copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2019-12-10): One thing which is not a matter of opinion is that all these data sets show acceleration. Their rates go both up and down in a complex pattern, but for all of them, modern times are dominated by increasing rates. The presence of acceleration — both throughout the record and in the most recent decades — is testified by every one of these data sets. [...] For all the satellite data sets, we can see the acceleration if we study their residuals from a straight-line fit, but we don’t trust "looks like" — we go with the statistical tests. They’re unanimous: acceleration. [...] The latest series of posts (about sea level) started with Dave Burton denying the existence of acceleration in tide gauge records from individual stations. We proved him wrong; he refused to admit his mistake. Our recent look at the satellite data from NOAA/STAR was because Kip Hansen claimed it not only failed to show acceleration, it demonstrated the absence of acceleration. We proved him wrong too, and he has yet to admit his mistake. As often happens with climate deniers, when confronted with actual analysis he resorted to claiming the data he picked wasn’t good enough to do the job.
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2021-09-01): The monitoring of sea-level changes in Venice relies on both in situ data acquired by tide gauges (Sect. 2.1) and remote sensing observations provided by satellite radar altimetry (Sect. 2.2). Tide gauges record sea-level heights with reference to a permanent benchmark on land. Therefore, they provide measurements of RSL embedding the effects of vertical land motion (Sect. 3). Tide-gauge datasets consist of local, long-term measurements acquired at high frequency and accuracy (Zerbini et al., 2017). Satellite radar altimetry, in contrast, measures GSL changes (Fu and Cazenave, 2001; Stammer and Cazenave, 2017). These are independent of variations in the local land level changes (Gregory et al., 2019) and hence unaffected by the potentially key component of RSL (Wöppelmann and Marcos, 2016; Gregory et al., 2019). These measurements have a lower sampling rate (several days) and a lower accuracy than those provided by tide gauges, but they are representative of wider oceanic areas and have the potential to characterize the evolution of sea-level variability with an almost global coverage.
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2023-07-06): Sometimes the observed records are extended by sea-level projections, and the acceleration is defined as a rate of SLR significantly larger than observed, which only allows for finding an acceleration in the future (Haigh et al., 2014; Dangendorf et al., 2014a). Some studies compared the rates of linear SLR over two different periods (Calafat and Chambers, 2013; Steffelbauer et al., 2022), and others fitted a second-degree polynomial to the data (Haigh et al., 2014; Dangendorf et al., 2019). In general, the sea-level variability due to atmospheric forcing is estimated first by linearly detrending the time series. After that, the variability is removed from the sea-level data before estimating the trend and acceleration. Many previous studies of SLR in the North Sea did not find evidence of a significant SLR acceleration (Calafat and Chambers, 2013; Wahl et al., 2013; Haigh et al., 2014; Ezer et al., 2016), whereas Steffelbauer et al. (2022) did. To detect the acceleration of SLR in the North Sea, Steffelbauer et al. (2022) analysed the 100-year time series (1919–2018) of eight tide gauges and found a common breakpoint in the early 1990s.
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2021-01-15): Global data contradict claim of no acceleration in sea level rise
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2012-10-01): Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century. [...] To answer this question, all one has to do is view the entire 16 year dataset. A noisy signal is imposed over the long term trend of sea level rise. These fluctuations mean there will be short periods where sea level shows no trend. For example, 1993 to 1996 or 1998 to 2000. In other words, there have been several short periods of several years over the last 16 years of steady sea level rise where sea level appears not to rise. [...] Tidal estimates from sediment cores go even further back to the 1300's. They find sea level rise is close to zero in the early part of the sedimentary record. They then observe an acceleration in sea-level rise during the 19th and early 20th century. Over the period where the two datasets overlap, there is good agreement between sedimentary records and tidal gauge data (Donnelly 2004, Gehrels 2006).
