Another Example of Why I Don't Trust Peer Review or CAGW In General

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,439
    from the latest issue of Science-

    The Unusual Nature of Recent Snowpack Declines in the North American Cordillera
    abstract--In western North America, snowpack has declined in recent decades, and further losses are projected through the 21st century. Here, we evaluate the uniqueness of recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies in key runoff-generating areas of the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River drainages. Over the past millennium, late-20th-century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains, and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/06/08/science.1201570.abstracthttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pederson2011/pederson2011.html


    isnt that odd. I thought tree rings were thermometers not rain guages. actually I wouldnt be surprised if they responded more strongly to water than temperature. but why am I pissed? because their own data do not show (almost) unprecedented changes. like so many AGW and CAGW papers, it seems as if they concocted a story and then just hunted around for some data that would sorta support it.
    [​IMG]
    snow water equivilents for Apr1. I realize papers have to cut off data at some point but the recent snowpacks are going to send that graph rocketing skyward, and it wasnt exactly a smoking gun for 'unprecedented change' before that.

    [​IMG]
    the tree ring rain gauge aint no smokin' gun neither.


    why do pro-AGW papers get easy acceptance into prestigious journals even with weak evidence while papers that disagree with the IPCC mantra go through the meat grinder for months or years only to finally get rejected? Lindzen and Choi Part II | Climate Etc.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,503
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    There is no science to back man made global warming, it is political and it is about money. There is no money if Global warming is NOT man made. Pretty simple concept.
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,174

    spot on Retired..........the k00ks think this shit is all about being well intentioned in the interest of the earth!!:lol::lol:

    Anyway.........every IPCC guy who retires goes out and makes a statement that the data is bogus!!!
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,391
    Thanks Received:
    5,402
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,263
    Here we go again, the cretins posting on the internet how dumb all the scientists are. And totally failing to see the irony in their statements.

    Well boys, when are one of you going to post the site of a Scientific Society, a National Academy of Science, or a major University. Even in Outer Slobovia.

    Oh I know, all them dumb ass scientists are in on a Commie Fascist Nazi plot to make us all drive golf carts and eat tofu.

    Lordy, do you fellows come off as dumb asses.
     
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,144
    Thanks Received:
    2,909
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,174





    Yeah...........yada........yada...........but we're winning dumbasses!!!:fu:

    And yet for all your "real science".........you're...........not..........






    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]
     
  6. RWatt
    Offline

    RWatt Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    171
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    This is the relevant image from the paper. You can see that late 20th century reductions are almost unprecedented in the record, as the paper says.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,680



    Yes, and during the Holocene Maximum the snow levels would have been even less. Imagine that the worlds climate was 3 degree's C warmer and there was no CO2 driving the temp increase. It lasted for around 3,000 years. I wonder what could have caused that.
     
  8. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    What was your reaction to this post showing the Royal Meteorological Society's study proving that weather has not gotten more extreme?
     
  9. RWatt
    Offline

    RWatt Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    171
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    Where did you get 3C warmer from?
     
  10. Flopper
    Offline

    Flopper Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,695
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +5,269
    The study does not disprove global warming or man's contribution to it. It simply presents evidence that the unusually serve weather we have been having is not that unusual.
     

Share This Page