Study links California drought to global warming

Apr 24, 2014 by Seth Borenstein

While researchers have sometimes connected weather extremes to man-made global warming, usually it is not done in real time. Now a study is asserting a link between climate change and both the intensifying California drought and the polar vortex blamed for a harsh winter that mercifully has just ended in many places in the U.S. and Canada.

The Utah State University scientists involved in the study say they hope what they found can help them predict the next big weird winter.

Outside scientists, such as Katharine Hayhoe at Texas Tech University, are calling this study promising but not quite proven as it pushes the boundaries in "one of the hottest topics in climate science today."

The United States just came out of a two-faced winter—bitter cold and snowy in the Midwest and East, warm and severely dry in the West. The latest U.S. drought monitor says 100 percent of California is in an official drought.

The new study blames an unusual "dipole," a combination of a strong Western high pressure ridge and deep Great Lakes low pressure trough. That dipole is linked to a recently found precursor to El Nino, the world-weather changing phenomenon. And that precursor itself seems amplified by a build-up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, the study says.

It's like a complex game of weather dominos that starts with cold water off China and ends with a devastating drought and memorable winter in the United States, said study author Simon Wang, a Utah State University climate scientist.

Wang was looking at colder water off China as a precursor to an El Nino. The colder water there triggers in the tropical Pacific. Those westerly winds persist for several months and eventually push warmed up water and air to the central Pacific where an El Nino forms, Wang said.

An El Nino is a warming of the central Pacific once every few years, from a combination of wind and waves in the tropics. It shakes up climate around the world, changing rain and temperature patterns. Wang saw the precursors and weather event coming months before federal weather officials issued an official El Nino watch last month.

Then Wang noticed the connection between that precursor—cold water off China, Vietnam and Taiwan—and the recent wild winter. He tracked similar combinations of highs and lows in North America. And he found those combination extremes are getting stronger.

Wang based his study, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, on computer simulations, physics and historical data. It is not as detailed and doesn't involve numerous computer model simulations as more formal attribution studies. Still, Wang said his is a proper connection.

Wang compared computer simulations with and without gases from the burning of fossil fuels. When he included carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use, he got a scenario over the past few decades that mirrored what has happened, including this past weird winter and other worsening dipole conditions. When he took out the greenhouse gases, the increasing extremes actually went down—not what happened in real life.

"We found a good link and the link is becoming stronger and stronger," Wang said.

And while other studies have looked at unusual activity, such as the jet stream, and possible connections to global warming from the burning of coal, oil and gas, this study is different because it spots a possible tool that researchers can use to predict future weird weather, he said.

The study, already much talked about in meteorological circles, is an offshoot of a growing and still not completely accepted subfield of climate research linking real-time weather extremes to changes in the jet stream and connecting those changes to man-made . Several outside scientists partly praised the work, but were also cautious about jumping to conclusions and not in full agreement.

"It's another way that is probably connected to an individual weather event," Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis said. "There are still a lot of questions out there. It's another piece of the puzzle."

Explore further: UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

Apr 15, 2014

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Warm US West, cold East: A 4,000-year pattern

Apr 16, 2014

Last winter's curvy jet stream pattern brought mild temperatures to western North America and harsh cold to the East. A University of Utah-led study shows that pattern became more pronounced 4,000 years ago, ...

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

20 hours ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

20 hours ago

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

21 hours ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

Groundwater is safe in potential N.Y. fracking area

21 hours ago

Two Cornell hydrologists have completed a thorough groundwater examination of drinking water in a potential hydraulic fracturing area in New York's Southern Tier. They determined that drinking water in potable ...

User comments : 36

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2014
Dr. Wang is awesome! Predicting? Unhead of!

Fans The Alchemist will recall I am all about predicting, and although I can't claim to be on par with Wang, I've been predicting Climate and Macroweather for much longer than I've been posting here.

As a matter of fact, Fans of the Alchemist will note I've made similar predictions, though can not claim the amazing specificity of the above.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2014
Interesting you feel that way Alchem. You caught this part right?
Wang compared computer simulations with and without gases from the burning of fossil fuels. When he included carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use, he got a scenario over the past few decades that mirrored what has happened, including this past weird winter and other worsening dipole conditions. When he took out the greenhouse gases, the increasing extremes actually went down—not what happened in real life.
CO2 gasses Alchem. Cause they, you know, trap heat and cause the planet to warm. Even at night.
verkle
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
The article insinuates that Dr. Wang is somewhat of a quack scientist and it is not very detailed nor does it include attribution studies. This "link" should be taken with a grain of salt.
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2014
scientists...are calling this study promising but not quite proven...