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2020-04-12): Global data contradict claim of no acceleration in sea level rise [...] KEY TAKEAWAY: Peer-reviewed global analyses of both tide gauge and satellite data have demonstrated that sea level rise has, in fact, accelerated in recent decades. Global data contradict claim of no acceleration in sea level rise, Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Apr 1, 2020
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2013-07-01): Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Ray and Douglas (2011) report that there is no significant acceleration of GMSLR in their time series. On the other hand, Jevrejeva et al. (2008) evaluate the acceleration of GMSLR as about 0.01 mm yr−2 for 1700–2003, while Church and White (2011) find 0.009 ± 0.004 mm yr−2 for 1900–2009. Church and White (2006) report an acceleration of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2 for 1870–2001 in an earlier version of the dataset of Church and White (2011). In this paper, we do not show results for the earlier version, but we have analyzed it in the same way as the other four tide gauge time series and the results are close to those we obtain for the later version.
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2021-08-20): There were also attempts to determine a possible acceleration in the sea level rise of the basin but their outcome are irreconcilable. Woodworth (1990) estimated decelerations for the majority of tide gauges located on the Baltic coasts using varying lengths of tide gauges from 1870 to 1981 [See Table 1(a) of the study for further information]. Donner et al. (2012) reported that there are decadal-scale accelerations and decelerations, using tide gauge data of varying lengths (1849–2006) but did not draw any solid conclusion. Stramska and Chudziak (2013) estimated the acceleration in the altimetry era and concluded that there is no statistically significant acceleration in the basin. Spada et al. (2014), on the other hand, reported a secular acceleration in the Baltic Sea and related it to isostatic adjustment. Hünicke and Zorita (2016) carried out a thorough investigation of the acceleration determination in the basin using multiple tide gauges and methods from 1900–2012. They found that although all-station-average-record yielded "almost statistically significant" acceleration, the individual estimations were statistically insignificant but positive for most of the tide gauges.
Claim: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration (Willis Eschenbach, 2020-03-08)
Evidence (2024-02-27): We use two different tide gauge datasets to evaluate the HCC dataset. To evaluate long-term sea level change, we use the tide gauge measurements of monthly mean sea level from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL, 2022; Holgate et al., 2013). We restrict our analysis to 663 PSMSL records of at least 20 years' length and with at least 30 % data coverage in the 1993–2012 period. To align PSMSL with HCC or HR we remove the 1993–2012 average from each of those datasets respectively. We specifically calculate the average only over all time steps where the associated observational record has valid data. This reduces the alignment error between the observations and modeled data. [...] We evaluate the performance of our dataset by comparing it to tide gauge measurements from the PSMSL database. In the "Materials and methods" section we describe in more detail how we select tide gauge measurements from PSMSL and how we align it with the HCC and HR datasets. To visualize long-term sea level change we plot the linear trend from the tide gauge records and the modeled coastal water levels respectively for years with valid observations. Our dataset reflects the different trends in different world regions well (Fig. 2a) and shows a comparable RMSE against observations. Figure 2b shows the RMSE of the monthly HCC dataset and the HR dataset against observations. Figure 2c depicts latitudes for all tide gauge stations from the PSMSL record that were used to analyze monthly water levels, aligned by ocean basins.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-02-02): The pShuttle-SN vector was designed by researchers seeking to develop a potential SARS vaccine. However, the 2019 novel coronavirus does not contain a sequence from the pShuttle-SN vector as claimed. There is no evidence supporting the claim that 2019-nCoV is man-made.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2022-06-02): The article containing this claim was published in early February 2020 and went viral on Facebook within days, receiving more than 23,000 interactions and 900,000 views on Facebook. Published by InfoWars, it states that the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is man-made and that this is proven by the presence of a "pShuttle-SN" sequence in the viral genome. Identical or similar claims have been repeated in outlets such as Natural News and The HighWire. The claim is based on another article published on 30 January 2020 and authored by James Lyons-Weiler who formerly worked at the University of Pittsburgh as a bioinformatician. Lyons-Weiler claimed that a gene sequence in the 2019-nCoV genome, which he named INS1378, is similar to part of the sequence of the pShuttle-SN expression vector. pShuttle-SN was created in a laboratory as part of an effort to produce a potential SARS vaccine[1]. Based on this observation, he posited that 2019-nCoV was a man-made virus that arose from the SARS vaccine experiments. [...] Lyons-Weiler suggests option 4 to be most likely. Option 4 shows that the "INS1378" insert in 2019-nCoV has homology to pShuttle-SN, a vector used in an attempt to create a SARS vaccine. This is normal and expected, since it is based on SARS-CoV. He even states himself there is "low sequence homology" with only a 67% match (for this insert) at the nucleic acid level (as shown in the screenshots).
