Researchers reveal when global warming first appeared

September 22, 2015
Median time of anthropogenic emergence and zonally averaged signal and noise for climate means and extremes are shown. Maps of median TAE averaged across 23 model simulations for (a) and (b) mean surface air temperature, (c) and (d) highest daily maximum temperature, (e) and (f) lowest daily minimum temperature, (g) and (h) total precipitation, and (i), (j) maximum 1-d precipitation for (a), (c), (e), (g) and (i) June-August and (b), (d), (f), (h) and (j) December-February. Zonally averaged values of signal (red) and noise (black) are shown where signal is the mean difference in the variable between 1989-2039 and 1860-1910, and noise is the standard deviation of the variable for 1860-1910. Credit: University of New South Wales

The indications of climate change are all around us today but now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record and where those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future.

The new research published in Environmental Research Letters gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt, even at this very early stage, and where those impacts are likely to intensify in the coming years.

"We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming," said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.

"Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s."

The reason the first changes in average temperature and temperature extremes appeared in the tropics was because those regions generally experienced a much narrower range of temperatures. This meant smaller shifts in the due to global warming were more easily seen.

The first signal to appear in the tropics was the change in average temperatures. Later extreme temperature events showed a global warming signal.

Closer to the poles the emergence of in the temperature record appeared later but by the period 1980-2000 the temperature record in most regions of the world were showing clear global warming signals.

The video will load shortly

One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.

While temperature records generally showed pronounced indications of global warming, heavy rainfall events have yet to make their mark. The models showed a general increase in extreme rainfall but the global warming signal was not strong enough yet to rise above the expected natural variation.

"We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years," said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, UK.

"This is likely to bring pronounced precipitation events on top of the already existing trend towards increasingly wet winters in these regions."

Importantly, the findings closely correspond to observational datasets used by the IPCC (Chapter 10 - Detection and Attribution of Climate Change) in its most recent report, which showed increasing temperatures caused by .

Explore further: Statistically linking extreme precipitation to global warming

More information: The timing of anthropogenic emergence in simulated climate extremes. Environmental Research Letters. Vol 10, No.9. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/

Related Stories

Statistically linking extreme precipitation to global warming

September 24, 2013

Extreme rainfall can have serious effects on societies and ecosystems. Increases in extreme precipitation events are predicted to occur as Earth's climate warms, in part because warmer air has greater capacity to hold moisture, ...

No warming hiatus for extreme hot temperatures

February 26, 2014

Extremely hot temperatures over land have dramatically and unequivocally increased in number and area despite claims that the rise in global average temperatures has slowed over the past 10 to 20 years.

Ocean warming leads to stronger precipitation extremes

July 13, 2015

Due to climate change, not only atmospheric, but also oceanic, temperatures are rising. A study published in the international journal Nature Geoscience led by scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

Global warming to pick up in 2015, 2016: experts

September 14, 2015

Man-made global warming is set to produce exceptionally high average temperatures this year and next, boosted by natural weather phenomena such as El Nino, Britain's top climate and weather body said in a report Monday.

Recommended for you

Did meteorites bring life's phosphorus to Earth?

August 30, 2016

Meteorites that crashed onto Earth billions of years ago may have provided the phosphorous essential to the biological systems of terrestrial life. The meteorites are believed to have contained a phosphorus-bearing mineral ...

Researchers unravel process for the formation of rainstorms

August 29, 2016

Violent thunderstorms can often cause torrential rain, which pose a threat for both humans and the infrastructure. Until now such extreme weather phenomena have been very poorly understood. However, using advanced simulations ...

78 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

denglish
2.2 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2015
From the abstract:
"Based on state-of-the-art climate models, we show that temperature extremes generally emerge slightly later from their quasi-natural climate state than seasonal means, due to greater variability in extremes."

So, these conclusions were reached by way of models, not reality.

From the abstract again:
"Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas."

Models are not evidence. Models are a prediction of a scientist's hypothesis.

Another roach article. The AGWs here are challenged enough. Dis-ingenuity by omission is reprehensible. Not putting in the article that this isn't real findings, but only a figment of a model's imagination is an extreme disservice to anyone trying to get a better understanding of climate change.

Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (26) Sep 22, 2015
I am not a real scientist-Skippy like Really-Skippy is not either so I might be really wrong here and don't mind getting corrected if I am wrong.

