The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Checking sources should be as simple as ABC > Comments

Checking sources should be as simple as ABC : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 20/2/2018

It would be ridiculous if some of the catastrophic global warming so often reported by experts via our ABC were just a consequence of a new method of recording temperatures!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
John Ryan, I don't see any discussion of the science in your rant. Are you aware that Dr Marohasy is well published in the scientific literature, and do you have any ability to make a sensible critique of her individual and co-authored scientific work?
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 2:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DAFFY DUCK,

Why not recommend something relevant to Dr Marohasy’s Post such as this by Dr. James P. Wallace III and 9 (nine) other PhD’s (2017):

“On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding"
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 2:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bob.

It does appear that 'the opposition' can't play the ball, so they are attacking the woman.

Bottomline, Daffy and Co who have posted above at this thread are not disputing that the Bureau may be exaggerating global warming trends.

Though they don't seem to be supportive of my call for an ABC Journo or two to look into the discrepancies.

They don't seem to be at all curious as to what the actual extent of global warming might be.
Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 2:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B. Always a pleasure to watch people like you shoot you yourself in the foot while your foot is in your mouth. Well done exposing another reason why the platinum resistance thermometer is not compatible for either trend line calculation or homogenisation with mercury in glass thermometers.
Bob Fernley-Jones What Alan B is failing to describe is an error in reading caused by a non-linearity problem with the old thermometers. The thermometer glass is elastic and slowly malleable. The non-linearity is partly reversible like (hysteresis) but partly permanent (calibration). So Alan B has done a wonderful job proving Jennifer to be correct again. This error is likely to have caused old thermometers to read a narrower diurnal range. So the older maximums should be adjusted up.
Badly specified and designed PRTD housings can also cause hysteresis and this is why such designs should always be done by trade engineers experienced in construction and calibration of thermal materials with electronics and never by backyard amateurs such as climatologists. The obvious result of such design failure would be years of perverted and confused data.
Posted by Siliggy, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 4:34:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob, we used to measure vacuum with inches of mercury, because it's an incompressible liquid. Not so the air in the tube which has to compress or expand with temperature changes.

Moreover glass is not as rigid and inflexible as some might think, but nonetheless preferred for its thermal conductivity.

The problem is in the glass and tiny microscopic flaws usually becoming evident, with the first large compression of air within the tube, or conversely first large contraction by the mercury inside a near vacuum.

That's why it's hard to find mercury thermometers in use almost anywhere today.

Why, even hospitals and ambos have gone largely electronic because of accuracy and safety concerns. A glass tube with a tiny microscopic post production hole, although uncommon, not unknown, is therefore subject to changing atmospheric pressure.

Moreover we have moved into the 21st century and more modern and accurate means of ascertaining temperature changes.

I find Jennifer's, persistent denial of manmade climate change both strange and unusual and just not subject to normal scientific rigor.

And at complete odds with the overwhelming bulk of the scientific community and some conveniently excluded facts.

Tag team all you like, that won't change my view on Jennifer and her patently ideologically motivated claims?

She has yet to address any of the relevant facts I've raised, probably won't? And supposedly expects to get by with more, par for the course denial or obdurate obfuscation?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 4:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest supporters of Dr.Marohasy read the attached critique of her work on climate change before you get too enthusiastic about her pronouncements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy#2017_GeoResJ_manuscript

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 4:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy