“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[RaymondR]

I am still waiting for someone to identify the peer reviewed papers on the human contribution to atmospheric methane.

I worked for about 45 years in oil and gas exploration and extraction am very familiar with the ethos's and attitude of oil and gas executives and can assure you that they are cheap bastards and tend to abhor the wastage of any petroleum products they might make a buck out of. Whilst flaring of associated gas during oil production was common at one time it is no longer it either being used as process fuel or re-injected.

[weavis]

Thread has lost the plot...
Time to close soon.

[Reefmagnet]

Gotta smile at this Methane discussion. Everyone knows methane is produced by organic lifeforms, right? Every last piece of methane emitted originated from something that is or was a living organism. If you remove the life, you remove the methane.



But... but... but it's being released from melting permafrost I hear some say? Well you (and perhaps some published research) might say it contributes to global warming, but others (and perhaps other published research) may indeed say the original abstained release into the atmosphere compounded the effects of past global cooling; Which was far more damaging to the environment. Proof? Global warming won't result in 1 mile high ice sheets encroaching upon large sections of the good 'ol US of A.

[newhaul]

Ok i will show why I'm always skeptical of 90% of agw stories.
They talk about co2 but the lead picture is water vapor .
Co2 is odorless and colorless.
Misleading reporting always throws up red flags
Like why are they not showing the facts in the first picture
https://www.popsci.com/record-breaki...-graph-climate
This article just showed up on my feed so I posted it to show what I'm talking about

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Gotta smile at this Methane discussion. Everyone knows methane is produced by organic lifeforms, right? Every last piece of methane emitted originated from something that is or was a living organism. If you remove the life, you remove the methane.



But... but... but it's being released from melting permafrost I hear some say? Well you (and perhaps some published research) might say it contributes to global warming, but others (and perhaps other published research) may indeed say the original abstained release into the atmosphere compounded the effects of past global cooling; Which was far more damaging to the environment. Proof? Global warming won't result in 1 mile high ice sheets encroaching upon large sections of the good 'ol US of A.

glaciers in Greenland and Iceland are once again growing

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

glaciers in Greenland and Iceland are once again growing

Even when you're right, you're wrong.

The Jakobshavn glacier is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise, as it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation, but at a slower rate.
In a new paper*, Khazendar and his team have identified the cause - and, yes, it is only temporary.
The researchers conclude that the slowdown of this glacier occurred because an ocean current (the North Atlantic Oscillation - NAO), that brings water to the glacier's ocean face, grew much cooler in 2016. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they have been since the mid-1980s.
Meanwhile, the rest of Greenland's ice sheet is still receding; and, even if this slight growth were to continue, it couldn't possibly make up for the intense losses experienced so far.

From the paper*:
“... After nearly two decades of sustained thinning, our observations show that the thinning rates of Jakobshavn Isbrae slowed down since 2014 and that the glacier significantly thickened between 2016 and 2017, and again between 2017 and 2018 ...
... The glacier surface has consistently lowered since 2003 (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3), undergoing the largest drop in elevation between 2012 and 2013. Since 2013, however, the rate of surface lowering has lessened. Moreover, from 2014 to 2016 the concentration of the highest rates of thinning near the front has been far less pronounced compared with previous years. These two observations suggest a weakening of the dynamic component of the thinning, which is strongly supported by concurrent changes in flow speeds. The flow of Jakobshavn accelerated between 1998 and 2013 (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 6), modulated by increasing seasonal variability in the latter years. Since 2013, the year of greatest thinning, glacier speeds slowed while remaining above their pre-1998 levels. More significant slowing occurs in 2017, the first year we detect a transition from glacier thinning to thickening. Observations in spring 2018 reveal a continuation of glacier deceleration and thickening ...”

“Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools” ~ by Ala Khazendar et al. [Published March 25/19]
*➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

Contrast the misleading headline with the actual content from WUWT:
“NASA research shows that Jakobshavn Glacier, which has been Greenland’s fastest-flowing and fastest-thinning glacier for the last 20 years, has made an unexpected about-face. Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise – it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation – but at a slower rate ...”
“Inconvenient: NASA says a Greenland glacier did an about-face – growing again” ~ Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?)
➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/...growing-again/

[jimbunyard]

For a more graphic view of Jakobshavn's 'growth' and perhaps one of it's repercussions...