I do not think that the word "model" getting used like the Skippy in the article used is exactly the same way as you are using.

I think when those scientists use the word they mean: "This is the little way of presenting us the whole shebang so it fits into something like a paper or a book". Like a globe map of the earth, you can not fit everything on the globe map unless you got the whole entire earth. You can only fit the important stuffs on him.

Of course the model gets more complicated when you put in the moving parts and things, but those scientist-Skippys are pretty good at putting them in. Maybe if they left out something you think is important you could say what it is that you think they left off.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2015
The paper is here:
http://iopscience...4015/pdf

On the subject of climate influences that get left out of climate models, the list is very large.

This is not a presentation of the whole she-bang. It is a result of a simulation using more than 20 climate models derived from CMIP5 (CMIP5 being shown to already be inaccurate).

Look at Figure 1 in the paper. See when it all starts? 1940. they didn't need a model to tell them what was happening, they had observation.

Models are not evidence. They can be manipulated to show anything the modeller wants. For example, I have a highly powerful model of the NFL (Madden Version) for 2014. the Raiders won the Super Bowl.

denglish
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2015
Found this in the paper:
"The large spread between TAE values across these models suggests that different
findings could be reached in event attribution studies depending on the selection of models used. Thus, an important consideration when designing an event attribution study may be to select models with a range of climate sensitivities and test the sensitivity of the results to the models used through bootstrapping of simulations."

1. The models widely disagreed.
2. Therefore, in order to get results one expects, model selection is important.
3. To get the desired results, run the models through the simulations until you get what you want.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2015
Finally, the use of "quasi-natural baseline period".

What does that mean? It is very important to the paper, as it is because of this that allows the calculation of the time of anthropogenic emergence.
bayboat
1.6 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2015
I thought, according to astronomers, solar storm activity was declining and as a result we are about to enter a mini ice age period.

Should the climatologists be talking to the astronomers?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2015
Hmm... wonder why all them scientists believed we were heading into another ice age in the 1970s.
Really wish at least one, of the 97%, would do a computer simulation that tells us when man made GloBULL warming started.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2015
Well maybe you guys are scientist-Skippys like I am not. I thought that when they have a few or couple of different models of the same thing they tried to pick out the one that looks closest to the thing they are looking at. Like if I was going to pick out a globe map for the Little-Ira-Skippy I would not pick out one that showed Hawaii bigger than Australia.

Don't the scientist-Skippys pick a model for what they see instead of one showing the huge Hawaii and the tiny Australia? I don't think even the Australian-Scientist-Skippy would pick that model. Well maybe Really-Skippy would pick that one, but he is not the real scientist he is just the interweb scientist.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2015
In this case Ira, it appears that they picked the models that best portrayed what they wanted after simulations were run. How they tweaked those models (the quasi-natural baseline periods) is unknown.

To use your example, a huge Hawaii and tiny Australia would be a model's result, a huge Australia and a tiny Hawaii would be what is actually observed.

That is one of the great controversies: the models are not doing a good job predicting the future, but policy makers are still using them to make policy. When things get really dicey (such as the measurement devices all agreeing that there is a cooling or non-warming trend), then we have seen that some measurement systems are removed from the pool (ARGO buoys), and/or the data is changed altogether (the Karl and Stanford papers).
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2015
Well I think the scientist-Skippys are not so much the trying to predict the future as they are trying to say what has been going on for the last couple of dozens of years and what is going on right now. Its mostly the not-really-scientist-Skippys who seem to be trying to predict the future. Choot, when it comes to predicting technology stuffs nobody does a really good job of that except peoples who claim they predicted it after it happened.

So I wonder if the "predicting" the future is not the straw-Skippy thing. The problem (or not-the-problem) is not so much exactly predicting what WILL happen but learning what HAS happened already and is it a good thing.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2015
Hmm... wonder why all them scientists believed we were heading into another ice age in the 1970s.
Really wish at least one, of the 97%, would do a computer simulation that tells us when man made GloBULL warming started.

They believed it because they didn't have MODELS to go by, or Ira.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2015
They believed it because they didn't have MODELS to go by, or Ira.