A polite way of saying "nonsense".

...and still not completely accepted subfield of climate research linking real-time weather extremes to changes in the jet stream and connecting those changes to man-made global warming...

A "sub field" imagined up by alarmist scientists who grasp at straws to explain no global warming for the last 16 years rather than accept the obvious: the computer models predicting warming overstate the effects of carbon dioxide.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment (2013) itself notes that there is virtually no evidence of increasing weather "extremes" currently yet conversely places great confidence in the computer models' predictions of increasing weather extremes in the future. Strange.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2014
A "sub field" imagined up by alarmist scientists who grasp at straws to explain no global warming for the last 16 years rather than accept the obvious: the computer models predicting warming overstate the effects of carbon dioxide.
Oh, another purveyor of zombie arguments? Joining the uba club are we?

There has been global warming over the last 16 years askdad. The studies all agree that the data relied on by Rose and Curry is cold biased and measures surface temps only, which fails to account for ocean temperature rise.

If you are going to be a skeptic, try being cognizant of the science. Of course, if you are just a denier....

The IPCC Fifth Assessment (2013) itself notes that there is virtually no evidence of increasing weather "extremes" currently yet conversely places great confidence in the computer models' predictions of increasing weather extremes in the future. Strange.
A misrepresentation. Not strange, but predictable. You just see what you want.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2014
You gotta love the AGW Cult, where Science Fiction is boldly portrayed as science.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2014
Science Fiction is boldly portrayed as science.
@anti
feel free to check the studies/references in these links: nothin' but science in them.

http://www.skepti...ears.htm

http://www.slate....ial.html

http://thinkprogr...warming/

http://biology.du...ge3.html

http://theconsens...ect.com/

http://www.epa.go...emp.html

http://science.nb...say?lite

Of course, since you ignore the science anyway, I am not hopeful that you will learn anything... thanks for showing everyone else that you've nothing to contribute except bitter tears over being proven wrong and whiny remarks because ya got NOTHING ELSE
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
There has been global warming over the last 16 years askdad. The studies all agree that the data relied on by Rose and Curry is cold biased and measures surface temps only, which fails to account for ocean temperature rise.
Maggnus provides a zombie argument.

Explain the process. How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Hey Stunty check the following links.
https://www.googl...r+review
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
@antigoracle

Did you actually follow the links?

https://www.skept...cess.htm
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014

Hey Stunty check the following links.
https://www.googl...r+review
@anti-reality (or anti-science, anti-common sense etc etc etc)
wow! all those jumbled up results...About 97,300 results (0.15 seconds) per Google... so, wait a minute! wait a minute... given your EXACT same criterion for search... if we simply plug in "aliens on earth proof" then we get About 8,150,000 results (0.30 seconds) https://www.googl...th+proof

IOW - what's your freakin' point? unless you are going to link empirical data, ya got NOTHING! Unless you are linking court records that PROVE something then your multiple links on Google don't mean squat. My own (very rare) last name gives over 1 million results, and my call sign from work gives 216,000!

and just as I figured, ya didn't even READ the links, did you? Too hard? too much science?

let me know when you have an actual point to make...
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Science Fiction is boldly portrayed as science.
@anti
feel free to check the studies/references in these links: nothin' but science in them.

http://www.skepti...ears.htm

Of course, since you ignore the science anyway, I am not hopeful that you will learn anything... thanks for showing everyone else that you've nothing to contribute except bitter tears over being proven wrong and whiny remarks because ya got NOTHING ELSE


Follow the links
Follow the money
Follow the links
Follow the money
Follow the links
Follow the money....

LOL...stuck in a loop!

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Maggnus provides a zombie argument.
BAHAHAHA!! A "zombie argument" is an argument that has been proven false using empirical evidence, but which is brought up over and over again in different threads as if it has not already been dealt with. You know, like quoting a specific cherry-picked data set and reposting it over and over.

