Talk:Hans von Storch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

validation of climate model[edit]

It is stated that Storch et al is a validation of the climate model. I don't see it that way. He just used a climate model to generate date which he used to test the method of Mann. I propose to correct this piece of text.--MichaelSirks 19:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to me. I removed the para. William M. Connolley 22:11:38, 2005-09-04 (UTC).
It was JH's. Sorry Josh William M. Connolley 22:14:05, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

Not that it matters (but just to prove I didn't make it up), the "10 editors" thing came from here (7th para). Rd232 23:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thats an interesting article. I think I'd browsed it some time ago, but had obviously forgotten. William M. Connolley 09:02:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

Surprise, surprise[edit]

Don't forget to weigh in on Climate alarmism, doc. I already put your Storch quote there. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

The comments about "Science noting an error" is unsat. Science published a comment on the paper. And included a reply. And it did not "note" errors. The comment alleged them and made comments on interpretation. This is the normal process of science. And the citation to Real Climate (a blog, which Mann, who's been criticized by VS, runs) rather than to the Science comment itself is biased. I'm going to fix this bias. I won't bother with the edit war, though. I just hate that aspect of Wikipedia too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.146.144 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, with slight changes. Adding a link is useful. Perhaps you could find the Sci thing directly? William M. Connolley 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequacy...[edit]

I've hunted down two papers referenced in the article with the following words:

The inadequacy of the MBH98 methodology for climate reconstructions was later independently confirmed in other publications [...]

While the papers uncover certain weaknesses, I think that's a bit too strong. It's also something not about von Storch, but about MBH. Maybe we should rewrite this as:

Other authors reported similar results to von Storch. [...]

Any comments? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans von Storch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work[edit]

Parts of this article have been added by the notorious source faker, Polentarion/Polentario/Serten/Bakulan. It probably contains stuff which seems to be sourced to reliable sources but is really not, since the sources do not say what the article says. The German article has the same problem. I already removed in irrelevant paragraph where Storch is lauded by a denialist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_von_Storch&oldid=1211876510"