Thanks for the complement Cher. But I really think they should find some other place to get advice from other than me. I shouldn't give the advise to the scientists because I am not the science-trained-Skippy like you are not either. I was just telling how I was thinking on the thing, not really trying to tell what is right.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2015
"We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years," said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins

Hmm... I'm predicting you would agree, that there is a prediction, otherwise I need more CO2 in me crystal ball.
24volts
2.2 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2015
Global warming appeared on the first day one of the glaciers from the last ice age lost ground. All we have done is possibly speed up the cycle a bit.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2015
24volts: that's not necessarily true. It could be/have been that the non-human-driven variations would be trending toward cooling back off again. But if the human-driven effects are larger than those non-human trends, then our impact "wins."
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2015
I knew this article would draw the delusion defence team like a bug light on an Alabama summer night
24volts
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2015
24volts: that's not necessarily true. It could be/have been that the non-human-driven variations would be trending toward cooling back off again. But if the human-driven effects are larger than those non-human trends, then our impact "wins."


I won't argue that at all. All I'm saying is humans have been using fire and putting pollution and extra c02 in the atmosphere for at least a few thousand years. We've just put a lot more there in the last couple of hundred. More pollution of various types including co2 = more climate change as far as I can see. I do remember back in the 70's when the big thing was the planet was starting another ice age ...it doesn't seem to be working out that way.....
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2015
I thought, according to astronomers, solar storm activity was declining and as a result we are about to enter a mini ice age period.

Should the climatologists be talking to the astronomers?
Sure, but sunspots actually warm the earth moreso than their absence. Get your faculae right: http://blogs.disc...ice-age/
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2015
The indications of climate change are all around us today. Deniers like all of the 1 stars, really deserve the stupidity they are born with. What a denier goon squad they have going. So
from the article
"Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s."
and yet the deniers of AGW (that short for Anthropogenic Global Warming; ie Man-made global warming for the newbs) still can't measure temperature over 100 years and see a hockey stick when you plot it on a graph!

Their explanation for all of the freak weather, missing mountain snow caps, melting polar ice caps, sea level rise, massive extreme heat waves, coral bleaching, acidic oceans, incredible wild fires and all of that, is to post little gotchas on Phys.org because they once learned to type and become a dick wingnut.

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2015
....Deniers... denier goon squad.. deniers ... hockey stick ...

Their explanation for all of the freak weather, missing mountain snow caps, melting polar ice caps, sea level rise, massive extreme heat waves, coral bleaching, acidic oceans, incredible wild fires and all of that, is to post little gotchas on Phys.org because they once learned to type and become a dick wingnut.

Hmm... I see howshat has been snorting his mancrush, Al's anus again.
MrLuigiVercotti
2 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2015
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess", someone said
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2015
Exxon Confirmed Global Wahttp://insideclim...921rming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models
runrig
4.8 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2015
I do remember back in the 70's when the big thing was the planet was starting another ice age


"....This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. "

https://en.wikipe..._cooling
http://www.skepti...ing.html
file:///C:/Users/Tony/Downloads/131047%20(3).pdf
Sherrin
5 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
Arthur Holmes' 'Principles of Physical Geology' second edition (revised 1965) noted the greenhouse effect (page 465) and stated that "... human activities have raised the CO2 content of the air by about 13 per cent [in the last hundred years to 1965].

Holmes went on to discuss the consequences of global warming but had insufficient data at that time to know if the trend would continue, plateau or reverse. Well now we know.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
Maps of median TAE averaged across 23 model simulations ...


Any simulation can be constructed to produce any result desired.

Averaging simulations is a lot like the common practice of meta-analysis in medicine -- take lots of studies which have little in common and inaccuracies, mix them all up together and extract whatever conclusion you sought when you began the process.

Science used to be constrained to observation of reality. In climate science at least, we have progressed to simulations and on to analysis of multiple simulations.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2015
Any simulation can be constructed to produce any result desired.

This is, of course, errant nonsense. Physical simulations, like climate models, are constrained by the physics. You can not get any result you want. It's interesting to note that the very few contrarian scientists agree with this point. These people are well funded by fossil fuel and right wing interests. If it were possible for climate models to "produce any result desired", they would have done so long ago. But, since the models are constrained by the physics, they can't. And, since it's well known that climate simulations perform quite well against observations (http://www.skepti...ght.html ), the rest of your comment is equally nonsensical.
AkiBola
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2015
GW started around 60,000,000 years ago, and after cooling, again at 25,000,000 years ago. Dinosaur SUV's were to blame.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
The indications of climate change are all around us today.


