Jump to content



Photo

BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER: 'GLOBAL WARMING'


  • Please log in to reply
490 replies to this topic

#471 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Validating
  • 1,085 posts

Posted 06 September 2023 - 06:05 PM

This exact affliction is plaguing "vaccine" researchers. They have to summarize with a platitude that the Covid shots are recommended to lower the incidence of infection, hospitalization and death, even though the entire paper says the exact opposite. If they didn't, it simply wouldn't get published. 

 

The recent UK government data dump comparing jab status with all cause death shows a complete disaster of epic proportions:

https://thenobodywho...saster-a-buried


Edited by hhh, 06 September 2023 - 06:06 PM.


#472 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 06 September 2023 - 10:39 PM

And the latest vaccine that Biden appears ready to push (probably not mandate) has not gone through human trials.  What can go wrong?



#473 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 07 September 2023 - 11:50 AM

This should stir some feathers up.

 

 

 

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Abstract
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2 , which is devoid of C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww...ctivity,.2.aspx

 



#474 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 08 September 2023 - 11:08 AM

The CO2-Climate story: Myth and Fact

 


Edited by colion, 08 September 2023 - 11:11 AM.


#475 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 368 posts

Posted 09 September 2023 - 08:53 AM

This should stir some feathers up.

 

 

 

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Abstract
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2 , which is devoid of C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww...ctivity,.2.aspx

 

Not a peer reviewed article, and it is wrong.  Rebuttal below.
 

 

Dear Editor,
We are writing to comment on a recent paper published in your journal, Health Physics. The
paper is titled World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component,
Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018) by Skrable, Chabot & French
(Skrable et al. 2022)(hereinafter called “the paper”).

 

Our comment is two-fold: We will first highlight the fundamental error the authors make,
then briefly discuss the implications of publishing such work.

 

Firstly, the paper concludes that “the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels
from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause
of global warming.”

 

The premise of this argument is incorrect, and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the causal link between anthropogenic emissions and rising atmospheric CO2.
The fact that
atmospheric CO2 has been rising at only about half the rate of anthropogenic emissions
establishes that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and has been actively opposing
the rise for at least the last 60 years. Hence we know that anthropogenic emissions,
predominantly from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, involve more than sufficient
carbon to entirely explain the post-industrial rise (Canadell et al. 2021).

 

<snip>

 

In summary, even though a relatively small fraction of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere -
at a particular time - have a recent, direct fossil fuel origin, does not mean that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is not due to anthropogenic emissions and does not mean that this is not the
cause of global warming. That the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
is due to anthropogenic emissions is a scientific conclusion about which we can be extremely
confident (Friedlingstein et al. 2020; Canadell et al. 2021). Similarly, that this is the dominant
cause of global warming is also a conclusion about which there is great confidence (Eyring et
al. 2021; Masson-Delmotte et al. 2021). We would need much more than a misunderstanding
about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to overthrow these extremely robust
conclusions.

 

Secondly, throughout the paper, the authors have (i) failed to cite numerous related, and
relevant, earlier publications in this field, and (ii) demonstrated a lack of fundamental
understanding of biogeochemical carbon cycle processes. For example, suggesting:

 

“It appears in the figure that Earth is still in the Holocene interglacial period that
started 11,500 y ago. Its peak temperature change over the 11,500 years, thus far in
1950, appears to be significantly less than those over the three previous interglacial
periods. Its peak CO2 appears less than 300 ppm and less than the peak value in the
previous interglacial period. Thus, the increase in CO2 that Earth has been
experiencing since 1800 appears to have started more than 5,000 years ago.”

 

This statement ignores an entire body of scientific literature (on Holocene and modern
climate change), and then arrives at a non-sequitur conclusion based on that ignorance.

Under any normal peer review circumstances, a combination of failing to properly cite the
state of the science, alongside a demonstrated lack of understanding and clarity in writing,
would have led to immediate rejection of this work.

 

Therefore, that this manuscript was published suggests a major failure in the Health Physics
peer review process.

 

https://andthenthere...ablecomment.pdf

 


Edited by Rich C, 09 September 2023 - 08:55 AM.

Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#476 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 09 September 2023 - 02:06 PM

Not a peer reviewed article, and it is wrong.  Rebuttal below.

 

Your link shows that you are factually wrong wrt PR and at best scientists disagree about the paper which is not unusual.  You purposely omit Skrable's response to the four comment letters which, of course, are not PRed (as though PR is the holy grail).  Here is one that sums things up and you can review the others.  The bottom line is that Skrable et al. stand by their methodology, results and conclusions which have not been subsequently refuted and in fact are consistent with other studies.

 

 

Health Physics Journal Editor response in re reviewers:

 

The commentors stated that the peer-reviewers selected by the Journal are unqualified to review Skrable et al. (2022) due to a lack of expertise in atmospheric sciences. Again, as Health Physics employs double-blind peer-review, and the identities of reviewers are kept confidential, it is not at all clear how the commentors could have known who reviewed this paper and their qualifications to do so. Regardless, this claim is without foundation. In fact, both peer-reviewers were selected specifically for their expertise in atmospheric science/meteorology/climate science.

 

 

 

Skrable, et al. response to comments:

 

None of the four letters to the editor in the June 2022 issue of Health Physics include any specific criticism of the assumptions, methodologies, and simple equations that we use in our paper to estimate the anthropogenic fossil and non-fossil components present each year in the atmosphere. We have estimated from the “No bombs” curve, modeled in the absence of the perturbation due to nuclear weapons testing, an approximation fitting function of annual expected specific activities.

