Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > Latest News
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scientists Manipulation of data again
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk

Scientists Manipulation of data again

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
OriginalHappyCamper View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2013
Location: Silverton, Or
Status: Offline
Points: 2850
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OriginalHappyCamper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Scientists Manipulation of data again
    Posted: May 30 2016 at 5:48am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/29/the-sea-levels-are-now-reducing-in-the-hotspots-of-acceleration-of-washington-and-new-york/Angry


The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York

Guest essay by Giordano Bruno

Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

The logic was clearly flawed, but obviously Nature did not accepted any comment. The science is settled, and can’t be discussed.

So, let see the data, for example for Washington DC and The Battery NY, to check if the hotspots have produced huge sea level rises since December 2009.

The figure below presents the MSL (monthly average mean sea levels) and the SLR computed with 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years’ time windows for Washington DC and The Battery NY.

Is there any one able to spot any sign or acceleration or simply oscillations? With the data up to December 2009 and with the data up to April 2016, not a chance. There are only oscillations about same longer term trend.

Which is then the novelty of the last 6 years of data? Since December 2009, the sea levels have declined in both Washington DC and The Battery NY, -3.3 mm/year in Washington DC and -10.7 mm/year in The Battery NY.

It seems that immediately after December 2009, the last month of data considered by Sallenger & co. in their June 2012 paper, corrected online June 2013 with the publishing in the supplementary of the actual numbers, a positive phase of the oscillations has been replaced by a negative phase.

clip_image002

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008

clip_image010

clip_image012

clip_image014

clip_image016

Jesus Christ died and was raised on the third day, the only "God" to overcome death.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2016 at 8:36am
Not looking to pick a fight, OHC, but Anthony Watts is a former TV weatherman with few academic credentials, but lots off connections to corporate funded climate change denial groups like the Heartland Institute. Ironically, the "guest blogger" that wrote that article is using the name of a 16th century Italian Dominican friar condemned as a heretic by the church, and burned at the stake for his scientific beliefs.

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2016 at 12:35pm
Anthony Watts ???

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

I needed a good laugh !!!

Back to Top
OriginalHappyCamper View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2013
Location: Silverton, Or
Status: Offline
Points: 2850
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OriginalHappyCamper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2016 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by Satori Satori wrote:

Anthony Watts ???

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

I needed a good laugh !!!

Glad I could introduce a little humor on this issue. But there is to much censorship of opposing views by those with the bully pulpit. Example; Dutchsence being blocked by FACEBOOK because he is proving the authorities on Geology wrong. Wonder who got to FACEBOOK to make that happen.

Just like Amazing Discovery, Walter Veith, has done with his explanation of the Geology layers and how they were formed quickly and not over eons as the experts say. That is because he believes in a world wide flood as told in the Bible and not this evolution stuff that is being taught as factual when it is only a theory. Walters explanation is viable because it makes sense. Evolution has to many unanswerable issues to be viable and it does not make sense. If Darwin had a stronger microscope we would not have this evolution theory, by his own words, "irreducible complexity". 
Jesus Christ died and was raised on the third day, the only "God" to overcome death.
Back to Top
OriginalHappyCamper View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2013
Location: Silverton, Or
Status: Offline
Points: 2850
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OriginalHappyCamper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2016 at 7:49pm
Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm). By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."
Jesus Christ died and was raised on the third day, the only "God" to overcome death.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2016 at 11:30am
I'm sorry, OHC my friend.  But, Michael Behe's argument is a load of *****!  Of course evolution could have accounted for those complex systems.  

Evolution has been running for billions of years and the standard mutation rate involves multiple changes FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM!  I have lost count (it is a really BIG number) of species on the planet and many of those have 10 to the power of 20 individuals (eg. bacteria) - and that is just now.  Over the course of the planet's occupancy by all lifeforms the numbers get truly staggering.  No, they did not have to get all the mutations at once, that shows a misunderstanding of the process, (and considering the numbers, even 200+ would be very common) just the dependent mutations had to follow the independent-nonlethal ones.  Considering the numbers involved that is almost a certainty.  All that is before you take into account the possibility of panspermia.

Darwin was the original proposer of the theory (And no, a theory is different from a guess or hypothesis.  In scientific parlance a theory is pretty close to proven.) But merely admitted he had not worked out all the details yet.  He had in his day no concept of DNA, let alone the "junk" DNA, protein DNA signalling, off and on genes, or recessive genes.  All of those, plus some blind luck help to drive the whole process.

God's existence is not disproven by evolution either.  Our Creator could use this system as easily as any other.  As far as the Bible is concerned:  that is believed to be God's wisdom imparted to mankind.  But, it was imparted to Men.  God may be perfect, but we are not and that includes our interpretation of the Divine word.

I see God's wisdom, presence and love more clearly in the genius of God's evolutionary process than in any of mankind's flawed writings.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down