The debate is not about the "indications of climate change", the debate is about what's causing it, something you fail to comprehend.

Deniers like all of the 1 stars, really deserve the stupidity they are born with. What a denier goon squad they have going.


Typical of the responses that comes from the same cadre who cast 5 stars for one another in support for every word of profanity, name calling, & vulgarity that shows up in the Comments sections of this site. Do something useful with your time, enroll in & study some of Furlong's online math classes.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
GW started around 60,000,000 years ago, and after cooling, again at 25,000,000 years ago. Dinosaur SUV's were to blame.

Get away ... never knew that.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2015
Models are not reality. I know! I'm shocked, too.
richard_f_cronin
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2015
Examine USGS earthquake data from their interactive website, going back to the earliest seismographs. For Richter 6 and above, rising decade-over-decade. From 1895 to 1905 = eleven (11) M6+. For the decade ending March 31, 2015, we had One thousand six hundred and forty (1640) , M6+. I guess 4 hundredths of a percent (400 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 did all of this. The uptick in released energy and the CO2 is coming from below. The papers denying volcanic activity ignore the vast numbers of oceanic hydrothermal vents, as well as heat emissions spread across the entire planet's surface.
richard_f_cronin
2 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2015
The warm waters of the western Pacific Ocean that drive El Nino are centered on the Mariana Trench, the lowest point in the oceans. The "Champagne Vent" inside the Mariana Trench is spewing LIQUID CO2. Lot of heat, lot of CO2 coming from below.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2015
""If you torture the data long enough, it will confess", someone said"
---------------------------------

That was a quotation from someone I worked with, our analyst at our department at PG&E. It was made in jest regarding a serious issue. But it brings up some problems,. He also said "You get what yo measure", meaning if you do not measure exactly what you want, in the proper way, you will get misleading results, erroneously pinned to irrelevant factors. When we wanted "body counts" in Vietnam, that is what they got - numbers. They must have killed everybody three times.

Those of you who are experts in statistics (not me), know this.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2015
This is, of course, errant nonsense. Physical simulations, like climate models, are constrained by the physics.

Did you read the paper? Different models applied to the simulators gave results so divergent that they needed to run the models through the simulators until they got what they wanted. They even noted their technique as an important insight into "manipulating" (for lack of a better term early morning) simulations.

These people are well funded by fossil fuel and right wing interests.

Politics does not mix well with science.

it's well known that climate simulations perform quite well against observations

I checked your link. It uses HADCRUT4 readings. How would the predictions do against the unaltered data? Let's take a look at how the models perform against un-altered data:
https://higherrev...lity.png

Not so good.

Question: Do you think models provide evidence?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2015
GW started around 60,000,000 years ago, and after cooling, again at 25,000,000 years ago. Dinosaur SUV's were to blame.

Dinosaurs didn't have SUV's, silly rabbit.
They did, however, have massive digestive systems capable of producing massive amounts of methane. At least, the plant eating ones did...
And there were a LOT of them eating up all that plant life and farting it into the atmosphere...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
Examine USGS earthquake data from their interactive website, going back to the earliest seismographs. For Richter 6 and above, rising decade-over-decade. From 1895 to 1905 = eleven (11) M6+. For the decade ending March 31, 2015, we had One thousand six hundred and forty (1640) , M6+. I guess 4 hundredths of a percent (400 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 did all of this. The uptick in released energy and the CO2 is coming from below.

An interesting supposition, Mr. Cronin. One that I (personally) feel could stand a little more study...:-)
The papers denying volcanic activity ignore the vast numbers of oceanic hydrothermal vents, as well as heat emissions spread across the entire planet's surface.

However, this blanket statement requires more than "increased earthquake activity". Show the increased volcanic activity and you may have something.
And then, you have to show how 10's of thousands of researchers somehow missed this in their work - not very likely.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2015
Do something useful with your time, enroll in & study some of Furlong's online math classes.

Was that sarcasm?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2015
""If you torture the data long enough, it will confess", someone said"
---------------------------------

That was a quotation from someone I worked with, our analyst at our department at PG&E. It was made in jest regarding a serious issue. But it brings up some problems,. He also said "You get what yo measure", meaning if you do not measure exactly what you want, in the proper way, you will get misleading results, erroneously pinned to irrelevant factors. When we wanted "body counts" in Vietnam, that is what they got - numbers. They must have killed everybody three times.