It has been shown that the data sets championed by Rose are cold biased; http://www.metoff...tn74.pdf
http://www.scient...re-rise/
http://onlinelibr...abstract
http://www.nature...089.html

What a laughingly inept attempt to reverse the field.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Explain the process. How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?
Begging the question. Again. Atmospheric CO2 is not "only" affecting the deep oceans, they are affecting ocean temperatures at every level: http://www.climat...ure.html
http://thinkprogr...rapidly/
give an overview. Furthermore, evidence of warming is illustrated in melting ice all over the planet, including the great ice sheets and almost all glaciers.

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?
It doesn't. Although you are too stupid to understand it, for others, here are a couple of sites that discuss what is actually happening: https://spark.uca...t-oceans
http://eesc.colum...rat.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Maggnus provides a zombie argument.
BAHAHAHA!! A "zombie argument" is an argument that has been proven false using empirical evidence,
Then how is this a zombie argument? Are you saying the global temperatures have been falsified?

but which is brought up over and over again in different threads as if it has not already been dealt with. You know, like quoting a specific cherry-picked data set and reposting it over and over.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the data I present.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

It has been shown that the data sets championed by Rose are cold biased; http://www.metoff...tn74.pdf
http://www.scient...re-rise/
http://onlinelibr...abstract
http://www.nature...089.html

What a laughingly inept attempt to reverse the field.
Talk about laughingly inept. This is nothing more than the ridiculous claim, "Global warming is hiding only in places we haven't been measuring."

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?


Another example of ubamoron attempting to obfuscate the reality, and again, begging the question. He sort of understands the overall role that ocean circulation plays over the planet, and so attempts to apply a term he read somewhere to the effect that the overturning of the abysmal ocean water layer takes centuries. Which is true - and beside the point. (Here is a good overview of the subject: http://www.gps.ca...MOC.pdf)

The obfuscation is that these are not the only currents in the ocean, and more importantly, the heat transfer occurring as a result of the increase in the trade winds (http://www.soest....012.pdf) is what we are actually seeing. (again, a good review: http://www.pik-po...006.pdf)

Just more of the same BS from a denialist moron.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Explain the process. How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?
Begging the question. Again. Atmospheric CO2 is not "only" affecting the deep oceans, they are affecting ocean temperatures at every level:
This is an easily disproved lie.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Furthermore, evidence of warming is illustrated in melting ice all over the planet, including the great ice sheets and almost all glaciers.
And this was another lie.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?
It doesn't. Although you are too stupid to understand it, for others, here are a couple of sites that discuss what is actually happening: https://spark.uca...t-oceans http://eesc.colum...rat.html
So you're suggesting these currents didn't exist before the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

What about the time scale? Again: Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Then how is this a zombie argument? Are you saying the global temperatures have been falsified?
No stupid, that is a cherry-picked data set intentionally used as a means to misrepresent a position. It is not, in and of itself, an argument of any kind. That you are too caught up in your denialism to understand that makes your post even more laughable.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the data I present.
Yes, it is that thing that you do when you use a pre-set data set in such a way as to provide false evidence of a position you have already decided. Your "data" has been shown to be the cherry-picked garbage it is many times, yet in the finest of zombie arguments, you re-present it over and over as if the repetition will somehow change that fact that IT IS STILL CHERRY-PICKED DATA!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?
Another example of ubamoron attempting to obfuscate the reality, and again, begging the question. He sort of understands the overall role that ocean circulation plays over the planet, and so attempts to apply a term he read somewhere to the effect that the overturning of the abysmal ocean water layer takes centuries. Which is true - and beside the point. (Here is a good overview of the subject: (http://www.soest....012.pdf) is what we are actually seeing. (again, a good review: http://www.pik-po...006.pdf)
Your links are broken, but how is the uptake of heat into the ocean different now than it was before the supposed deep ocean heating supposedly started hiding global warming?

Just more of the same BS from a denialist moron.
And here Maggnus again exemplifies the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Talk about laughingly inept. This is nothing more than the ridiculous claim, "Global warming is hiding only in places we haven't been measuring."
No one makes that argument except stupid denialists like you! You keep making the same stupid assertion in some zombie-like chant because you are too lazy (and/or too stupid) to read the explanations of what is actually happening.

You want to make an argument against the truth of global warming? Get off your lazy ass and learn how it really works, find the flaws in the data being presented, and THEN come and argue your case.

Of course, you won't do that because you already have it all figured out, and just like a typical bible-thumping creationist, it's "them bad guys" all CONSPIRATORING together!

That's why you're a moron Uba. Not because you don't have the ability to learn, but because you refuse to based on some "them" trying to fool you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Then how is this a zombie argument? Are you saying the global temperatures have been falsified?
No stupid, that is a cherry-picked data set intentionally used as a means to misrepresent a position. It is not, in and of itself, an argument of any kind. That you are too caught up in your denialism to understand that makes your post even more laughable.

Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the data I present.
Yes, it is that thing that you do when you use a pre-set data set in such a way as to provide false evidence of a position you have already decided. Your "data" has been shown to be the cherry-picked garbage it is many times, yet in the finest of zombie arguments, you re-present it over and over as if the repetition will somehow change that fact that IT IS STILL CHERRY-PICKED DATA!
Again, how is it cherry-picked, when it is simply the most recently available data?

I really don't think you know what it means to cherry-pick.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
This is an easily disproved lie.
What do you think that graph of ocean SURFACE temperatures shows? Are you too lazy to take a few minute to learn about what it is you are actually linking to? That graph doesn't show what you think it shows!
So you're suggesting these currents didn't exist before the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?
Begging the question. Again. Like debating with a 5 year old. Seriously, one has to work at being so dense!

What about the time scale? Again: Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?
Again, begging the question!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Talk about laughingly inept. This is nothing more than the ridiculous claim, "Global warming is hiding only in places we haven't been measuring."
No one makes that argument except stupid denialists like you! You keep making the same stupid assertion in some zombie-like chant because you are too lazy (and/or too stupid) to read the explanations of what is actually happening.
You're the one making the argument. I'm only paraphrasing it.

You want to make an argument against the truth of global warming?
So now it is the "truth of global warming?" What, is it like a religion now?

Get off your lazy ass and learn how it really works, find the flaws in the data being presented, and THEN come and argue your case.
I have, repeatedly. Why won't you listen?

Of course, you won't do that because you already have it all figured out, and just like a typical bible-thumping creationist, it's "them bad guys" all CONSPIRATORING together!

That's why you're a moron Uba. Not because you don't have the ability to learn, but because you refuse to based on some "them" trying to fool you.
Here, again, you typify the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

Why can't you at least be a better person?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
This is an easily disproved lie.
What do you think that graph of ocean SURFACE temperatures shows? Are you too lazy to take a few minute to learn about what it is you are actually linking to? That graph doesn't show what you think it shows!
It shows sea surface temperature anomalies. Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down. What aren't you getting from it?

So you're suggesting these currents didn't exist before the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?
Begging the question. Again. Like debating with a 5 year old. Seriously, one has to work at being so dense!
Avoiding the question, while typifying the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

What about the time scale? Again: Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?
Again, begging the question!
And again, avoiding the question.

If you don't know, why don't you simply admit you don't know?

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Your links are broken


They work fine for me, but here they are again, just for you:
http://www.soest....2012.pdf
http://www.pik-po...2006.pdf

but how is the uptake of heat into the ocean different now than it was before the supposed deep ocean heating supposedly started hiding global warming?
Begging the question, circumstantial ad hominem, hasty generalization. I've already provided links that allow you to learn about it on your own, and there is lot's of information on it. Get off your lazy ass and find the information yourself.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
You're the one making the argument. I'm only paraphrasing it.
Relativist fallacy.
So now it is the "truth of global warming?" What, is it like a religion now?
Figures you need this word explained to you! "Truth: the true or actual state of a matter; 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity. 3. a verified or indisputable fact" It's the thing you get to when you objectively consider evidence.
Avoiding the question, while typifying the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.
Begging the question is a fallasic argument used to lead the answerer to a pre-determined response. Can't avoid a question like that moron, it's not answerable.

Hey look, I can cherry-pick too! http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
@ scooter
Follow the links
Follow the money
GOOD ADVICE

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick?
@Uba
if you didn't cherry-pick, we could use your data, but given your history of cherry picking as well as confirmation bias, I will accept NOTHING but empirical data from you. PERIOD.
so if it aint empirical, it aint worth looking at when YOU post it, given your history thus far.

(Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias)

I would say that the above parenthesis perfectly describe your overall technique here in ANY climate article comments

I am open to ALL empirical data, whereas you seem to ignore MOST
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
@uba

The links http://wwhttp://www.pik-po....pdf%29/ loaded quickly for me.

Seems that besides being an idiot you are a liar.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
This is an easily disproved lie.
@uba
sorry. you didnt refute it.
http://www.livesc...ing.html
& http://centerforo...warming/ & http://news.disco...1017.htm & http://biology.du...ge3.html
Why can't you at least be a better person?
maybe he just doesn't like answering the SAME questions and showing the same proof every time you post? after all, Mr. Thompson not only fed you a plethora of links, but good, valid physics data to which your reply was essentially "nuh-uh. I'm right and you're wrong" and you gave NO PROOF or data backing your argument up. then you go on a downvote trend even for good, valid physics data.
so... why can't YOU be a better person?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Your links are broken
They work fine for me, but here they are again, just for you:
http://www.soest....2012.pdf
http://www.pik-po...2006.pdf
Those worked. So what is it you think they have to contribute to the discussion?

but how is the uptake of heat into the ocean different now than it was before the supposed deep ocean heating supposedly started hiding global warming?
Begging the question, circumstantial ad hominem, hasty generalization. I've already provided links that allow you to learn about it on your own, and there is lot's of information on it. Get off your lazy ass and find the information yourself.
Avoiding the question. Why don't you just answer it? Providing papers that may, or may not, support your assertions without providing your assertions, is an obvious hedging ploy.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
You're the one making the argument. I'm only paraphrasing it.
Relativist fallacy.
How so?

So now it is the "truth of global warming?" What, is it like a religion now?
Figures you need this word explained to you! "Truth: the true or actual state of a matter; 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity. 3. a verified or indisputable fact" It's the thing you get to when you objectively consider evidence.
But it clearly is not currently a fact, as objectively considering the evidence does not support continued warming. And, on that basis, it is clearly disputable.

So again, as you repeatedly refuse to objectively consider evidence, is it like a religion for you now? Do you believe in it, in spite of the evidence?

Avoiding the question, while typifying the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.
Begging the question is a fallasic argument used to lead the answerer to a pre-determined response. Can't avoid a question like that moron, it's not answerable.
Sure it is. Either the currents have existed all along, or not. Which is it?

Hey look, I can cherry-pick too! http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Yes, obviously you can. Why must you resort to fallacies to support your argument?

You're slanting the data by deliberately entering on an anomalous low and leaving on a high. This one is more balanced: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Or, for a more accurate interpretation, this one shows previous warming, and then the hiatus: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
@Uba
if you didn't cherry-pick, we could use your data, but given your history of cherry picking as well as confirmation bias, I will accept NOTHING but empirical data from you. PERIOD.
so if it aint empirical, it aint worth looking at when YOU post it, given your history thus far.
When have I supposedly ever posted anything other than empirical evidence?

Are you again claiming THIS is not empirical evidence?

(Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias)

I would say that the above parenthesis perfectly describe your overall technique here in ANY climate article comments

I am open to ALL empirical data, whereas you seem to ignore MOST
Hah! When have I ever ignored empirical evidence? You're the one disregarding empirical evidence.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
@uba

The links http://wwhttp://www.pik-po....pdf%29/ loaded quickly for me.

Seems that besides being an idiot you are a liar.
They load with Maggnus' parenthesis attached.

You owe me an apology.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
This is an easily disproved lie.
@uba
sorry. you didnt refute it.
http://www.livesc...ing.html & http://centerforo...warming/ & http://news.disco...1017.htm & http://biology.du...ge3.html
Posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?

Why can't you at least be a better person?
maybe he just doesn't like answering the SAME questions and showing the same proof every time you post?
When has he ever answered the questions or showed irrefutable proof? I think it is the lack thereof, which is the most telling.

after all, Mr. Thompson not only fed you a plethora of links, but good, valid physics data to which your reply was essentially "nuh-uh. I'm right and you're wrong" and you gave NO PROOF or data backing your argument up. then you go on a downvote trend even for good, valid physics data.
so... why can't YOU be a better person?
This is incorrect. Tim Thompson gave poor and irrelevant references and poor to no physics. But that you didn't understand this is not surprising.