel by boat.
Sure you can call it a meaningless stunt
Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef
"The age or size structure of a population has a marked influence on its demography and reproductive capacity. While declines in coral cover are well documented, concomitant shifts in the size-frequency distribution of coral colonies are rarely measured at large spatial scales. Here, we document major shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the 2300 km length of the Great Barrier Reef relative to historical baselines (1995/1996). Coral colony abundances on reef crests and slopes have declined sharply across all colony size classes and in all coral taxa compared to historical baselines. Declines were particularly pronounced in the northern and central regions of the Great Barrier Reef, following mass coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017. The relative abundances of large colonies remained relatively stable, but this apparent stability masks steep declines in absolute abundance. The potential for recovery of older fecund corals is uncertain given the increasing frequency and intensity of disturbance events. The systematic decline in smaller colonies across regions, habitats and taxa, suggests that a decline in recruitment has further eroded the recovery potential and resilience of coral populations."
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.1432
Competing interests
We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding
This study received support from the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence Program (grant no. CE140100020) and a Laureate Fellowship (to T.P.H.).
Reviewer comments:
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.1432#
Select to expand quoteParadox said..D3 said..
Read the link, lots to unpack.
One thing that jumped out at me was the claim Greta's sailing trip needed to fly 4 crew home.
Considering the crew who sailed her across actually lived on the boat, that claim is full of crap
I believe it was at least 2 crew that flew to meet the boat in the US, his comments were that was 4 times the emissions. Not sure how that was worked out. Either way it was a meaningless stunt.
2 crew had to fly to New York to bring the boat back.
2 of the the original voyage crew flew from the US trans Atlantic to return home.
Equals 4 flights.4 times that of poor little Greta alone.
But if I were rich enough to sail around in a super fancy plastic yacht I'd do it to but probably not to New york.I don't smoke.
Anti-warming nonsense neutered
Posted on March 25, 2008 by Ken Parish
"...It's part of an "interview" between warming denialist Institute of Public Affairs shill/scientist Jennifer Marohasy and denialist pundit Michael Duffy:
Duffy asked Marohasy: Is the Earth still warming?
She replied: No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what youd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
What has happened to Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures since Marohasy made this statement you ask?
Select to expand quote
Rango said..
2 crew had to fly to New York to bring the boat back.
2 of the the original voyage crew flew from the US trans Atlantic to return home.
Equals 4 flights.4 times that of poor little Greta alone.
But if I were rich enough to sail around in a super fancy plastic yacht I'd do it to but probably not to New york.I don't smoke.
I guess its much like Movember, all those poor little men growing moustaches don't actually cure any men's health issues, such as prostate cancer or testicular cancer.