Those of you who are experts in statistics (not me), know this.
Uh no you fucking liar it is a common and well-known quote
http://www.barryp..._confess

-not an excuse to talk about yourself and your bullshit 'experience'.
wjr321
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
I don't know whether there is anthropomorphic climate changes or not. No one else does either, really, as the human race has not been keeping records long enough to actually have data.

Models of the type used in climate research are based upon a set of known prior data and a level of understanding of the system being modeled. The number of variables in this case is enormous and the amount of actual knowledge of how that system works is, well, not exhaustive. Worse, the prior measured data are poor and suspect to one degree or another.

Any model for any system under study can be tested, though, if you have enough historic measured data. You run the model with a set of initial conditions at T0 and compare the outcome at TN to the known data. From this you can determine the confidence interval of the model -- e.g. how predictive the model is versus actual the actual result.

Climate models do not do well with this sort of validation.
FritzVonDago
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
I wonder if there's a correlation between the first appearance of Global Warming and the news that Chicken Little first reported the SKY was falling?......... This is more Climate Change HogWash!.....More of our research grant money wasted!
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2015
climate models.. are constrained by the physics

Please share with us, those constraints.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2015
I wonder if there's a correlation between the first appearance of Global Warming and the news that Chicken Little first reported the SKY was falling?......... This is more Climate Change HogWash!.....More of our research grant money wasted!

Check out all the grants thanked at the end of the paper.

The number of variables in this case is enormous and the amount of actual knowledge of how that system works is, well, not exhaustive

There are a ton of climatic actors not represented in the models.

Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2015
Uh no you fucking liar it is a common and well-known quote

-not an excuse to talk about yourself and your bullshit 'experience'.


Why is it the most ardent of the AGW crowd here do the most name calling, are the most vulgar, and use the most profanity? Maybe you can explain that Ghosty, you seem to revel in leading the charge along with half a dozen others of your voting clique.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2015
Benni, he is just a character assassin, a vandal, a coward hiding behind not just a pseudonym, but a Coward's Portal I tracked down.

Somehow I upset him by being real, and beat him at his gotcha game, and now am being libeled by him for it. Remedies are in progress.

But the ottos of the world are killing fora like this. You can check the ratio of real comments to personal negative comments and character attacks from several folk here.

But do not ascribe that character defect to supporters of action to remedy AGW.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2015
Hey gutless
and now am being libeled by him for it
Just be sure you are prepared to prove that something - anything - I have said about you is a lie.

Also you claimed here that my posts have somehow affected your ability to get work. You would need proof of course that contracts were cancelled or that clients decide not to hire you because of what I posted and not because of the lies and made-up drivel which myself and others have exposed you for.

Signed and notarized affidavits would do.

Like I say, exposing your lies is not slander even though it is reason enough for clients to refrain from hiring you. You need to prove that your lies are true, something that you have had ample opportunity to do.

Have at it gutless. And please do continue with the empty threats. Maybe it will finally get you banned.

And so sorry benni youve been turned off for months.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2015
-And benni since youve been turned off I have not been able to downvote you. But what would be the point? Your dismal rating reflects the quality of your posts.

Youre already in the toilet where gkam/george kamburoff will soon be, which is where you both belong.
denglish
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2015
Why does every thread devolve into this crap? The people capable of producing anything worth reading can be counted on one hand.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2015
No one else does either, really, as the human race has not been keeping records long enough to actually have data.

This is actually quite well known. You might be able to claim that anthropogenic influences aren't strong ( there is, however, a prodigious amount of evidence to say you're wrong), but I don't think you could find any competent individual willing to claim that humans have no influence.
Climate models do not do well with this sort of validation.

Actually, they seem to do well with this sort of validation. Do you know of a test looking at the long periods appropriate for models that shows otherwise? The only one I'm familiar with that shows otherwise is for a short period and over a small area of the earth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2015
Why does every thread devolve into this crap? The people capable of producing anything worth reading can be counted on one hand.
You know why. Until gkam leaves he will continue to post lies and made-up crap, and the people here will have to waste time and energy correcting him.

But making others jump through hoops is just what george kamburoff wants.

"we can only say that it seems to be that the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer. Just as normal humans enjoy seeing other people happy, or doing things that make other people smile, the psychopath enjoys the exact opposite."
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2015
Why does every thread devolve into this crap? The people capable of producing anything worth reading can be counted on one hand.
@dung
and you are not among those who produce anything worth reading
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015


STOP the personal attacks, all of you!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2015


STOP the personal attacks, all of you!
Stop lying and cheating and making up facts.