Annual mean concentrations of CO2 in our paper are used along with our revised expected specific activities to calculate values of the anthropogenic fossil and non-fossil components of CO2. These values are presented in revisions of Table 2a, Table 2, and figures in our paper. They are included here in a revised supporting document for our paper, which provides a detailed discussion of the assumptions, methodology, equations, and example calculations of the two components of CO2 in 2018.

Our revised results support our original conclusions and produce an even smaller anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere. The file for the revised supporting document, including Table 2, is available at the link: (Supplemental Digital Content link, https://links.lww.com/HP/A230 provided by HPJ).

With respect to the elements of our paper (Skrable et al. 2022), our responses to this lengthy letter to the Health Physics Journal, which mostly contains extraneous comments and critiques that are wrong, are as follows:

    1. Assumptions: No specific critique of our assumptions is given in the letter. Other related criticisms include the value of S(0), the specific activity in 1750, and the assumption that bomb- produced 14C being released from reservoirs was not significant. Our use of the likely elevated S(0) value is explained and justified in the paper. Regarding the use of bomb-produced 14C recycling from reservoirs to the atmosphere, we did express our belief that this influence would be small because most of it remains in the oceans, and the entire bomb 14C represents a small fraction of all 14C present in the world.
    2. Methodology: No specific critique of our methodology is given in the letter. The major thrust of our paper was to describe a simple methodology for determining the anthropogenic portion of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on the dilution of naturally occurring 14CO2 by the anthropogenic fossil-derived CO2, the well-known Suess effect as acknowledged by Andrews and Tans.
    3. Equations: Our D14C equation expressed in per mil was obtained from the Δ14C equation reported by Miller et.al referenced in our paper. Our D14C equation is the same as NOAA’s Δ14C equation, and it does not agree with that in the letter. Our equation was not used to calculate D14C values. Rather, we extracted annual mean D14 values directly from a file provided by NOAA and used them to calculate annual mean values of the specific activity. The annual mean D14C values in our paper are consistent with those displayed in a figure by NOAA  (https://gml.noaa.gov...c14tellsus.html).
    4. Results: As a consequence of our disagreement in (3) above, many of the comments, criticisms, and suggestions of why we did certain things are wrong in paragraph 3 and others.
    5. Technical Merits: The letter does not have any specific comments or criticisms of the simple equations used to estimate all components of CO2 by either of two independent pathways, which rely on the estimation of the annual changes since 1750 in either the 14C activity per unit volume or the 14C activity per gram of carbon in the atmosphere.
    6. Practical Significance: Andrews and Tans do not agree with our conclusion (10) on page 303 of our paper, which includes the practical significance of our paper that is not recognized by Andrews and Tans.

We stand by our methodology, results, and conclusions.

 



#477 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 368 posts

Posted 09 September 2023 - 11:11 PM

The commentors stated that the peer-reviewers selected by the Journal are unqualified to review Skrable et al. (2022) due to a lack of expertise in atmospheric sciences. Again, as Health Physics employs double-blind peer-review, and the identities of reviewers are kept confidential, it is not at all clear how the commentors could have known who reviewed this paper and their qualifications to do so. Regardless, this claim is without foundation. In fact, both peer-reviewers were selected specifically for their expertise in atmospheric science/meteorology/climate science.

 

 

Nobody should trust a peer review by an unanimous peer reviewer!  If you don't have the stones to sign your name, it is a worthless review.  


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#478 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 10 September 2023 - 08:22 AM

 

 

 

 

Nobody should trust a peer review by an unanimous peer reviewer!  If you don't have the stones to sign your name, it is a worthless review.  

 

 

 

You obviously are not familiar with the peer review process.  Authors never know the reviewers names and in double-blind the reviewer does not know the author's.  Importantly, only the naive place much stock in the fact that a paper has been PRed as the process does nothing more than attempt to ensure that it does not violate accepted standards.  It does not certify, for example, interpretation/conclusions, only that the paper can be incorporated into the body of scientific literature for further evaluation/confirmation/etc.  Furthermore, the bias in the process has been often discussed and is a serious problem.  Renowned scientists throughout history have been subject to biased, improper PR.

 

 

 



#479 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 10 September 2023 - 08:59 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody should trust a peer review by an unanimous peer reviewer!  If you don't have the stones to sign your name, it is a worthless review.  

 

 

 

You obviously are not familiar with the peer review process.  Authors never know the reviewers names and in double-blind the reviewer does not know the author's.  Importantly, only the naive place much stock in the fact that a paper has been PRed as the process does nothing more than attempt to ensure that it does not violate accepted standards.  It does not certify, for example, interpretation/conclusions, only that the paper can be incorporated into the body of scientific literature for further evaluation/confirmation/etc.  Furthermore, the bias in the process has been often discussed and is a serious problem.  Renowned scientists throughout history have been subject to biased, improper PR.

 

ADD: Are you talking about the reader not knowing the reviewers name?  That is never the case.  

 

 

 

 



#480 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 10 September 2023 - 01:05 PM

The non-dispatchable nature of renewable energy from wind/solar is beginning to sink into the Brits consciousness.  Does this stuff flow from East to West?

 

 

 

100 TWh of Hydrogen Storage Needed To Avoid Blackouts

 

It’s only taken these so-called experts two decades to work this out!

 

Britain must set up a vast network of hydrogen-filled caves to guard against the risk of blackouts under the net zero shift, according to the country’s premier science body.

 

The Royal Society has said 900 caverns filled with hydrogen will be needed to ensure the UK can keep the nation’s lights on during periods of low wind and sunshine. ...

 

https://notalotofpeo...void-blackouts/