New posts

Reply to thread

Message

If there was any scientific interest it would have been noted by now.
But that's not really the point. It was not published in a recognised scientific journal because it would not pass any test of scientific scrutiny.

Because that's what climate change is about.

Because I read climate science and know there is nothing in the paper that warrants any interest.
From the get go readers are being asked to believe that a few milliseconds of changed rotational speed can effect a measurable change in global atmospheric temperature, and that this change is cyclically regular. For a start, the last century's temperature record does not support the paper.
Furthermore, according to the hypothesis, why have temperatures steadily risen over the past century? Surely there should have been relative stasis, and you could have worked this out from figure 7. Then there is the maths needed to show how and where energy transfers have led to the climate we are experiencing, and there is none.
The other significant failure of the paper is that it cherrypicks time intervals. To be credible the paper needed to use all available data all the time given its hypothesis is premised on decadal variations. And there's further cherrypicks such as from 2013 where at p.139 we get this quote:
"The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously."
Given it's 2023 and ten years later, why has he omitted the fact that the rate of change has since then been considerably faster?

The bottom line is that without an explanatory mechanism that is readily apparent and quantifiable Mackey's paper is only good for entertainment.

<blockquote data-quote="rederob" data-source="post: 1234548" data-attributes="member: 2837">If there was any scientific interest it would have been noted&nbsp; by now.But&nbsp; that&#039;s not really the point.&nbsp; It was not published in a recognised scientific journal because it would not pass any test of scientific scrutiny. Because that&#039;s what climate change is about.Because I read climate science and know there is nothing in the paper that warrants any interest.From the get go readers are being asked to believe that a few milliseconds of changed rotational speed can effect a measurable change in global atmospheric temperature, and that this change is cyclically regular.&nbsp; For a start, the last century&#039;s temperature record does not support the paper.Furthermore, according to the hypothesis, why have temperatures steadily risen over the past century?&nbsp; Surely there should have been relative stasis, and you could have worked this out from figure 7.&nbsp; Then there is the maths needed to show how and where energy transfers have led to the climate we are experiencing, and there is none.The other significant failure of the paper is that it cherrypicks time intervals.&nbsp; To be credible the paper needed to use all available data all the time given its hypothesis is premised on decadal variations.&nbsp; And there&#039;s further cherrypicks such as from 2013 where at p.139 we get this quote:&quot;The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously.&quot; Given it&#039;s 2023 and ten years later, why has he omitted the fact that the rate of change has since then been considerably faster?The bottom line is that without an explanatory mechanism that is readily apparent and quantifiable Mackey&#039;s paper is only good for entertainment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rederob, post: 1234548, member: 2837"] If there was any scientific interest it would have been noted by now. But that's not really the point. It was not published in a recognised scientific journal because it would not pass any test of scientific scrutiny. Because that's what [B]climate change [/B]is about. Because I read climate science and know there is nothing in the paper that warrants any interest. From the get go readers are being asked to believe that a few milliseconds of changed rotational speed can effect a measurable change in global atmospheric temperature, and that this change is cyclically regular. For a start, the last century's temperature record does not support the paper. Furthermore, according to the hypothesis, why have temperatures steadily risen over the past century? Surely there should have been relative stasis, and you could have worked this out from figure 7. Then there is the maths needed to show how and where energy transfers have led to the climate we are experiencing, and [B]there is none[/B]. The other significant failure of the paper is that it cherrypicks time intervals. To be credible the paper needed to use all available data all the time given its hypothesis is premised on decadal variations. And there's further cherrypicks such as from 2013 where at p.139 we get this quote: [INDENT][I]"The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously." [/I][/INDENT] Given it's 2023 and ten years later, why has he omitted the fact that the rate of change has since then been considerably faster? The bottom line is that without an explanatory mechanism that is readily apparent and quantifiable Mackey's paper is only good for entertainment. [/QUOTE]

Verification