May 13 2002



2007



2013



2019

[Group9]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The only purpose for labeling people is so the labeler can feel superior to those they label. Other that that creating labels has no usage and can be safely ignored by those of us who have no need to feel superior to anyone else.

Exactly. The surest way to immediately lose all credibility with me on the man made global warming debate is to use the word “denier” as part of your argument.

It actually sounds kind of creepy when you hear an adult use it. They could substitute “heretic” and it wouldn’t sound any worse.

I don’t know when this weird notion that stopping or stifling debate was the same thing as winning the argument, gained so much traction, but it’s dogma with half the population at this point. And, not just where MMGW is concerned, although it sure figures prominently there.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Gotta smile at this Methane discussion. Everyone knows methane is produced by organic lifeforms, right? Every last piece of methane emitted originated from something that is or was a living organism. If you remove the life, you remove the methane.



But... but... but it's being released from melting permafrost I hear some say? Well you (and perhaps some published research) might say it contributes to global warming, but others (and perhaps other published research) may indeed say the original abstained release into the atmosphere compounded the effects of past global cooling; Which was far more damaging to the environment. Proof? Global warming won't result in 1 mile high ice sheets encroaching upon large sections of the good 'ol US of A.

"organic lifeforms"?

Which brings us squarely back to Gord's original post, which has less to do with the veracity (or not) of the paper (from 2005!), but much more to do with Plato's original critique of 'democracy'; unqualified people tend to make bad decisions on things they aren't qualified to make decisions about.

Leaving aside the arrogance and condescension, the apparent basic misunderstanding of the scientific method is more serious.

Science is based on the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. Being human, scientists make mistakes. The nature of science is to correct those mistakes, regardless of the many frailties of human nature...

As for 'labels', to paraphrase 'Father' in Swiss Family Robinson, "We can call it 'the rock where we struck and became marooned', or we can (parsimoniously) call it 'Desolation Point'".

In other words, in colloquial use 'label' has gained a derogatory connotation, when actually it remains only a description in many peoples usage.

It is quite amusing that those who rail so loudly about 'PC abuses' are often among those who are so easily (apparently) offended by 'labelers'...

As I've said before, if one doesn't like the results of actions one is taking, stop taking those actions...

[transmitterdan]

Methane is not only produced by organic lifeforms. The solar system has many bodies that are ripe with methane. As far as we know, the quantities observed are so huge that no amount of organic life could explain the amounts seen.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

It is quite amusing that those who rail so loudly about 'PC abuses' are often among those who are so easily (apparently) offended by 'labelers'...
[/B]

Well, at least we have finally found something that amuses the”alarmists”.(see, we can do it, too.).

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Group9

Well, at least we have finally found something that amuses the”alarmists”.(see, we can do it, too.).

The difference is I'm not whining disingenuously about it.

There is ample cause (and proof) for much alarm, whether people who deny it believe it or not.

[Singularity]

It was pointed out up-thread (I think in this thread) that the scientific method has been used to show that the critique of Democracy attributed to Plato (the one supporting elitism) is unfounded. Elites make mistakes more or less the same as everyone else, but tend to be socioeconomically insulated from the results (and/or tend to have superior rationalization and communicative ability so as to be able to induce the cognitive dissonance in subordinates such that the subordinates...continue to feel subordinate, not recognizing that the elite in the aggregate isn't so elite when it comes to innate skills/acumen).

Indeed language is key, and why PC stuff is so problematic...PC rules allow those with greater persuasiveness while operating within the boundaries of the acceptable PC environment to be the master, regardless of the legitimacy of this master's underlying position:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
--
The following for Gord at least:
On Hegel...the above is a practical application of the master-slave dialectic that is attributed to Hegel (and I must assume that Carrol was specifically referencing this concept that seems to underlie much preventable human misery). From the wiki page on this subject (as interpreted by a contemporary philosopher):
"Hegel's discussion of the dialectic of the Master and Slave is an attempt to show that asymmetric recognitive relations are metaphysically defective, that the norms they institute aren't the right kind to help us think and act with—to make it possible for us to think and act. Asymmetric recognition in this way is authority without responsibility, on the side of the Master, and responsibility without authority, on the side of the Slave. And Hegel's argument is that unless authority and responsibility are commensurate and reciprocal, no actual normative statuses are instituted. This is one of his most important and certainly one of his deepest ideas, though it's not so easy to see just how the argument works."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Even when you're right, you're wrong.