Cause/effect.

How hard is this for you to understand?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
@denglish: "these conclusions were reached by way of models, not reality."

It is no secret that climate science, as all other empirical sciences, use models in order to make observations. Here is a generic example of using spline models for assessing data: http://epubs.siam...11970128 . The important part of the quoted sentence is that they "show" something about reality.

"Models are not evidence. Models are a prediction of a scientist's hypothesis."

Models are evidence when they are part of the well tested methods. Models are sometimes predictions, sometimes a description of a hypothesis, but most of they time they make predictions.

If you don't understand science, why make so much fuss about how it works? Heed the results, at least!
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2015
So, these conclusions were reached by way of models, not reality.

Models can be very useful (and very accurate) despite being 'only' simulations. Think of a coin toss. You know it's 50/50. What would you expect if you toss it 1000 times? Even without performing the toss you would expect about 500 heads and 500 tails (this is simulated outcome based on a model of a fair coin).

If you do the actual toss you will find that you will rarely get the exact 500/500 but will - for the overwhelming part - be very close.

So is the model bad for not predicting the exact outcome? No. It gives you a very good estimate. One on which you can rather safely build decisions (e.g. the decision of betting on 1000-960 heads range vs. betting on 480-520 heads range)

Climate models are the same. They may not be exact to the last decimal place - but for the decisions that need to be made they are (more than) exact enough.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Thank you for your input Torbjorn.

Heed the results, at least!

Here are model results that didn't do too good when compared against reality:
https://higherrev...lity.png
Those results can't be heeded, they indicate that the methods of prediction need to be questioned.

Models are evidence when they are part of the well tested methods.

I disagree. observation must occur to vet the model's prediction.

It gives you a very good estimate.

I don't think a coin toss simulation is a good analogy. 50/50 predictor is vastly different from a climate model.

They may not be exact to the last decimal place

They're not even close. See graph above. I'm not saying the people trying to predict are bad, I'm saying the variables are so numerous, and some still unknown, that to make potentially ruinous policy decisions based on them is poor judgement.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015
I don't think a coin toss simulation is a good analogy. 50/50 predictor is vastly different from a climate model.
the coin toss simulation was not analogous to climate change, but to statistics and modelling

you can either physically toss the coin thousands of times and take a reading (now, that "would" be analogous to physical readings we take globally)... or you can mathematically model the situation with the knowledge of physics

either way, you will end up with pretty much the same results

Modelling and statistics, math, reasons, and sample sizes etc was described to you by furlong

It is apparent that you still refuse to accept any scientific input or knowledge despite your claims to furlong

and no one is claiming to know all the variables. we do, however, know some very important variables. Those would be the validated studies that I've linked to you that you refuse to even read or acknowledge
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
You're still muted Stumpy.
AGreatWhopper
4 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
All numerals and mathematics are models. What an idiot you are denglish! You can't even lie well. How did you know he had posted if you really have him muted?

Ignorant liars need to be executed by the state.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2015
You're still muted Stumpy.
If I am muted, how do you know I am quoting or discussing you? You still only answer when I specifically discuss or quote you.

I noticed you didn't do this when I specifically argued points to others... so that means you are still reading my posts.

IOW- you are still lying
AGreatWhopper
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015

gkam dramatized:
STOP the personal attacks, all of you!


Ladies first.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
All numerals and mathematics are models.

But not evidence.

What an idiot you are denglish! You can't even lie well. How did you know he had posted if you really have him muted?

Comment posted by a person you have ignored. Also, that person is quite predictable.

Ignorant liars need to be executed by the state.

Who is lying about what?
AGreatWhopper
4 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
gkam2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
""If you torture the data long enough, it will confess", someone said"
---------------------------------

That was a quotation from someone I worked with...


Narcissistic git: Someone that cannot go through *one* discussion on a physics site without starting a post with their past great narcissism-deluded glories of their useless life. Get therapy already! You'll feel better and we will too. More you. People turn that crap off instantly. But there is help for the pain you feel, that constant gnawing "I'm not good enough" and needing validation by impressing others. That can't be pleasant.

