New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

The review process is not perfect. In fact, much of science is poking holes in published articles. Very few studies have been found to contain data that was discovered to be doctored. These articles are then removed from journals and the authors have destroyed their careers. The OP presented this article as being published in a peer review journal. It was not. Look at the article, go back a couple pages. I posted an article from PNAS and the OP's article. The differences are night and day. One obvious failure of OP's article is no reference page. This article is not worthy of an undergraduate research methods class, let alone ready for publication.

Money is paid to reviewers for two journals in particular, but they are the most rigorous journals to get published in. Most researchers, never have studies published in those journals. The majority of publications are in a tier of journals right below those. Those journals have no paid reviewers. The review process has many flaws, but money to get published or to review is not one of them.

 

Which part of "Inter-Glacial Period" do you not understand?

Estimates indicate that the MIS 11 high sea stand likely was at least + 9 m (relative to present sea level) and could have been as high as + 24 m. The most conservative estimates of palaeo-sea level during MIS 11 would require an ice mass loss equivalent to all of the modern Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; the more extreme estimates would require additional ice mass loss from the East Antarctic ice sheet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018213005099?np=y#bb0280

The NEEM paradox has emerged from an estimated large local warming above the preindustrial level (7.5 ± 1.8 °C at the deposition site 126 kyr ago without correction for any overall ice sheet altitude changes between the LIG and the preindustrial period) based on water isotopes, together with limited local ice thinning, suggesting more resilience of the real Greenland ice sheet than shown in some ice sheet models.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.

Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 13.5°F = 70.3°F.

Now, do you finally understand what happens during an Inter-Glacial Period?

Sea levels rise, and glaciers and ice sheets melt....that's what happens during any Inter-Glacial Period.

Who is the denier now?

 

First, showing a possible alternative cause does not prove that man-made climate change is false. Much more has to be done. Neither of these quotations were taken in context of the articles written. Showing that things were warmer in inter-glacier petiods does not show that man made effects on climate are false. It just shows a common cause for changes in climate, but does not disprove man made effects on climate.

Much of climate change effects does account for the cycles of our climate. If it was that simple, there would ve 100's of articles opposing the current models. There isn't because your simplification of how climate is affected is just too simple.

 

Nothing there about the temperature study you dispute.

 

You say it's fake, prove it.

 

Moving the goal posts I see. So the IPCC reports are fake too? They are just plain peer reviewed.

 

I have been around a while. I am a registered architect and reluctantly LEED AP certified. I worked most of my career for one of the largest A/E firms in the US. We worked internationally and in about every major city in the US. I started working on "green " projects before they were fashionable. One guy in our office was a founding member of LEED and wrote a 1,000 page book on the subject. At the beginning of nearly every project after about yr 2000 most of our clients were interested in "green" buildings but needed to know what the additional costs would be. It wasn't enough to just tell them to budget an extra 50%. We did feasibility audits in early planning stages. LEED is based on a points system. There are different categories of how green a client desires to build, starting with basic certification to silver, gold and platinum levels. Higher categories require more green systems and components, platinum being the highest, most difficult and most costly to achieve. The cost of an audit alone was between $85,000-250,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project and site. I have listened to Al speak on more than one occasion as well as having to evaluate several building systems being marketed as "green" on a regular basis. There are a lot of scammers in the "green" building business.

If you google AL you will see he doesn't exactly have the greatest reputation as an environmentalist.
This is typical: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gore-runs-global-warming-racket/

 

Prove it wrong then.

 

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Read it for yourself, it's 30 pages and very well cited.

 

Climate deniers....
Made me laugh.

The only credible climate scientists are scientists who are paid for believing in climate.

They peer review each other.

Made me laugh.

What is climate?

 

The only question is how soon $85,000-250,000 plus extra 50% to budget will return.

Nothing else matters.

Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be tolerated only in race horses and women. Lord Kelvin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lordkelvin390481.html

 

6/10ths of a degree rise in 35 years? What a heat wave!

 

Because they've foolishly invested their earthly fortunes in electric cars, solar panels and windmills.

 

Actually that statement that we have reached a point of no return while stated with far too much confidence hasn't been refuted. The only way to refute it is to stop dumping CO2 and still see a lot of warming happen. As far as green projects go there is still a lot of progress to be made and we are just so invested in our current way of life that it is going to be very difficult to change.

 

Give me the single most convincing reason why NASA and NOOA are wrong. I don't think you even read the paper honestly, and you are probably going to try to talk your way around giving a reason because honestly you don't have a clue. You are good at posting links to and copy and pasting from infowars but thats about it.

 

LMAO, obviously your science prowess is in need of improvement. Shifting the burden of proof, once again, and proving a negative, i.e., prove you never murdered someone, since you can't then you are a murderer.

You keep going back to these sophmoric arguments.

 

history does not agree with this.. mass extinctions are caused by global cooling not warming. Life thrives when the planet warms.. and goes extinct when it cools.

 

It's a shame what they are trying to pass off as legitimate science. 69% of their data comes from stations the NOAA itself classify's as poor or worst.

 

Please post a single post of mine that came from Info Wars or you need to apologize.

 

Radical conservatives! Hilarious!

 

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Look for yourself.

 

Goofy looking bastard. Good choice to represent your POV.

 

I did. They can call it peer reviewed, but that is not in the way most journals work. Look at your own link, where is their reference page? No journal article is submitted without one.

 

Not a peer reviewed journal