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-02-22): Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding - PMID: 32007145 - PMCID: PMC7159086 - DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8 [...] Methods: We did next-generation sequencing of samples from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and cultured isolates from nine inpatients, eight of whom had visited the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. Complete and partial 2019-nCoV genome sequences were obtained from these individuals. Viral contigs were connected using Sanger sequencing to obtain the full-length genomes, with the terminal regions determined by rapid amplification of cDNA ends. Phylogenetic analysis of these 2019-nCoV genomes and those of other coronaviruses was used to determine the evolutionary history of the virus and help infer its likely origin. Homology modelling was done to explore the likely receptor-binding properties of the virus. [...] Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan.Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Jan 28;9(1):221-236. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1719902. eCollection 2020. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020. PMID: 31987001 Free PMC article.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-09-24): Lu, R. et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: Implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet395, 565–574 (2020).
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-12-01): Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, Niu P, Yang B, Wu H, Wang W, Song H, Huang B, Zhu N, Bi Y, Ma X, Zhan F, Wang L, Hu T, Zhou H, Hu Z, Zhou W, Zhao L, Chen J, Meng Y, Wang J, Lin Y, Yuan J, Xie Z, Ma J, Liu WJ, Wang D, Xu W, Holmes EC, Gao GF, Wu G, Chen W, Shi W, Tan W. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):565–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30251-8.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2021-04-16): Lu, R. et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet395, 565–574 (2020).
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-12-10): Lu, R. et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet395, 565–574 (2020). [...] We gratefully acknowledge the submitting and the originating laboratories where genetic sequence data were generated and shared via NCBI and the GISAID Initiative. This work was supported by Grants from the National Key Research and Development Program (2019YFC1604600), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31200941), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (106112016CDJXY290002) and the National Natural Science Foundation of HeBei province (19226631D).
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-10-06): By metagenomic RNA sequencing and virus isolation from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from patients with severe pneumonia, independent teams of Chinese scientists identified that the causative agent of this emerging disease is a betacoronavirus that had never been seen before6,10,11. On 9 January 2020, the result of this etiological identification was publicly announced (Fig. 1). The first genome sequence of the novel coronavirus was published on the Virological website on 10 January, and more nearly complete genome sequences determined by different research institutes were then released via the GISAID database on 12 January7. Later, more patients with no history of exposure to Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market were identified. Several familial clusters of infection were reported, and nosocomial infection also occurred in health-care facilities. All these cases provided clear evidence for human-to-human transmission of the new virus4,12,13,14. As the outbreak coincided with the approach of the lunar New Year, travel between cities before the festival facilitated virus transmission in China. This novel coronavirus pneumonia soon spread to other cities in Hubei province and to other parts of China. Within 1 month, it had spread massively to all 34 provinces of China. [...] Lu, R. et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet395, 565–574 (2020). Chan, J. F. et al. Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan. Emerg. Microbes Infect.9, 221–236 (2020).
