How Climate Science Is Done

A good example of how climate scientists reach their conclusion first and then work backwards to provide a plausible sounding ad hoc explanation intended to fool the scientifically illiterate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How Climate Science Is Done

  1. Richard says:

    today’s and past experts remind of workers at the George Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth rewriting history

    again WHEN the experts like Bill Nyle tell us its all about the Environment & Earth when its all about the $$$$$$$$- like Bill the Engineer and now a showman worth $8 million – FUNNY he like Gore has not given a DIME to end GW

  2. GWS says:

    It reminds me of Huck Fin trying to explain his way out of a jam.

  3. Martin says:

    Interesting I think the so called scientists oveoverlooked the obvious cause for black carbon deposits dating from the 13th to the 216th Centuries. This was the peak time for witch burning right across Europe. Its obvious that there must be a connection.

    Sarc off.

  4. Stuart Hamish says:

    These are the opening lines of the Australian National University media release in relation to this story [ namely the McConnell et al Nature paper ] Embarrassingly unscientific and nothing short of ridiculous :
    ” Humans drove environmental change in Antarctica earlier than previously thought”

    ” Antarctic ice samples reveal 700 years of Maori settlement and burning practices new research shows ”
    There is no evidence human activity ‘drove environmental change ” in Antarctica during the Middle Ages in the form of airborne transported carbon soot particles . This is just anthropocentric ideology . The paleo -temperature data shows the Antarctic has been cooling since the Roman Climate Optimum when humans could not possibly have influenced southern hemisphere climates or the global temperature at all . The Roman Optimum was warmer than today at both poles and South pole temperatures were actually slightly warmer than the present 400 – 1100 years ago . 700 years tacked on to the date 1300 culminates in the year 2000 . Are we supposed to believe the ice core samples are a record of 7 consecutive centuries of ” Maori settlement and burning practices ” and no other sources ? Not bushfires in south eastern Australia or later British Isles and European settlers in New Zealand ? ..That defies credulity . Who wrote the copy for that nonsensical ANU media release ?
    Here is a transcript of Dr Holly Winton’s critical review of the McConnell et al paper poking holes in the ‘research” : ” a new study ……suggests that New Zealand has been the dominant source of black carbon to a large sector of Antarctica since the 13th century …….Black carbon concentrations in the Antarctic Peninsula record dramatically increased in the 13th century well above previous levels with the highest concentrations in the 16th and 17th centuries . The authors associate this with the arrival and land management practices of Maori in New Zealand . The Antarctic – New Zealand connection was made by comparing the ice core record to a charcoal record from a lake sediment core in New Zealand ..indicative of local biomass burning ..Ice core black carbon peaks in the 16th and 17th centuries .At the same time the New Zealand charcoal record [declines ] ..So there is a trend disparity in carbon particulate deposition between the two records . This left Dr Holly Winton ” wondering about additional black carbon sources ” such as Australia [ most likely ] and ‘changes in the transport processes that drive the variability in the ice core black carbon record ‘

    I have not read the McConnell et al Nature paper as it is paywalled . However ,the research is nonetheless questionable . Why were only Tasmania and Patagonia identified – and ruled out – as alternative sources yet fire prone mainland south eastern Australia on much the same latitude as Aotearoa was not considered .? The statements of the lead researcher McConnell and reviewers such as Dr Holly Winton are also confusing and contradictory . McConnell stressed that ” Its really about atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric transport and not so much about the Maori ” Yet he emphasized ” [1300 ] is when the Maori arrived and settled New Zealand and started using fire for land clearing and things like that ” .Dr Winton said ” black carbon is important for our climate because it absorbs sunlight warming the planet ” McConnell , though, submitted that ” aerosol particles in the atmosphere from ……fires and other combustion cool the planet by blocking sunlight or seeding cloud cover ” [ He’s right ] What the Montana State University ecologist Dave McWethy [ a co author of the study ] described as the massive ” initial burning period around 700 years ago ” in New Zealand may not be entirely caused by human arson…One only has to examine the unusual ammonium and nitrate residues [ chemical by-products of fire and explosions ] and ‘acid kills’ in the northern hemisphere Greenland ice cores , reduced tree growth in dendro-chronologies from 1320 to the 1340’s ..The chronicled accounts of ” masses of smoke ” ‘corrupted atmosphere ” ; fish and marine creature die offs , bolide sightings and other strange phenomena in the opening decades of the 14th century? .What caused the increase of of an estimated 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide noticed by Siegenthaler and his colleagues all the way back in 1988 in Antarctic ice between 1330 – 1350 AD [ as the climate cooled and deteriorated ] that represented ” about 6 per cent of the global pre industrial live land biomass ” and coincided with rapid dilution of atmospheric radiocarbon ? It could not possibly have been fires in New Zealand as the carbon influx is too enormous.. . I’m with Tony and not impressed or convinced by the suspiciously tendentious thesis of these scientific researchers .

Leave a Reply to Martin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *