|
Post by trbixler on Jun 23, 2011 13:29:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 24, 2011 14:31:32 GMT
Could not resist.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2011 14:57:05 GMT
While the study in question has two data sets, it really doesn't prove nor disprove anything. Some are trying to take a regional study and make it global. Doesn't make sense to do that, but everyone is guilty of trying to find more in a paper than really exists. The main item is that this study is not in agreement with other papers, so until more research is done, it is hard to give it much credibility.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 24, 2011 16:13:43 GMT
While the study in question has two data sets, it really doesn't prove nor disprove anything. Some are trying to take a regional study and make it global. Doesn't make sense to do that, but everyone is guilty of trying to find more in a paper than really exists. The main item is that this study is not in agreement with other papers, so until more research is done, it is hard to give it much credibility. You may wish to visit CA concerning this......
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2011 3:53:21 GMT
The more deeply I study this paper the worse it is. My question now has become......how in the world did this get past Peer Review? It is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 25, 2011 4:21:38 GMT
The more deeply I study this paper the worse it is. My question now has become......how in the world did this get past Peer Review? It is garbage. Pal Review.....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 2:45:57 GMT
Ya know magellan......the salt studies of the Roman Empire show that sea level in the 0AD-300AD or so period were 2 M higher than the early levels indicated in the recent NC fiasco.
I am beginning to think that Dr. Mann, who was a co-author of this paper, has totally lost it. He apparantly never references geological data before making such a fool of himself and dragging others along.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 26, 2011 3:12:57 GMT
Ya know magellan......the salt studies of the Roman Empire show that sea level in the 0AD-300AD or so period were 2 M higher than the early levels indicated in the recent NC fiasco. I am beginning to think that Dr. Mann, who was a co-author of this paper, has totally lost it. He apparantly never references geological data before making such a fool of himself and dragging others along. It seems quite common for scientists of one sort to ignore science from another discipline. Most notably Egyptologists ignore geologic evidence on the Spinx. It has gone to knew heights with climatology though.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 3:36:50 GMT
Well, in this case arceological evidence just blows the Kemp paper right out of the water. That factor of 10 that he used to justify the match in his temp proxy is fake......fake.....fake..... www.salt.org.il/frame_arch.html
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 3:37:57 GMT
And by using the Trelander series.....the arch evidence blows that out of the water as well.
I can only suggest that Mr. Mann do a bit more reading before he keeps getting stupid papers published. He is really starting to look like a blooming idiot.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 26, 2011 3:52:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 26, 2011 14:55:27 GMT
More sea hockey, maybe some parsing is required. Of course maybe the ocean in Playa Del Rey has greater gravitational pull making it less likely to overfill? "Further Problems with Kemp and Mann" "The first thing that seems strange is that they are claiming that globally there has been a sea level rise of 200 mm (8 inches) in the last fifty years (1950-1999). I know of no one else making that claim. Church and White estimate the rise 1950-2000 at 84 mm (three and a quarter inches) mm, and Jevrejeva says 95 mm (three and three-quarters inches), so their reconstruction is more than double the accepted estimates …" wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/further-problems-with-kemp-and-mann/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 16:19:17 GMT
PNAS, by virtue of being in the publishing business, has to have a skunk paper every now and then. This paper is a skunk.......period. No validity......and veryyyyyyy poorly done.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 26, 2011 18:47:43 GMT
PNAS is not traditionally peer reviewed, instead the member of the Academy you go through has alot to do with the review process. I understand they have tried to fix this to some extent, but...PNAS is still one of the most uneven journals going (filled with both great great and terrible papers).
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 26, 2011 18:50:04 GMT
LOL! This paper was NOT peer reviewed in any traditional sense. It was edited by a pre-arranged editor!
See editor comment and the star behind it, the fine print says it had a "pre-arranged" reviewer.
THIS IS NOT REAL SCIENCE!
|
|