Warming climate is deepening California drought

Warming climate is deepening California drought
Dry grassland and oak landscape of the Coastal Mountain Range are among the parts of California most affected by the current drought. This photo was taken in August 2015. Credit: Dominick McPeake.

A new study says that global warming has measurably worsened the ongoing California drought. While scientists largely agree that natural weather variations have caused a lack of rain, an emerging consensus says that rising temperatures may be making things worse by driving moisture from plants and soil into the air. The new study is the first to estimate how much worse: as much as a quarter. The findings suggest that within a few decades, continually increasing temperatures and resulting moisture losses will push California into even more persistent aridity. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"A lot of people think that the amount of rain that falls out the sky is the only thing that matters," said lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "But warming changes the baseline amount of water that's available to us, because it sends water back into the sky."

The study adds to growing evidence that climate change is already bringing extreme weather to some regions. California is the world's eighth-largest economy, ahead of most countries, but many scientists think that the nice weather it is famous for may now be in the process of going away. The record-breaking drought is now in its fourth year; it is drying up wells, affecting major produce growers and feeding wildfires now sweeping over vast areas.

The researchers analyzed multiple sets of month-by-month data from 1901 to 2014. They looked at precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind and other factors. They could find no long-term rainfall trend. But average temperatures have been creeping up—about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the 114-year period, in step with building fossil-fuel emissions. Natural weather variations have made California unusually hot over the last several years; added to this was the background trend. Thus, when rainfall declined in 2012, the air sucked already scant moisture from soil, trees and crops harder than ever. The study did not look directly at snow, but in the past, gradual melting of the high-mountain winter snowpack has helped water the lowlands in warm months. Now, melting has accelerated, or the snowpack has not formed at all, helping make warm months even dryer according to other researchers.

Warming climate is deepening California drought
Abnormally low lake level at Horseshoe Lake in the high-elevation Mammoth Lakes Basin, Sierra Nevada Mountains, This photo was taken June 2015. Credit: Jennifer Bernstein

Due to the complexity of the data, the scientists could put only a range, not a single number, on the proportion of the drought caused by . The paper estimates 8 to 27 percent, but Williams said that somewhere in the middle—probably 15 to 20 percent—is most likely.

Last year, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sponsored a study that blamed the rain deficit on a persistent ridge of high-pressure air over the northeast Pacific, which has been blocking moisture-laden ocean air from reaching land. Lamont-Doherty climatologist Richard Seager, who led that study (and coauthored the new one), said the blockage probably has nothing to do with global warming; normal weather patterns will eventually push away the obstacle, and rainfall will return. In fact, most projections say that warming will eventually increase California's rainfall a bit. But the new study says that evaporation will overpower any increase in rain, and then some. This means that by around the 2060s, more or less permanent drought will set in, interrupted only by the rainiest years. More intense rainfall is expected to come in short bursts, then disappear.

Many researchers believe that rain will resume as early as this winter. "When this happens, the danger is that it will lull people into thinking that everything is now OK, back to normal," said Williams. "But as time goes on, precipitation will be less able to make up for the intensified warmth. People will have to adapt to a new normal."

This study is not the first to make such assertions, but it is the most specific. A paper by scientists from Lamont-Doherty and Cornell University, published this February, warned that will push much of the central and western United States into the driest period for at least 1,000 years. A March study out of Stanford University said that California droughts have been intensified by higher temperatures, and gives similar warnings for the future.

A further twist was introduced in a 2010 study by researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They showed that massive irrigation from underground aquifers has been offsetting global warming in some areas, because the water cools the air. The effect has been especially sharp in California's heavily irrigated Central Valley—possibly up to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit during some seasons. Now, aquifers are dropping fast, sending irrigation on a downward trajectory. If irrigation's cooling effect declines, this will boost air temperatures even higher, which will dry aquifers further, and so on. Scientists call this process "positive feedback."

Climatologist Noah Diffenbaugh, who led the earlier Stanford research, said the new study is an important step forward. It has "brought together the most comprehensive set of data for the current drought," he said. "It supports the previous work showing that temperature makes it harder for drought to break, and increases the long-term risk."

Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, said, "It's important to have quantitative estimates of how much human-caused warming is already making droughts more severe." But, he said, "it's troubling to know that human influence will continue to make droughts more severe until greenhouse gas emissions are cut back in a big way."


Explore further

How climate change is making California's epic drought worse

More information: Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 2015.
Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Citation: Warming climate is deepening California drought (2015, August 20) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-climate-deepening-california-drought.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
164 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 20, 2015
For a fictional event, Climate Change is having a huge effect!

Aug 20, 2015
For a fictional event, Climate Change is having a huge effect!

The problem is that you can't convince people with facts and reason, unless they are rational, and let's face it: most people aren't. Instead, most people, when directly challenged by a claim that contradicts their beliefs will see the claim as a personal challenge. To them, the conversation automatically becomes a contest, and not an attempt to get at the truth. At that point, the only objective is to win, rather then learn.

Unfortunately, this makes convincing somebody rather inefficient, as instead of going directly to your case, you must first establish a rapport with that person and convince them that you are not out to hoodwink them.

I suspect this is why AGW deniers are more resistant to facts than others. Part of their hypothesis is that they are being hoodwinked by climate scientists, so direct challenges to this creates a feedback loop, which strengthens their hypothesis.

Aug 20, 2015
For a fictional event, Climate Change is having a huge effect!

Says the pathological liar.

Aug 20, 2015
The goobers unable to debate a topic have to reach up from the sewer to act on personal attacks. Is there any question of the intent of the goober who calls himself antigore?

It is obviously political, not scientific,. It is the confession of one who cannot control his pathetic emotions when he is proven wrong.

Let's stick to the issue of AGW.

Aug 20, 2015
While scientists largely agree that natural weather variations have caused a lack of rain

Yep, like The Blob in the pacific Ocean that it looks like El Nino may finally overcome.

emerging consensus says that rising temperatures may be making things worse by driving moisture from plants and soil into the air

All these years, and I have never seen "consensus" in the scientific process.

Here's the article from AGU:
http://news.agu.o...drought/

The actual paper is behind a paywall.

I suspect this is why AGW deniers are more resistant to facts than others.

Ironic. I have not seen a fact from an AGW yet that cannot be logically refuted. Please present facts re: California Drought and AGW; I am very interested.

Aug 20, 2015
furlong - I'll go a little farther - the personal attack on the delusional is actually an attack on the limited sanity the delusional are able to muster. This fragile sanity is supported by a belief structure that is even more fragile, and so the defense of this house of cards is required to be vigorous, even ferocious. The defense response often resembles a psychotic response. The resemblance is more than a coincidence - the entire structure is built to deal with a fairly strong level of psychosis. Such individuals can appear to be normal people (again subjective, some level of psychosis is widespread in humanity. Just have a look at religious belief) until their psychosis emerges, usually seen by others when the defense mechanism is tripped by some event - like a scientific fact that threatens their fragile sanity. There is no telling what it will be - but things like scientific factual knowledge is a common factor.

Aug 20, 2015
Ironic. I have not seen a fact from an AGW yet that cannot be logically refuted. Please present facts re: California Drought and AGW; I am very interested.


I attempted to do this with you before, but you refused to have a proper debate. Agree to my conditions, and I will present you with all the facts you want.

Here are my (revised, more streamlined) conditions:
1) Stay on topic. If one party makes a claim, and the other party offers a counter argument, the first party must respond with a counter argument to this argument, forfeit the original claim (conceding to the other party's point), or request claim be deferred for research purposes.
2) A new, unrelated claim may not be made by either party until the current claim has been resolved or deferred.
3) Each party is allowed an unlimited amount of time to respond to the other party's point. Silence is not forfeiture.
(to be continued)

Aug 20, 2015
(continued)
4) Claims made must be explicitly backed by peer-reviewed research, or publicly available data. Links to articles or research papers are allowed, as long as the source of the claim being made is provided. Links to opinion pieces, especially by people who fail to cite peer reviewed sources are not permitted.
5) Personal attacks are not permitted. Personal attacks automatically concede the point to the party being attacked.
6) Appeals to politics are not permitted. Politically based arguments automatically concede the point to the the party not making a political argument.