Ever considered it does the opposite? I always thought you were pretty cool until you had to start acting all "serious clinical problems".
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2015
Who is lying about what?
Well, we've proven that dung lies about almost everything, from her issue with statistics which she directly lied about the evidence to furlong as well as continued to post the same falsified information here, even after it was explained in very small words even an uneducated troll like dung could understand... so it is D that lies!
predictable
plus, it is almost comical that I can comment in threads (even about AGW and after she does) but somehow only when I directly quote dung or mention her name does she say that I am muted

Either she is the worlds greatest Psychic or lying about me being muted/not reading my posts. there is no middle ground or explanation

87 posts directed at dung, all (but 1) replied to with the "muted" argument
the odds of that happening?
astronomical

yall do the math
(I would suggest pointing it out to dung, but she already admitted to furlong that she was uneducated and not capable of doing the math)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
I always thought you were pretty cool until you had to start acting all "serious clinical problems".
"Likeable," "Charming," "Intelligent," "Alert," "Impressive," "Confidence-inspiring," and "A great success with the ladies": These are the sorts of descriptions repeatedly used by Cleckley in his famous case-studies of psychopaths. They are also, of course, "irresponsible," "self-destructive..."

"many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

"We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

...IMHO of course.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Ever considered it does the opposite?
"The psychopath recognizes no flaw in his psyche, no need for change.

"It is only over time that their associates become aware of the fact that their climb up the ladder of success is predicated on violating the rights of others."Even when they are indifferent to the rights of their associates, they are often able to inspire feelings of trust and confidence.

"They can also be Narcissists since Narcissism seems to be merely a "facet" of the psychopath or a "milder" manifestation. You could say that the Narcissist is a "garden variety psychopath"

-Of course this is only an opinion, as always.

Right george?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
"One of the basic assumptions of psychotherapy is that the patient needs and wants help... The psychopath does not think that they have any psychological or emotional problems, and they see no reason to change their behavior to conform to standards with which they do not agree.

"They are well-satisfied with themselves and their inner landscape. They see nothing wrong with they way they think or act, and they never look back with regret or forward with concern.

"They perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile world in which others are competitors for power and resources. They feel it is the optimum thing to do to manipulate and deceive others in order to obtain what they want.

"Most therapy programs only provide them with new excuses for their behavior as well as new insights into the vulnerabilities of others. Through psychotherapy, they learn new and better ways of manipulating."

-But I could be wrong, no?
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
Well, we've proven that dung lies about almost everything, from her issue with statistics which she directly lied about the evidence to furlong as well as continued to post the same falsified information here, even after it was explained in very small words even an uneducated troll like dung could understand... so it is D that lies!

Well, he did admit that he feels it's ok to lie for political reasons. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
Well, he did admit that he feels it's ok to lie for political reasons. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.

Did you learn this method of argument in your post-grad studies? I think you're a liar about your education and having a PHd; your behavior belies your words. My belief that you are not as highly educated as you claim is reinforced in that you have been unable to discover that I am a-political. The disdain I feel for your ilk doesn't stop me from producing comments worth reading and refuting; it seems to be a terrible hindrance to you and your herd. This indicates that your position is bereft of concrete submissions and must then retreat to the last refuge of an exhausted intellect: insult.

Please be specific: what am I lying about?

And in an effort to break from the lame personal attacks, and back to discussion (which should be dialogue) on the article: do you think models are evidencial?

thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2015
Deng said:
I'm saying the variables are so numerous, and some still unknown, that to make potentially ruinous policy decisions based on them is poor judgement.


Then he said:
The disdain I feel for your ilk doesn't stop me from producing comments worth reading and refuting; it seems to be a terrible hindrance to you and your herd.


Note, deng, that you have made statements that are not corroborated by scientific evidence. Such as:

1: "variables are so numerous, and some still unknown"

2: "to make potentially ruinous policy decisions based on them is poor judgement"

You seem to want us to refute statements like this when you are the one making the statements ab initio from what I have seen. Just give us evidence for those statements and you can be sure someone will work on refuting them. Usually, you just give us opinion pieces by pseudo-scientists and then rail at us when we point out the weaknesses.
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
1: "variables are so numerous, and some still unknown"

Are you saying that all known climatic actors are captured by CMIP5, or any other climate model? Yes or No.

2: "to make potentially ruinous policy decisions based on them is poor judgement"

Let's see what your answer to #1 is first.

In the meantime, it is worth pondering that given that the prosperity of humans can be directly linked to the employment of fossil fuels, the reduction or cessation of the use of fossil fuels had best be tempered by:

a) a definite need to replace fossil fuels ASAP
- Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt
b) suitable surrogates for fossil fuels
- Not developed yet

thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2015
Deng said:
Are you saying that all known climatic actors are captured by CMIP5, or any other climate model? Yes or No.


Is this your way of discussing things? Demand a yes/no answer to a question that requires qualification?

I am going to qualify it anyway. The qualification is that "all known climatic actors" do not have to be included in a model. The reason is that not all "actors" have a significant action. As an example, I know you are going to bring up the example of ENSO and other oscillations (I know because you have used it before). Why on Earth would I say that ENSO does not have to be included in the models? You have brought it up before. Why don't you tell me why it should be in the model?

I have given you a specific example of something that you think is needed and I claim is not. It comes from your earlier claims. Here is your opportunity to show I don't have a clue.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
Demand a yes/no answer to a question that requires qualification?

I asked for a yes/no answer because the answer is no.

Here is your opportunity to show I don't have a clue.

That doesn't interest me. I prefer to have dialogue with people that do have a clue.

We are at an impasse.

I think it is very unwise to enact potentially crippling societal policies based on predictions that do not account for all the variables. The results of the predictions vs reality support this view. The predictions are clearly missing something, or they would be accurate.

ENSO specifically? Its effects are seen throughout the Pacific Ocean, and NOAA thinks its important:
http://www.cpc.nc...so.shtml

I'm not OK with betting humanity's prosperity against a theory that clearly has many holes.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2015
We are at an impasse
this is only because you refuse to accept science over the singular postings of your conspiracist friends who are locked into a delusion, dung.
I asked for a yes/no answer because the answer is no
and again, this only demonstrates your lack of scientific literacy.
Just because you believe something to be a certain way doesn't mean it is that way, nor that you are correct
a theory that clearly has many holes.
and again, for the umpteenth time... until you can produce evidence equivalent to the peer reviewed journal publications that have been repeatedly validated through the past 30+ years, then you are simply posting personal conjecture based upon your delusional belief system which is heavily influenced by conspiracist ideation, political motivations and religious like delusions
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored


show comment

No thanks.

Speaking of the importance of including oceanic oscillations in climate models, something came out today:

Raluca Ciuraru, Ludovic Fine, Manuela van Pinxteren, Barbara D'Anna, Hartmut Herrmann, and Christian George (2015): Unravelling new processes at interfaces: photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface. Environmental Science & Technology.

http://pubs.acs.o....5b02388

The oceans not only take up heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are also sources of various gaseous compounds, thereby affecting the global climate.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2015
Speaking of the importance of including
speaking of the importance of representing the science accurately...
how about this article that actually demonstrates the tactics used by dung et al above?
https://www.clima...=general

Three Ways Climate Deniers Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change
1. Misrepresenting Data
2. Cherry-Picking Facts
3. Dwelling on the Weather
this is dung's post in a nutshell... emphasis on NUT

it is one thing to proclaim ignorance and then accept knowledge, like the conversation he had with furlong... another thing entirely to keep repeating the same tired LIE over and over even after capitulating to the logic of science and math...

IOW- dung lies, and continues to lie, because that is what dung is paid to do
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
Ah. the troll posts when I directly discussed her again! LMFAO

see above for evidence that dung is a paid shill
and also note: she brings NO EVIDENCE... only a belief of what she believes certain things say!

also note: she still hasn't been able to refute or debunk ANY of the studies that I've linked refuting all her claims about her beliefs re: AGW

Three Ways Climate Deniers like dung Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change and argue with ignorance (stupidity) and no evidence
1. Misrepresenting Data
2. Cherry-Picking Facts
3. Dwelling on the Weather
REPEAT AD NAUSEUM

still no retractions or changes to ANY study I've linked to her in the past
not one!

Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2015
GW started around 60,000,000 years ago, and after cooling, again at 25,000,000 years ago. Dinosaur SUV's were to blame.

Dinosaurs didn't have SUV's, silly rabbit.
They did, however, have massive digestive systems capable of producing massive amounts of methane. At least, the plant eating ones did...
And there were a LOT of them eating up all that plant life and farting it into the atmosphere...

Course, there were no dinosaurs after 65,000,000 years ago.....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.