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2016-03-01): The genetic sequence, origin, and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 - PMID: 32333222 - PMCID: PMC7180649 - DOI: 10.1007/s10096-020-03899-4 [...] Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a new infectious disease that first emerged in Hubei province, China, in December 2019, which was found to be associated with a large seafood and animal market in Wuhan. Airway epithelial cells from infected patients were used to isolate a novel coronavirus, named the SARS-CoV-2, on January 12, 2020, which is the seventh member of the coronavirus family to infect humans. Phylogenetic analysis of full-length genome sequences obtained from infected patients showed that SARS-CoV-2 is similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and uses the same cell entry receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), as SARS-CoV. The possible person-to-person disease rapidly spread to many provinces in China as well as other countries. Without a therapeutic vaccine or specific antiviral drugs, early detection and isolation become essential against novel Coronavirus. In this review, we introduced current diagnostic methods and criteria for the SARS-CoV-2 in China and discuss the advantages and limitations of the current diagnostic methods, including chest imaging and laboratory detection.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-04-20): CLAIM this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus […] the HIV virus (AIDS virus) [...] VERDICT 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) does not contain "pShuttle-SN" sequence; no evidence that virus is man-made
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2013-05-01): In general, a broad variety of carriers can be envisaged, but teasing out the identity of electron shuttles in the laboratory is difficult. Studying this process experimentally may be further complicated by the possibility that microorganisms may utilize multiple electron shuttles, either alternately or in parallel. Investigations into the nature of electron transfer within syntrophic communities will require creativity and the development of novel assays to address this newly emerging field.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2020-02-06): In January, we analyzed sequences to determine if a link exists between wild bat coronaviruses and lab-housed viruses, and we found a possible connection to a vector sequence technology that originated in China called pShuttle-SN. Upon further analysis, the link is clearly not a direct one; however, the result was not spurious. The original published analysis of the 2019-nCoV genome had a segment, later referred to as "the middle fragment", that no one could match to any known sequences. Our analysis pointed to pShuttle-SN, and thereby to spike proteins.
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2024-09-10): Virus Hunter Project Lab [ sn ] [...] Project Laboratory in Microbiology [ sn ] [...] Project Laboratory in Biotechnology [ sn ]
Claim: 2019 novel coronavirus contains 'pShuttle-SN' sequence proving laboratory origin (Alex Jones, Mike Adams, 2020-02-02)
Evidence (2024-09-16): He claimed in February 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 contains a genetic sequence, thus proving that the virus was probably engineered in a laboratory, was repeatedly discredited by researchers and fact-checkers.[8] [...] - ^ Teoh, Flora (February 10, 2020). "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) does not contain "pShuttle-SN" sequence; no evidence that virus is man-made". Science Feedback. Health Feedback. Retrieved September 16, 2024.
Claim: Peer-reviewed studies, geologic records, and all the studies have shown that we have actually cooled since the Roman Warming Period, and likely since the Medieval Warming Period. (Marc Morano, 2019-09-09)
Evidence (2019-09-09): There have been regional climate events over the past 2,000 years, which can be seen in records of past climate. However, analysis of global temperatures for this time period shows that current warming is unique in its extent and has exceeded earlier temperatures.
Claim: Peer-reviewed studies, geologic records, and all the studies have shown that we have actually cooled since the Roman Warming Period, and likely since the Medieval Warming Period. (Marc Morano, 2019-09-09)
Evidence (2022-06-15): It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization. [...] With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Claim: Peer-reviewed studies, geologic records, and all the studies have shown that we have actually cooled since the Roman Warming Period, and likely since the Medieval Warming Period. (Marc Morano, 2019-09-09)
Evidence (2023-11-30): Skip to main content [...] Sign up for alerts [...] Follow us on Facebook
Claim: Peer-reviewed studies, geologic records, and all the studies have shown that we have actually cooled since the Roman Warming Period, and likely since the Medieval Warming Period. (Marc Morano, 2019-09-09)
Evidence (2024-08-19): A 1979 study from the University of Waikato found, "Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD c. 1050 and c. 1400 and to have been 0.75 °C warmer than the Current Warm Period."[75] More evidence in New Zealand is from an 1100-year tree-ring record.[76] [...] - ^ Cobb, Kim M.; Chris Charles; Hai Cheng; R. Lawrence Edwards (July 8, 2003). "The Medieval Cool Period And The Little Warm Age In The Central Tropical Pacific? Fossil Coral Climate Records Of The Last Millennium". The Climate of the Holocene (ICCI) 2003. Archived from the original on August 25, 2004. Retrieved 4 May 2006.