I request these conditions to keep the debate under control and ensure that it does not go off into irrelevant tangents as they often do.

Sounds fair?


Aug 20, 2015
Sounds good, with the omission of #4. Peer-review is not what it used to be, so fact can be presented without peer-review citation, though it is extra credit.

Not to mention, I imagine #4 is designed to combat nonsense. Nonsense is very easy to refute.

Sound fair?

I'll go a little farther

Nonsense.

Aug 20, 2015
I want to see denglish adhere to number five.

Aug 20, 2015
Sounds good, with the omission of #4. Peer-review is not what it used to be, so fact can be presented without peer-review citation, though it is extra credit.

Not to mention, I imagine #4 is designed to combat nonsense. Nonsense is very easy to refute.



What do you suggest we use in place of peer reviewed research? Nonsense is not very easy to refute, as we are having a debate about this in the first place.

I agree that some peer reviewed research is dubious. That does not mean we should dismiss all of it. We need SOME compass for truth.

I think we should use peer reviewed research because 1 and 2 gives you (or me) room to offer argue against the validity of a particular peer reviewed source. However, 4, 5, and 6, ensure (IMO) that such arguments must also be backed by peer review.

It's much more difficult to dismiss peer reviewed research if you don't have peer reviewed research to dismiss it.

Aug 20, 2015
"Williams and his colleagues made their forecast after conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the annual variations of drought and weather conditions at 23,955 locations throughout California. In each of those seven-square-mile plots, the team assessed the precipitation, temperature, wind, humidity and solar radiation for each month over the last 120 years."
http://www.latime...ory.html


Aug 20, 2015
Man, I just don't have the time either. If I was independently wealthy, I'd do peer-review all day. I'm actually learning a lot of stuff, and enjoying it.

Check this out:
https://wattsupwi...line.png

Not only is the current drought within the bounds of natural variance, its actually been abnormally wet since the late 15th century.

Aug 20, 2015
I want to see denglish adhere to number five.

Stop linking me (and others?) to bi-curious websites, and I may give you a break.

I'm not saying that what you do at those places is bad, its just not my thing.

Also, don't be an ass lying about everything under the sun, and you'd probably get a break from everyone.

Aug 20, 2015
Man, I just don't have the time either. If I was independently wealthy, I'd do peer-review all day. I'm actually learning a lot of stuff, and enjoying it.


This is what you said last time. You are justified in claiming ignorance of something if you don't have the time to properly research it, but if that's the case, then you are not justified in making claims about the issue involved.

So, my question is, if you haven't actually done the research, and aren't prepared to do it in the future, then why even bother to comment? Just remain silent. I will not hold it against you.

Aug 20, 2015
So, my question is, if you haven't actually done the research, and aren't prepared to do it in the future, then why even bother to comment? Just remain silent. I will not hold it against you.

I research it far enough to be confident in the veracity of my inputs, and I am also very open to input from others; when it isn't nonsense.

Anyway, the graph I provided shows that California, re: climate (not speaking of impact to population), is not in a position that necessitates hand-wringing.

To boot, there is also question re: whether or not warming has actually occurred. RSS indicates that since 1997, there has been a global cooling trend.
http://woodfortre.../to:2015

Just remain silent. I will not hold it against you.

The indignant tone suggest an unwillingness to engage in dialogue of any form.

So, I will continue as I have. I challenge you to input, but I won't hold silence against you.

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
So, are you willing to agree to my conditions, or not? I will look at your graph if you agree to them. That can be the first claim of the debate.

You need to answer my question. If you don't want to use peer reviewed research, what do you suggest, instead?

I research it far enough to be confident in the veracity of my inputs, and I am also very open to input from others; when it isn't nonsense.

Also, that's confirmation bias.

What you actually need to do is research it enough so that you, at first, aren't confident in the veracity of your inputs, and then research it further so that you, once again, become confident (or change your mind).

The indignant tone suggest an unwillingness to engage in dialogue of any form.

I am not being indignant. It is counterproductive for you to opine on something unless you are willing to engage in a debate in which you might have to admit you are wrong.

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
So, are you willing to agree to my conditions, or not?

Stop being disingenuous. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I do it every day, I'm married.

Confirmation Bias is powerless against intellectual honesty. Finally, I am not looking to "win" anything. I am on a learning journey. I used to be an AGW.

I put two things up that I am happy to talk about:

Within natural boundaries of variation, California as a geologic zone is not experiencing anything out of the ordinary.

RSS measurements indicate a global cooling trend.

I will be happy to hear what you think of it. No holds barred.

I'll be putting up some more info shortly, regarding what is happening in the Pacific Ocean that is helping the drought, and hopefully I stumble on more stuff too. I enjoy the research, and find it odd that the AGWs put up little more than diatribe and pedantic rule sets that delay or preclude dialogue.


Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
Answer my question please. What should we use in place of peer review?

You have already made several claims, but I am not going to argue with them until you agree to my conditions, or at least offer acceptable ones in place of them.

Aug 20, 2015
Stop being disingenuous. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong
sorry, but this is THE troll quote of the year, right here!

you've not been able to make a single valid point with anything like scientific legitimacy since you started posting here: that is the reason you are claiming that peer review is not what it was, and you will not accept it. because most of the stuff you post is NOT peer reviewed, and will fail peer review... and it is also debunked as well as nonsense

that is not admitting you are wrong, especially given that you've not been able to undermine or debunk a single reputable published study i've linked yet!

I say try your luck with furlong... but establish what you feel is "equivalent" to peer review, since you've become the "expert" in what is nonsense and what is scientific
this ought to be pretty good!

Aug 20, 2015
I want to see denglish adhere to number five.
--gskam
Uh..huh. And, I would like to see you adhere to the truth, but being a pathological liar you wouldn't know the truth even if it slapped you in the face.

Aug 20, 2015
Unable to continue the debate he is losing, this antigoricle goober does personal attacks.

Aug 20, 2015
I am not going to argue with them

You don't need to. I post largely to articulate what I am learning, in the hopes that perhaps others may learn to.

sorry, but this is THE troll quote of the year, right here!

The rest is nonsense.

Aug 20, 2015
The rest is nonsense.

where is the evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies that prove those studies to be false? all you are doing is linking articles, misleading diagrams, graphics out of context and trying to obfuscate the issue but you've NOT ONCE been able to produce a level of evidence that would be considered "falsification"
and to prove that, simply look at all the studies that i've linked that have been retracted or changed!

(PRO-TIP- not one has been debunked or retracted!)

you are offering only information that you "think" is relevant-this is confirmation bias in a nutshell! that is why you get your data from wuwt and dr roy (confirmation bias) and refuse to read STUDIES which refute their horsepuckey

IOW- your conspiracy theory (AKA belief) is interfering with your ability to comprehend science, logic or reality

Aug 20, 2015
Last year, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sponsored a study that blamed the rain deficit on a persistent ridge of high-pressure air over the northeast Pacific, which has been blocking moisture-laden ocean air from reaching land. Lamont-Doherty climatologist Richard Seager, who led that study (and coauthored the new one), said the blockage probably has nothing to do with global warming; normal weather patterns will eventually push away the obstacle, and rainfall will return.

Wow. This article is a roach.

It is very easy to know that temperatures have gone up from 1901 to 1997, and that the climate changes.

Well, at least they didn't invoke AGW; I suppose the disaster-porn addicts will do that themselves.

evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies

The same ones we proved you can't read? You are nonsensical.

Aug 20, 2015
"The same ones we proved you can't read? You are nonsensical."
-------------------------------

Unable to respond intelligently, some folk resort to personal attack.