The Jakobshavn glacier is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise, as it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation, but at a slower rate.
In a new paper*, Khazendar and his team have identified the cause - and, yes, it is only temporary.
The researchers conclude that the slowdown of this glacier occurred because an ocean current (the North Atlantic Oscillation - NAO), that brings water to the glacier's ocean face, grew much cooler in 2016. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they have been since the mid-1980s.
Meanwhile, the rest of Greenland's ice sheet is still receding; and, even if this slight growth were to continue, it couldn't possibly make up for the intense losses experienced so far.

From the paper*:
“... After nearly two decades of sustained thinning, our observations show that the thinning rates of Jakobshavn Isbrae slowed down since 2014 and that the glacier significantly thickened between 2016 and 2017, and again between 2017 and 2018 ...
... The glacier surface has consistently lowered since 2003 (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3), undergoing the largest drop in elevation between 2012 and 2013. Since 2013, however, the rate of surface lowering has lessened. Moreover, from 2014 to 2016 the concentration of the highest rates of thinning near the front has been far less pronounced compared with previous years. These two observations suggest a weakening of the dynamic component of the thinning, which is strongly supported by concurrent changes in flow speeds. The flow of Jakobshavn accelerated between 1998 and 2013 (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 6), modulated by increasing seasonal variability in the latter years. Since 2013, the year of greatest thinning, glacier speeds slowed while remaining above their pre-1998 levels. More significant slowing occurs in 2017, the first year we detect a transition from glacier thinning to thickening. Observations in spring 2018 reveal a continuation of glacier deceleration and thickening ...”

“Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools” ~ by Ala Khazendar et al. [Published March 25/19]
*➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

Contrast the misleading headline with the actual content from WUWT:
“NASA research shows that Jakobshavn Glacier, which has been Greenland’s fastest-flowing and fastest-thinning glacier for the last 20 years, has made an unexpected about-face. Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise – it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation – but at a slower rate ...”
“Inconvenient: NASA says a Greenland glacier did an about-face – growing again” ~ Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?)
➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/...growing-again/

you forgot ( rather conveniently 2 things )
1) the jakobshaven glacier is actually a rather small glacier on the Greenland ice sheet so of course they would concentrate on where they can show alarmism and not the hundreds of first one that have been added to the ice sheet as a whole over the last 5 or so years,

Q) you totally skipped Iceland https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/ja.../13/id/915758/
Conveniently considering of you do include everything its counter to your narrative and shows the fact that the findings in the scientific papers you read ( if you read the actual scientific papers ) . Are not actually correct.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Indeed language is key, and why PC stuff is so problematic...PC rules allow those with greater persuasiveness while operating within the boundaries of the acceptable PC environment to be the master, regardless of the legitimacy of this master's underlying position:

Righto. And then the ability to test the legitimacy of the underlying position becomes compromised if not impaired. PC discourages and disrupts honest, truthful discourse and needed analysis. That's why so many otherwise thoughtful, well-intended issues, causes and movements wind up going awry, and they rather quickly become so unpopular. PC is the opposite of the best ideals of liberalism, and it's only becoming more & more obvious.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

The difference is I'm not whining disingenuously about it.

Pointing out attempts to suppress & stifle honest exchanges of ideas is entirely different from disagreeing with the merits or demerits of those ideas.

There is ample cause (and proof) for much alarm, whether people who deny it believe it or not.

One can certainly argue there's "proof" for the underlying causes that some believe might justify the alarm, but I'm not sure one can objectively conclude there's "proof" underlying the alarmism itself. I just don't see any other way of getting closer to the "truth" than to try and look at the science from both sides. Easier said than done to be sure, but PC, labeling, personalization is the last thing we need to achieve any sort of political consensus. Besides, it dumbs down the entire discussion and creates ill will.