Aug 20, 2015
The same ones we proved you can't read? You are nonsensical
oh, so you can prove i can't read now? by all means, show it!
that will be good for a laugh at least

include, while you are at it, all those studies equivalent to the ones that i gave you which support your assertions and prove AGW is false (and especially falsified), ok?
you know... all those studies that prove and refute the scientific studies i linked you proving you were wrong about your beliefs!
i use that term because you are refusing to accept the SCIENCE because of your beliefs. none of which are supported

Aug 20, 2015
You are nonsensical
BTW - nonsensical means: 1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas
http://www.thefre...sensical
Please show where any of the studies or comments i've made proving AGW as well as debunking your belief in conspiracy is "nonsensical"... and while you are at it, demonstrate, like i've done to you, where the studies support YOUR beliefs and show where your "falsification" meets the criteria of the scientific method.

your comment about "nonsensical" is simply your attempt to obfuscate the issue with verbiage and red herrings while trying to find reason (logical or not) to cling to your conspiracy theory and beliefs which are refuted by the SCIENCE

by all means: SHOW THE SCIENCE which supports your claims
not the article, nor the fraud, nor a blog, nor a conspiracy site
at least have the guts to show the science or admit you are wrong, as you claim you will do

Aug 20, 2015
by all means, show it!

I'm not wasting my time with that. How about you produce a peer-reviewed article, reference a passage and summarize its meaning?

(and especially falsified)

Let's start with the scientific method:
https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

Then, let's move on to observations, which prove or falsify theories:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

BTW - nonsensical means: 1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas

Very good!

Please show...

The rest is nonsensical.

Aug 20, 2015
I'm not wasting my time with that
Translation: i am lying again, like i am here: http://phys.org/n...hat.html
and i don't want people to see it YET AGAIN
Let's start with the scientific method
i've been using it and linking validated results, you've been linking articles, opinion and debunked personal conjecture without evidence... which do you think is stronger?
The rest is nonsensical.
no, it is a valid point and makes the bulk of the argument
YOUR ARGUMENT is based upon conjecture as well as OPINION- the opinion of people interpretations of the evidence
MY ARGUMENT is based upon the results of validated studies... not just a study, but validated studies.

when i ask: SHOW THE SCIENCE which supports your claims
I want STUDIES that can be validated as real, not opinion, conjecture or belief... that is equivalent to hearsay and isn't even applicable

EVIDENCE trumps opinion
you have opinion, not evidence

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
Why are you avoiding answering my question?

What do you suggest to use, instead of peer review?

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
Why are you avoiding answering my question?

What do you suggest to use, instead of peer review?
@furlong
because there is no substitute... he has a minimal ability to comprehend some of the astrophysics, and that is shown in his commentary there, but he can't seem to apply the same laws of physics to Climate and it's problems... mostly because of conspiracy.
some interesting reading on that
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

notice how closely he matches the typical conspiratorial poster
HAVE FUN
gotta run!

Aug 20, 2015
Why are you avoiding answering my question?

What do you suggest to use, instead of peer review?

I already answered you. No holds barred.

Translation: i am lying again, like i am here:

Find the thread where you were spamming links. I took one of the links, read the paper, found a passage to talk about, presented it, in whole and in my own words, and neither you nor your buddies could decipher any of it.

Stop referring to what you don't understand. it is nonsensical and you're embarrassing yourself.

I want STUDIES that can be validated

Of course you do.

The points stand:

1. California is not experiencing a significant geological event.

2. RSS measurements indicate that since 1997 the lower troposphere is cooling.

Aug 20, 2015
Let's get deeper into California's drought. Has anyone heard of The Blob?

https://bobtisdal...2015.png

According to Bond et al (2015), a persistent ridge of high pressure in the mid-to-high latitudes of the eastern North Pacific prevented the sea surfaces there from cooling normally.

El Nino needs to overcome The Blob. When it does, we need to capture what comes, because the precipitation amy not be far enough North to impact snow pack significantly.

It is unfortunate that California hasn't built more open-air reservoirs. That may be the root cause of the population's problems with lack of water.

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
http://jspp.psych...443/html
http://web.missou...ange.pdf

Get indoctrinated much?


Aug 20, 2015
indoctrinated much?
wait... so... if i accept the scientific method, and i agree that peer reviewed evidence is under far more constraints and likely will not hold the same opinionated subjective data as, say, philosophy, and accept the bulk of the science which points to a specific direction (which is not "concensus... it is thousands, if not more, separate experiments being made that all collectively point in ONE direction), and if i question everything and then seek answers that are validated and observed ... then i am considered "indoctrinated"????

But if you accept ANY anti-AGW rant (even when debunked or proven to be false) and accept that there must be a problem because some people said so, and the opinion of a small minority MUST be right because "they said so", then you are being what exactly?
Of course you do
so, where are they?
the studies which refute my studies historically linked to you?
Hurry up, i gotta go to dinner shortly

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
I already answered you. No holds barred.

ok, this isn't getting anywhere, but I think I see the problem. You don't trust peer review at all.

So, how about this, seeing as you refuse to agree to 4, how about I loosen it a little bit. So, here is 4, revised:

4) All claims must be backed up by claims made by people with doctorates (or equivalent) in the subject at hand, or demonstrated by rigorous analysis of publicly available data.

So, now, you can use studies that might have been quashed by Big Science. You can also use your own analysis, provided that it is rigorous and not hand-wavey. Does this sound fair?

Aug 20, 2015
Does this sound fair?

You're stalling, and I think its because you don't have anything to produce. Stop worrying at me. Its annoying. Shit or get off the pot.

i agree that peer reviewed evidence is under far more constraints and likely will not hold the same opinionated subjective data

Actually, peer-review is becoming more and more discredited.
http://www.spring...s/735218

collectively point in ONE direction

Which direction is that?

because "they said so"

No, the observations say so.

the studies which refute my studies historically linked to you

Please re-post the studies, pull a passage, and describe it in your own words. I would be happy to talk about it.


Aug 20, 2015
Actually, peer-review is becoming more and more discredited.
http://www.spring...s/735218
you tried that here and failed: http://phys.org/n...eer.html

lets look at the numbers of that, shall we?
Vietvet: "In this study, we have estimated that the number of scientific papers published in 2006 was 1,346,000" http://www.inform...391.html

DaSchneib: That's then 230/4,038,000 = 0.0057%
I'd say it's not endemic. Looks like about one in eighteen thousand

So, you can't do basic math OR read?
you already know "which direction" (AGW) but for purposes of TROLLING you simply try obfuscation

you don't have any studies

you don't have the same level of data, evidence, etc backed up by observation and validated

what you have is ad hominem, obfuscation, distraction, red herring, strawman, conspiracy and attempts to discredit because you have no evidence

is that about it?
Yep! that's it!

Aug 20, 2015
Please re-post the studies, pull a passage, and describe it in your own words. I would be happy to talk about it.
then why have you historically refused to addres them, talk about them, or supplied blatantly false data, out of context graphics or simply non-sense rhetorical opinion when they've been presented?

I can link some of those "conversations" as well

basically, you've historically simply IGNORED the studies and stated that they're falsified because [insert opinion or non-validated claim here]

if i am going to link them, i want actual feedback. historically, you've lied, bluffed, posted diatribes, and attempted to discredit with NO information, all while linking debunked data or fraudulent data

OPINION is not the same as evidence
that is why furlong is trying to get you to set rules for engagement in the discussion, and why you continue to IGNORE them

nice seeing you haven't changed and continue to lie and mislead through various mean, though

Aug 20, 2015
@denglish
All you have to do is answer "yes". I think condition 4 is very fair, now.

Aug 20, 2015
you tried that

Climategate

ets look at the numbers of that, shall we?

Wow, the rest of that was nonsense. Let's see your next post.

then why have you...

Yep, that's nonsense too. If you're for real, you'll do it.
Please re-post the studies, pull a passage, and describe it in your own words. I would be happy to talk about it.

All you have to do is answer "yes".

You are very annoying. Shit or get off the pot.


Aug 20, 2015
MORE Climate change HOGWASH! Here's a clue for the clueless warmest! The sun controls the climate, we humans do not. Summer is HOT, Winter is COLD. Its been that way for 4 billion or so years.

http://blogs.scie...vf8m.gif

Aug 20, 2015
MORE Climate change HOGWASH! Here's a clue for the clueless warmest! The sun controls the climate, we humans do not. Summer is HOT, Winter is COLD. Its been that way for 4 billion or so years.

Stumpy, I found your brother!

Aug 20, 2015
You are very annoying. Shit or get off the pot.

We both know that if I do things the way you want me to, it won't work. You'll throw links at me. I'll refute them. Then, instead of bothering to address my refutation, you will simply throw more links at me. I am attempting to establish rules of engagement, as Stumpy said, so we can have a productive conversation.

"No holds barred" won't do, and you know it won't, because that's what you (and everyone else, by arguing with you) have been doing all along, or have I missed something in your hundreds of posts in which you or someone else ever gave an inch anywhere?

You don't like my conditions? At least suggest your own.

But, insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and expecting different results. I refuse to do things the way you are currently doing them.

Now, I have been more than fair to you. All I am asking is to have a debate that is productive. But, I think it is clear that you don't want one.

Aug 20, 2015
http://blogs.scie...vf8m.gif

Ok, that made me laugh.

All I am asking is to have a debate that is productive.

Well, you're right about not giving ground. Mostly, my experience has been that I haven't been shown much. Its almost all diatribe. I think that's what you missed.

I put up two postulates:

1. California is not experiencing anything that is geologically abnormal.
2. RSS measurements indicate a cooling period beginning in 1997, and extending to the present day.

And one educated opinion:
The drought may get dented real good if the El Nino conditions can get past The Blob.

I would really like to know what you think of those things. Lets trust each other and see where it goes.

Aug 20, 2015
The point of this research, of course, is that it improves our capacity to apportion climate change impacts to extreme weather events, especially droughts.

We know climate change will seriously excacerbate naturally-occuring weather events but quantifying that has been difficult - leading, of course to the accusation that you *can't* assign a quantifiable contribution. We can now counter that argument, which is positive.

This is also extremely important for Australia, where I live, because the current El Nino combined with climate change is expected to plunge the southeast of the country into one of the worst droughts we've ever seen. These calculations will help us to ascertain the expected climate change impact of the coming El Nino drought, which will improve medium-term climatic forecasts.

Aug 20, 2015
Build many desalination plants and the fission reactors to feed them.

Aug 21, 2015
Go ahead, shootist. they have lots and lots and lots of waste heat at Fukushima, as the Corium seethes with deadly radioactivity.

Aug 21, 2015
The point of this research, of course, is that it improves our capacity to apportion climate change impacts to extreme weather events, especially droughts.

Perhaps, but they chose the wrong event. The geologic record shows this drought to be mild compared to California's history.

We know climate change will seriously excacerbate naturally-occuring weather events but quantifying that has been difficult -

Is that because the predictions have not panned out?

accusation that you *can't* assign a quantifiable contribution. We can now counter that argument, which is positive.

There can be no doubt that climate change will lead to different weather events, but so far, when seen from the perspective of the earth, nothing out of the ordinary has happened.


Aug 21, 2015
Ok, that made me laugh.

Sometimes, all one can do is mock.
I put up two postulates:

1. California is not experiencing anything that is geologically abnormal.
2. RSS measurements indicate a cooling period beginning in 1997, and extending to the present day.

Assuming you mean "climatologically" and not "geologically", in truth, I am not certain what to think yet of 1, yet. I need to do more research on the subject. On the one hand, this is certainly not, in any way the longest drought (yet). However, at least according to analysis of tree rings, this seems to be the driest period since 1580 (http://news.berke...-woes/). I will defer this until I have read more about it.

(to be continued)

Aug 21, 2015
(continued)
2, however, is fairly easy to address. It's not correct. You can see here, according to RSS measurements that the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) has been warming comfortably since at least 1980: (http://www.remss....perature ) So, we are not in a cooling period at all, especially not according to RSS data.

Now, I did as you said, and am trusting you to debate this fairly. Please do not ignore what I just wrote. I expect you to respond to my counter argument in some way or other. You don't have to concede, nor argue. But any response to my response is desired.

Please do not change the subject.

Aug 21, 2015
@denglish
I actually wanted to link to this for the RSS data: http://images.rem...ies.html

But for some reason it wasn't working.

Aug 21, 2015
has been warming comfortably since at least 1980: (http://www.remss....perature ) So, we are not in a cooling period at all

Trend it from 1997. What do you get?


Aug 21, 2015
has been warming comfortably since at least 1980: (http://www.remss....perature ) So, we are not in a cooling period at all

Trend it from 1997. What do you get?


This is why we must analyze long term trends. Obviously, a data set from 1997 to the present is smaller than one from 1980 to present, so the trend-line will be more accurate for the larger data set. That's how statistics works.

Last week, I was sick for 5 days. If you sampled my health state over that period, you might conclude that my health is failing, when in reality, if you looked at a larger period of time, say the last month, you would see that my health has actually been improving (have been exercising more, and sleeping better), and that I simply had a cold. That's how it is for climate.

Aug 21, 2015
"Trend it from 1997. What do you get?"
--------------------------------

Cherry-picked and grossly misleading "data".

Also known as cheating.

Aug 21, 2015
Cherry-picked and grossly misleading "data".

Wrong. Calculated, and exactly what the readings are.

Obviously, a data set from 1997 to the present is smaller than one from 1980 to present, so the trend-line will be more accurate for the larger data set.

The trend line covers a larger period of time, and I have no problem conceding that it is accurately showing what happened from 1980. Warming is happening; it cannot be intelligently denied.

However, it can be quite misleading when one is trying to understand what is happening right now, or over the last 18 years. I think it is significant to recognize this cooling trend because it is contrary to the CMIP5 predictions that are influencing policy makers.


Aug 21, 2015
Global warming correlates with the increasing number of Democrats so perhaps it is a mental state rather than objective physical reality. Jerry Brown may be a bigger source of global warming than carbon.

Aug 21, 2015
The trend line covers a larger period of time, and I have no problem conceding that it is accurately showing what happened from 1980. Warming is happening; it cannot be intelligently denied.

I am glad you acknowledge this.
However, it can be quite misleading when one is trying to understand what is happening right now, or over the last 18 years. I think it is significant to recognize this cooling trend because it is contrary to the CMIP5 predictions that are influencing policy makers.

But what I am telling you is that since your data set is smaller, your cooling trend is likelier to be erroneous. I am not saying it is definitely nonexistent, at least not based off of this data alone, but I am saying that we are less certain that it is true. Again, that's how statistics works. 35 years of data is more meaningful than 18 years of data.

However, let's continue along this trajectory. Do you have any other evidence for this cooling trend?

Aug 21, 2015
Global warming correlates with the increasing number of Democrats so perhaps it is a mental state rather than objective physical reality. Jerry Brown may be a bigger source of global warming than carbon.

This is a science site, not a politics site. Produce scientific arguments, please.

Aug 21, 2015
35 years of data is more meaningful than 18 years of data.

It is more meaningful over a span of 35 years, not 18 years. The *last* 18 years.

Do you have any other evidence for this cooling trend?

Such as what?

And, I'm glad you asked. I'm trying to find the time to examine the pre-pause buster (Karl et al) data for the other measurement systems. Would you happen to know where that might be?

Aug 21, 2015
It is more meaningful over a span of 35 years, not 18 years. The *last* 18 years.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.
Such as what?

Well, you seem convinced that there has actually been a cooling trend over the last 18 years. Is there other evidence that you use to support this hypothesis, or is that it?
Would you happen to know where that might be?

Does this help?
Here is the paper (from what I can see)
http://sciences.b...atus.pdf
And here is what I think you'll find the data they used:
https://www.ncdc....ersst-v4
http://www.surfac...databank
I might be wrong from my cursory appraisal of the report. I suggest reading it yourself and finding the data with Google.

Aug 21, 2015
I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Only that RSS measurements say there has been a cooling trend since 1997.

Is there other evidence that you use to support this hypothesis, or is that it?

Evidence is the key word. Not to get into semantics, but its not a hypothesis, its an observation. The technical measurements seem to be the best indicator.

Does this help?

No, no help. I'll take a look around to see if I can find pre-Karl measurements. I'm sure its out there, just a bit wary of some sources- I'd prefer the raw data that has probably been expunged from official records.

Aug 21, 2015

Last week, I was sick for 5 days. If you sampled my health state over that period, you might conclude that my health is failing, when in reality, if you looked at a larger period of time, say the last month, you would see that my health has actually been improving (have been exercising more, and sleeping better), and that I simply had a cold. That's how it is for climate.

So, I take it you ignored your sickness because your "long term" health was improving?

Aug 21, 2015
Deng said:
No, no help. I'll take a look around to see if I can find pre-Karl measurements. I'm sure its out there, just a bit wary of some sources- I'd prefer the raw data that has probably been expunged from official records.


http://www.realcl...sources/

Please take a look at this and tell us what data you are missing. I'm glad you are interested enough to look it over. Just let us know if you need more to look at and if there are any issues with the data. There are a number of us out here who will gladly support real examination of the data. Your discussions with the furlong are interesting.

Aug 21, 2015
@denglish
I actually wanted to link to this for the RSS data: http://images.rem...ies.html

But for some reason it wasn't working.
Doesn't work for me either, Looks like the page is broken. The previous link from your previous post works fine, however, so it doesn't appear to be your error. :D

Aug 21, 2015
Climategate
red herring conspiracy theory BS
the rest of that was nonsense
so, you can't read, you can't do math... but you can somehow make a judgement upon studies that you never read and fail to do the math on that were never retracted?
wow!
that's nonsense too
to date, the most conversation you've given directed to a study i posted was to make a claim (like: i couldn't read) without evidence, then claim it said something it didn't (again, sans evidence) and then state, categorically, that you were right (and yet again, sans evidence)... so how is it nonsense? shall i link the conversations here so everyone else can read your "responses" detailing how the studies are wrong?
is that why you are ignoring furlong?
so that you don't get caught (again) as a fraud like your mentor roy?
or is it more personal?
Maybe you would like to just throw around more ad hominem? red herrings? lies? conspiracy?

you should read those Psych links-they describe you to a T

Aug 21, 2015
Stumpy, I found your brother!
you're right, furlong... this link describes deng perfectly: http://blogs.scie...vf8m.gif
my experience has been that I haven't been shown much. Its almost all diatribe
interesting... so... all the links to studies that i've linked historically to you is now considered "diatribes"????
now that is a fascinating look at science, and telling. it says that you have your mind made up and no matter how much evidence is produced, you will refuse to acknowledge it simply because your belief is unshakable. IOW- it is just as described in the various psych links i left regarding the conspiracy theorists/religious fundamentalists and their "faith" and it's circular reasoning. thanks for finally admitting that!
it makes it so much easier to point out that you are here to troll, not learn, or converse, or even to seek scientific information!

Aug 22, 2015
@Denglish
just one more question...about your graphic and continued insistence on linking to dr roy... why?

especially after neblina, leetenant, runrig, et al outed your dr as a fraud?
http://phys.org/n...ual.html
and
http://blog.hotwh...ier.html
and
http://blog.hotwh...ion.html

he got caught lying and cherry-picking... adjusting data to suit his purpose and absolutely being deceptive !!!!
just like you!!!

i guess we now know why you continue to link dr roy and his blatant fraudulent attempts to obfuscate the issue with deception... it also shows why he can't get his fraud PUBLISHED in a reputable peer reviewed journal

the scientific method works... that is why you continue to fail
you link blogs, opinion and sites that can't seem to comprehend what the scientific method is, whereas I (and others) link studies and actual science!

Aug 22, 2015
Drought... What drought?

http://theantimed...g-water/

Aug 22, 2015
@Denglish

Didn't read any of the three posts. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.

Aug 22, 2015
Deng said:
No, no help. I'll take a look around to see if I can find pre-Karl measurements. I'm sure its out there, just a bit wary of some sources- I'd prefer the raw data that has probably been expunged from official records.


http://www.realcl...sources/

Please take a look at this and tell us what data you are missing. I'm glad you are interested enough to look it over. Just let us know if you need more to look at and if there are any issues with the data. There are a number of us out here who will gladly support real examination of the data. Your discussions with the furlong are interesting.

That's an excellent resource thermo, bookmarked, and thanks.

What I'm looking for is a side by side comparison of pre-Karl and post-Karl land-sea temperature readings.

Aug 22, 2015
Ok, I found what looks to be pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings.

The graph comes from Woodfortrees, so I think it is reasonably sensible.

http://www.dailym...995.html

From my readings, I am gathering that the Karl temperature adjustments are questionable amongst skeptical climatologists.

If we look to pre-Karl HADCRUT4, we see evidence of a warming hiatus from land-sea measurements as well as lower troposphere readings (RSS).

It is clear that we are in a warming period geologically speaking. The break in warming is a decent indicator that the models using C02 are not accurate enough to influence economic policy making.

Aug 22, 2015
@Denglish

Didn't read any of the three posts. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.


Of course you read Captain Stumpy's posts, but you know he's right, explaining your lying response.

Aug 22, 2015
@Denglish

Didn't read any of the three posts. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.


Of course you read Captain Stumpy's posts, but you know he's right, explaining your lying response.

No, I didn't. He's on the verge of being muted, actually. Its all nonsense.

Vet, I think you're a reasonable, respectable guy. If you can't see the daft fury in his posts, then I have to suggest to you that you're prejudiced.

Now that the ugliness is out of the way, what are your thoughts re: pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings agreeing with current RSS readings that there actually is a warming hiatus?

Aug 22, 2015
He's on the verge of being muted, actually. Its all nonsense
translation: i can't answer with facts and back up my own claims with actual scientific data so i will troll comment and then ignore/mute people so that i can't see them telling everyone i am a blatant liar and i get my facts from other blatant fraudulent liars
Didn't read any of the three posts
then how would you know it is "nonsensical"?

there is a simple point above that you keep ignoring: you have no evidence

i've linked studies and scientific evidence supporting my claims so many times, you simply see a blur (you've YET to be able to comprehend one of those studies) and so you ASSume that it is false simply because i've posted it
Instead you assassinate character, lie, distract and post irrelevant fraudulent links, like dr roy

the simple truth: you have no evidence equivalent to the scientific method which refutes a single thing
that is why you keep pushing for data you can't understand

Aug 22, 2015
Of course you read Captain Stumpy's posts, but you know he's right, explaining your lying response.
@vietvet
you are absolutely correct!

as i've stated before: i follow the evidence.
the point above is simple- given that he cannot produce reputable evidence (or evidence that hasn't already been proven false, a lie, debunked, etc) then he cannot "convert me" to his way of thinking, which is proven, above, to be nothing more than conspiracy theory wrapped in a tinfoil hat of Dunning Kruger and judiciously slathered with slabs of anti-science links to frauds and blatant known liars (AKA pseudoscience)

or he floods with irrelevant data and attempts to post conjecture about it's results, a tactic he learned from watching wp

this is his only means of posting, which is why he will never go to a moderated forum and take up the debate: trolls get perma-banned (or they have to change their moniker)

just see RC or alchie about that

Aug 22, 2015
you have no evidence equivalent to the scientific method

You can't follow anything, and the daft fury is a total waste of time.

You're muted.

Aug 22, 2015
You can't follow anything
Translation: you won't accept pseudoscience and debunked fraudulent claims as legitimate so i can appear smart
and the daft fury is a total waste of time
Translation: i am so pissed off because i can't actually find anything scientific supporting my position and you've linked studies which debunk me (and are not retracted or debunked) so i sill simply transfer my inadequacies onto you and call you names because it is how i look here
You're muted
Translation: since i can't produce evidence and i can't actually provide studies which validate my claim, i will simply put you on IGNORE so i can troll post without seeing how you've totally destroyed my arguments and proven me to be a lying fraud

IOW- you are running away because you know i'm right and that you have NO evidence, NO science, NO studies and the only thing you CAN post is conspiracy theory

i will continue to prove you a liar still, though

Aug 22, 2015
@runrig, @Vietvet, @zz, @furlong, @Zzzzzz, @ALL SCIENCE POSTERS

again, the trolls and denialists and idiots will continue their diatribes against actual science and physical validated evidence so that they can appear to be smart (by their definition, this means- they post a lot and can link to their favourite troll sites or pseudoscience)

keep up the GREAT WORK and continuing to debunk the idiocy here on PO!

at least those who come for science will be able to see actual data and intellectual simulation between the flood of troll posts!

Aug 22, 2015
denglish claims
The graph comes from Woodfortrees, so I think it is reasonably sensible
http://www.dailym...995.html
Really ?

Yet from your choice of site shows something different:-
http://woodfortre...gl/trend

Is it possible denglish your claim above from Woodfortrees is false ?

What other possible interpretation could there be ?

denglish added
It is clear that we are in a warming period geologically speaking
On what basis is the causal factor it not CO2 & especially so as Sol's output is waning ?

denglish states
The break in warming is a decent indicator that the models using C02 are not accurate enough to influence economic policy making
Predicated upon Physics education surely ?

denglish
Heard of enthalpy, shouldn't politicians be chosen to come from Science background not Law ?

Aug 23, 2015

Last week, I was sick for 5 days. If you sampled my health state over that period, you might conclude that my health is failing, when in reality, if you looked at a larger period of time, say the last month, you would see that my health has actually been improving (have been exercising more, and sleeping better), and that I simply had a cold. That's how it is for climate.

So, I take it you ignored your sickness because your "long term" health was improving?

You missed my point. Of course my sickness existed, but a bout of sickness does not indicate failing health.

So, if you were to take my sickness as evidence that I was getting unhealthy, you'd be incorrect.

The point is that smaller data sets don't tell us as much as big ones. Therefore, extrapolations, like trendlines, increase in meaning with the size of the data set. So, the question is, is 18 years enough for 1 trend line out of one data set to be meaningful? I will get to that in my next comment.

Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
All right, so I have done some calculations, which make my point.

You can download the files that I have used for my calculations to see for yourself here:
http://s000.tinyu...65275685

This is a zip file. It contains 2 odt files (you will need open office calc to view them) and 2 pdfs in case you don't want ot use Calc. What I did is take the data from 1997 to present and from 1980 to present and computed their respective trendlines using LINEST().

From these calculations, you can see that the error from 1980 to present in the slope is much smaller than the one from 1997 to present.

Not only that, but the coefficient of determination for the former is much higher than the one for the later.

In fact, the coefficient of determination for the latter is extremely tiny. The closer the coefficient of determination to 1, the better the fit, so what you have there is a much less trustworthy trendline.

(to be continued)

Aug 23, 2015
(continued)
To hit this point home, explicitly, the coefficients of determination are respectively,

0.347212366 and 0.000072282

In other words, your trendline from 1997 to present tells us essentially nothing, at least compared with that from 1980 to present.

This brings us to what you said,
Evidence is the key word. Not to get into semantics, but its not a hypothesis, its an observation. The technical measurements seem to be the best indicator.

While I concede that it is an observation, it isn't a very useful one. It's like studying the physiology of a gnat with only your eye, or reading a small-print book with blurry vision. There's too much uncertainty to get any meaningful information.

Aug 23, 2015
In other words, your trendline from 1997 to present tells us essentially nothing, at least compared with that from 1980 to present.

I appreciate the work you've done, but I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend.

This is significant because it brings the CMIP5 predictions into question. A theory that policymakers are using (check out CA SB 350 for a real whopper) is in the process of being falsified, if not already falsified.

The falsification would be even more profound if the HADCRUT4 numbers hadn't been changed by the Karl et. al. paper (HADCRUT4 showed a warming stop too).

There's too much uncertainty to get any meaningful information.

If you're referring to understanding climate change via temperature observations only, then I agree. I believe it is also important to see whether or not we are inside the boundaries of past events, and we are.

Aug 23, 2015
denglish FAILs with an outright LIE claiming
I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend
Dead wrong, denglish who affirms he has no education & therefore has difficulty reading/researching has FAILed to be genuine, this proves it:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

denglish FAILs to understand error bars
This is significant because it brings the CMIP5 predictions into question
denglish is ignorant of modelling & metric in that respect and needs to learn
https://en.wikipe...atistics

denglish states
If you're referring to understanding climate change via temperature observations only, then I agree
denglish off the money yet again, if you know specific heat you can determine enthalpy & thus gain a far better understanding of key pressure upon global climate change...

Advice to all aiming to claim some pause, learn about radiative heat transfer...

ie Learn Physics

Aug 23, 2015
denglish FAILs with an outright LIE claiming
I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend
Dead wrong, denglish who affirms he has no education & therefore has difficulty reading/researching has FAILed to be genuine, this proves it

denglish states
If you're referring to understanding climate change via temperature observations only, then I agree
denglish off the money yet again, if you know specific heat you can determine enthalpy & thus gain a far better understanding of key pressure upon global climate change...

Advice to all aiming to claim some pause, learn about radiative heat transfer...

ie Learn Physics


Oooh Mike your cooking, Donglish pounded down deeper into that rabbit hole, yes i can't believe it either, but this clown can't stop digging his hole of stupidity ever so deeper and deeper... :D Well said Captain and TFL too...

Aug 23, 2015
your trendline from 1997 to present tells us essentially nothing, at least compared with that from 1980 to present
@furlong
a most excellent demonstration, THANKS
might i make an observation? take the reply to you
I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend
he is like an addict on "COPS" who, though blatantly caught with drugs, etc, simply continues to deny the facts simply because it would ruin his egotistical driven Dunning-Kruger like delusional world.

this is kinda spelled out in the psych papers linked before (plus, we've already seen the conspiracy ideation in his posts)

you will not get through unless he chooses to accept reality and the scientific method, which is something that he already refuses to acknowledge

but by posting, you also show the scientifically illiterate (or nooB's) about the POWER of the method

THANKS and continue to post it!

Aug 23, 2015
I appreciate the work you've done, but I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend.

So, it isn't important to you that the coefficient of determination is so small as to render the data meaningless?
I don't think you actually understand how the fit for the data for the 1997 to 2015 is.

Take a look at this site to learn more about it:
http://www.statis...ination/

So, basically,
0.0072282% of points fall within bounds set by the regression equation.

Compare this to 34.7212366% for 1980 to 2015.

For the first data set, there are 224 data points. That means that 0.016191168 of those points actually match. That's less than 1 point. Your trendline doesn't tell you anything.

Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
Please take a moment, and consider, now, why people like me get so frustrated when arguing with people like you.

I just did the math and confronted you with cold, hard, undeniable results. I didn't fudge anything. You can do these calculations for yourself and get the same results.

Yet, your response is to "insist" that it still means something.

The math says it doesn't.

I am trying not to get frustrated, but you have to give me something. Explain why you are ignoring what I just showed you, please.


This is significant because it brings the CMIP5 predictions into question. A theory that policymakers are using (check out CA SB 350 for a real whopper) is in the process of being falsified, if not already falsified.

But it isn't significant. That's what I just showed you. It's the opposite of significant.

It's like you took the temperature in Barrow, Alaska on July 13, 1993, and concluded that it was in the tropics.

Aug 23, 2015
I am not going to argue with them


You don't need to. I post largely to articulate what I am learning, in the hopes that perhaps others may learn to.


Still more complete horseshit out of the mouthparts of dongleash.

You haven't learned a single damned thing.

You are engaged in nothing more than the mere collection of any and every inconsequential, conjectural, and/or outright fraudulent claim that confirms your bias.

And "bias" is too kind a term for your hardwired LibertaRandite psychopathy.

This is the basis for your irrational fear of peer-reviewed scientifically rigorous research.


Aug 23, 2015
@thefurlong (and anyone else using OO)
I recommend switching from OpenOffice (Appears to be no longer under active development) to LibreOffice, which was forked from OO a couple of years ago and is actively supported .
https://www.libreoffice.org/
Faster, smaller footprints, better compatibility etc.

Aug 23, 2015
a most excellent demonstration, THANKS

Sure. I did it because I couldn't go back to sleep this morning :(.

he is like an addict on "COPS" who, though blatantly caught with drugs, etc, simply continues to deny the facts simply because it would ruin his egotistical driven Dunning-Kruger like delusional world.

I cannot imagine how he could ignore my calculations, and still be an honest person.

Denglish, perhaps you can explain this to us? I am not being rude. I am just sincerely baffled by what appears to be sheer stubbornness on your part.

Aug 23, 2015
I appreciate the work you've done, but I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend.


So, it isn't important to you that the coefficient of determination is so small as to render the data meaningless?
I don't think you actually understand how the fit for the data for the 1997 to 2015 is.


Had to come in here:
Despite Furlong's maths (good job) ... a rational mind does not need any.
I have addressed this already and posted links to graphs with trend lines just prior and just after the anomalous spike of the 97 Nino. Both show a warming trend. You can only get a cooling trend when starting in 97/98. By definition it is therefore NOT a trend-line in that it is confined to starting at a narrow 2/3 year time slot out of ~45 yrs of data. It's just as anomalous as the Nino spike (exaggerated by ~+0.3 from reality).

Aug 23, 2015
So, it isn't important to you that the coefficient of determination is so small as to render the data meaningless?
@furlong
not to him... he want's to promote his ideology and religious like conspiracy beliefs, not actually learn anything about science
there is a reason teh EPA, NOAA, WMO (World Meteorological assoc) all use 30 years as a basic trend line, as well as the smaller trend line in climate, and it goes to your lessons posted
see also: http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#C


I cannot imagine how he could ignore my calculations, and still be an honest person
because he is tightly wrapped in a religious like belief that will NOT allow him to see reality
See: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

a teaser of why it greatly affects the ability to see reality vs science and fact
there is a LOT of data on this subject, so see also
religion
fundamentalist beliefs
DSM-V

Aug 23, 2015
More Warmest HogWash!!!!!!!!!
@FritzVonDago
this sounds like you are denying the bulk of the science out there...
perhaps you could actually post the scientific studies which refute the "Warmest HogWash" [sic] which would substantiate your belief?

or better yet, perhaps you could post links to the reputable studies which refute the tens of thousands of papers which AGW and the warming trend is based upon?

THANKS

Aug 23, 2015
Denglish, perhaps you can explain this to us? I am not being rude. I am just sincerely baffled by what appears to be sheer stubbornness on your part.

I'm just being faithful to the scientific process.

Math can argue any number of things, but the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation.

So, we observe. Over the last 100 years or so, warming has happened. It is not clear that all the factors to cause that warming are well enough understood to hang our hat on any one idea, but we have. So, we observe reality to vet the theory.

Reality has not vetted the theory. So, observation is more important than rationalization.

The hiatus has falsified CMIP5. The changes in the earth are not outside the bounds of natural variation. So, until proven guilty, humanity is innocent.

No one argues against a cleaner planet. We had best be doing it the right way, and for the right reasons.


Aug 23, 2015
Still more complete horseshit out of the mouthparts of dongleash.

Hmm what are the chances that you're one of the ignored in a new form?

100%. Bye.

Aug 23, 2015
I'm just being faithful to the scientific process
by refusing to acknowledge the evidence?
HOW is that faithful to the scientific method?
the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation
the bulk of the scientific studies are VALIDATED by observation, from Francis et al and Lacis et al to every other study i've linked to you, including the ones argued on other conversations
so how is it not intellectual dishonesty to claim
Reality has not vetted the theory
especially when you have YET to produce a single viable reputable study equivalent to the journal studies i've given you to support your claims?

100%. Bye.
it sure is easy for you to ignore or mute those who produce evidence against your claims

WHY IS THAT??????

PS- better mute furlong next, because he will trounce you with physics and make you look like ad idiot troll

Aug 23, 2015
You can only get a cooling trend when starting in 97/98.

Right. And all the way until now.

Therefore, the predictions are falsified, and the method by which those predictions were made needs to be examined closely.

This thought is even more strongly felt in the wake of the Karl paper that altered HADCRUT4 after it falsified CMIP5 too.

One may say, I'm hanging up on the same thing over and over. When 1st world economies (the very economies that will empower the institution of truly efficient clean energy) are being crippled based on falsified thinking, it is warranted.

Aug 23, 2015
You can only get a cooling trend when starting in 97/98
Right. And all the way until now
which AGAIN demonstrates that you intentionally cherry picked data to exclude relevant data from your posts and links
there really IS a reason that climate scientists tend to use 30 year trends
Therefore, the predictions are falsified
no, they are not
and the method by which those predictions were made needs to be examined closely
start with the REASONS stated in Peterson et al, where Karl got the idea to address and discuss the temps over the observed period (Karl was one of the writers of that paper, in case you couldn't read that in the title)
This thought is even more strongly felt in the wake of the Karl paper
because you can't read studies
you should read the full study and supplemental material

@furlong
contact me at Sciforums or Sapo's joint
i can get you copies of the study if you need it

Aug 23, 2015
I'm just being faithful to the scientific process.

I fail to see how.
Math can argue any number of things, but the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation.

I agree that you've made an observation, but, as I argued, your observation is not a useful one. Indeed, the observation I am making right now (and that you can make, too, using statistical; analysis) is that your observation is meaningless. So, if you were actually trying to be scientific about this, you would treat it as an observation, and not ignore it.

Aug 23, 2015
I cannot imagine how he could ignore my calculations, and still be an honest person.

Denglish has said that he doesn't understand any science at all, so your calculations mean absolutely nothing to him. It's been pointed out (by myself and, I presume, others) that the trend from 1997 to present is meaningless and does not and cannot show a pause or cooling of the surface temperatures. But he doesn't understand any of that and, as far as I can tell, doesn't care to learn any of it. He's also indicated that he decides what to believe, not on any scientific evidence, but on what agrees with his politics. His belief that politics trumps logic and reality is bizarre and I admit to not understanding a mind that believes that.

As for honesty, denglish has admitted lying and has stated that he sees no problem with that. I also don't understand that "ethical" system.

Anyway, I applaud your attempts, but without science I'm not sure how successful you'll be.

Aug 23, 2015
Denglish, perhaps you can explain this to us? I am not being rude. I am just sincerely baffled by what appears to be sheer stubbornness on your part.

I'm just being faithful to the scientific process.


How ? you don't even understand the definition of science, they don't teach that in your mental school either, you got a long way to go still little monkey :D

Aug 23, 2015
Still more complete horseshit out of the mouthparts of dongleash.

Hmm what are the chances that you're one of the ignored in a new form?

100%. Bye.


None, the public, the world sees it all, you ignoring anything is irrelevant, what the world sees is relevant, and thats you making an idiot of yourself. :D

Aug 23, 2015
I'm just being faithful to the scientific process
by refusing to acknowledge the evidence?
?
the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation
the bulk of the scientific studies are VALIDATED by observation, from Francis et al and Lacis et al to every other study i've linked to.. on other conversations
so how is it not intellectual dishonesty to claim
Reality has not vetted the theory
especially when you have YET to produce a single viable reputable study equivalent to the journal studies i've given you to support your claims?

100%. Bye.
it sure is easy for you to ignore or mute those who produce evidence against your claims

WHY IS THAT??????

PS- better mute furlong next, because he will trounce you with physics and make you look like ad idiot troll


Lol what a show, i haven't seen dong clown stupify himself quite like this before 5 spades full on rolling as i'm laughing well saud C'ptain LOL... :D

Aug 23, 2015
I cannot imagine how he could ignore my calculations, and still be an honest person.

Denglish has said that he doesn't understand any science at all,
As for honesty, denglish has admitted lying and has stated that he sees no problem with that. I also don't understand that "ethical" system..


i doubt he understands why he's on this site and even knows what he's posting... an escapee from mental school... he only believes his silkwormy masters and what they say is the only thing real in his little mind. :D

Aug 23, 2015
Math can argue any number of things, but the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation.


Actually, you know what? I am tired of people trotting out this canard as it means anything.

You don't get to argue this for free. I challenge you to demonstrate it.

Specifically, using statistical analysis, show that the trendline of the data from 1997 to 2015 that I used is MORE PRECISE than that of the data from 1980 to 2015. You should be able to do this, since math can, in your words, "be used to argue any number of things."

Aug 23, 2015
I appreciate the work you've done, but I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend.


No --you don't, dongleash-- since it constitutes an obstacle to your standard practice of Willful Disunderstanding.

So, it isn't important to you that the coefficient of determination is so small as to render the data meaningless?

I don't think you actually understand how the fit for the data for the 1997 to 2015 is.


@thefurlong,

While we understand that your query was almost certainly rhetorical, it is still notable that the only metric dongleash will acknowlege, nay --will insist upon employing-- is the "coefficient of denialization".

As I've said before, these cellar-fattened trolls are gonna make some tasty eatin' when the consequences of their psychotic narcissism begin to overwhelm the "new world order".

Aug 23, 2015
As I've said before, these cellar-fattened trolls are gonna make some tasty eatin' when the consequences of their psychotic narcissism begin to overwhelm the "new world order"
@Caliban
i agree with you that these idiots are trolls and are stupid, as well as the rest of the above, but you make it sound like we will have "goon squads" out going door to door looking for deniers and trolls! LMFAO

now- just a thought- offered IMHO, mind you

Problem is - this really does nothing but feed his conspiracy ideation

as you can see, his posts reflect his ignorance and how he revels in the blatant stupidity of his mentor sites, from WUWT to dr roy, etc... so posting your comment will only drive people like him to believe that all scientific minded people are out to kill off the stupid (a serious and true threat to someone like him! remember, he believes in his conspiracy like you believe in your front door!)


Aug 23, 2015
I am tired of people trotting out this canard as it means anything.

It does mean something. Observation is the most important part of the scientific process.

show that the trendline of the data from 1997 to 2015 that I used is MORE PRECISE than that of the data from 1980 to 2015.

That's not what is being argued. What is being argued is that the theories of GW are falsified by the observations of the last 18 years.

I'm bewildered by the choice to alter HADCRUT4 data to change it from showing hiatus to hottest.

Everyone knows the Earth is in a warming period. The earth does that. Its natural; the earth has warmed and cooled for eons. What we don't know - well enough to eviscerate ourselves - is why. Therefore, we need to be rigorous in our skepticism, and require that the science that guides social policy to correct. So far, it isn't.


Aug 23, 2015
Still more complete horseshit out of the mouthparts of dongleash.

Hmm what are the chances that you're one of the ignored in a new form?

100%. Bye.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAH!

That's only the fourth or fifth time you've promised to ignore me, dongleash --aka the Crap Artist Formerly Known As Cornhole Scanty-- promises, promises!

The Truth --when administered sparingly-- merely stings.

More than enough to keep the likes of you sqirming, though.

Aug 23, 2015
Caliban and Stumpy: relax. You're muted.

Aug 23, 2015
It does mean something. Observation is the most important part of the scientific process
TRANSLATION: despite previous claims, i can't do the math and i happen to not be able to find where my fraudulent mentors like dr roy have done a hack job, so i will only offer conjecture and conspiracy ideation and refuse to actually produce mathematical proof supporting my conjecture
That's not what is being argued
actually, that IS what is being argued! but comprehension is not high on your list of skills, is it?
we need to be rigorous in our skepticism
the defining characteristic that drives the scientific method into VALIDATE claims made my studies... WOW
so, because we have VALIDATED claims of studies and repeated experiments that prove something, it must be wrong because deng said so?

WTF?
Stumpy: relax. You're muted
just because you muted me doesn't mean i will not post refutation to your posts
to assume i will give up science because you muted me is stupid

Aug 23, 2015
You can only get a cooling trend when starting in 97/98

Right. And all the way until now.


No you cant - and the validity of starting at that point gets shot to bits when taking a start point in 1999, just 1 year after the large Nino gives this....

http://woodfortre...15/trend

rising again

a trend taken 1 year before yields this....

http://woodfortre...15/trend

Again an upward trend.

That this is so should be blindingly obvious when seeing the 97/98 spike ... which is not real anyway, as the sat sensors are picking up contamination from WV - the same way that after that during the preponderance of Ninas, temps are suppressed by reduced WV in the tropics.
It's called cherry-picking and is a mighty, mighty one - that I sense deniers are clinging to as their last great hope now that temps have resumed upward (disregarding conspiracy of course).

Aug 23, 2015
Would someone (not muted by dung) be so kind as to quote and repost this comment below for Deng?
________________________________________
Caliban and Stumpy: relax. You're muted.
just because you muted me doesn't mean i will not post refutation to your posts
to assume i will give up science, offering proof against your denial and conspiracy theory, or that i will somehow allow your lies to propagate without providing any evidence refuting it is the height of narcissistic conceit, Dunning-Kruger as well as indicates that you know i am correct in my acceptance of scientific evidence - which demonstrates you know you are lying and offering fallacies

I will continue to refute your stupidity and conspiracy so long as you post it
especially when you are blatantly cherry-picking or providing known debunked lies as evidence


Aug 23, 2015
Would someone (not muted by dung) be so kind as to quote and repost this comment below for Deng?
________________________________________
Caliban and Stumpy: relax. You're muted.
just because you muted me doesn't mean i will not post refutation to your posts
to assume i will give up science, offering proof against your denial and conspiracy theory, or that i will somehow allow your lies to propagate without providing any evidence refuting it is the height of narcissistic conceit, Dunning-Kruger as well as indicates that you know i am correct in my acceptance of scientific evidence - which demonstrates you know you are lying and offering fallacies

I will continue to refute your stupidity and conspiracy so long as you post it
especially when you are blatantly cherry-picking or providing known debunked lies as evidence



Aug 23, 2015
As I've said before, these cellar-fattened trolls [...] overwhelm the "new world order"


@Caliban
i agree with you that these idiots are trolls and are stupid, as well as the rest of the above, but you make it sound like we will have "goon squads" out going door to door looking for deniers and trolls! LMFAO

now- just a thought- offered IMHO, mind you

Problem is - this really does nothing but feed his conspiracy ideation


Cap'n,

If only it were simple, ignorant buffoonery, that would be easily enough dealt with. But no --our dongleash, et al, are CONSCIOUS, activist deniers and practitioners of Willful Disunderstanding, shamelessly arrogating any and every lie, inaccuracy, opinion, deceit, prevarication, pseudoscience, antiscience, or straight up horseshit available to muddy the water. This is what makes them utterly despicable, and -indeed- an existential threat to all the rest of us.

Aug 23, 2015
It's been pointed out (by myself and, I presume, others) that the trend from 1997 to present is meaningless and does not and cannot show a pause or cooling of the surface temperatures.

Actually, it shows that for the last 18 years the troposphere has cooled.

The rest of your post is nonsense that you should have lost the compunction to produce during your alleged post graduate studies.

your observation is not a useful one.

It is if I want to understand the last 18 years and on a different level, the motivations for the Karl paper.

rising again

According to furlong, my representation of 1997 is more valid.

Again an upward trend.

Which I have never argued.

It's called cherry-picking

Wrong. Its called calculation.


Aug 23, 2015
I sense deniers are clinging to as their last great hope now that temps have resumed upward

Who has denied the Earth is warming? it is clearly in a warming period. The question is why, do we know enough about it to use it as a foundation of economic policy, and is it within the normal bounds of natural variance.

I will answer; we don't know totally, we don't know well enough to justify crippling our economies, and yes.

Oh, Vet, Vet, Vet...lol...really? This, gentle reader is the face of AGW. Vet, seriously... you shouldn't be known for parroting spew. Be original, be yourself; it's much more likable.

Aug 23, 2015
Caliban and Stumpy: relax. You're muted.


Nope the world sees everything, thats including your dumbest intellect expressed to millions of viewers ;)

Aug 23, 2015
It's been pointed out (by myself and, I presume, others) that the trend from 1997 to present is meaningless and does not and cannot show a pause or cooling of the surface temperatures.

Actually, it shows that for the last 18 years the troposphere has cooled.

The rest of your post is nonsense that you should have lost the compunction to produce during your alleged post graduate studies.

your observation is not a useful one.

It is if I want to understand the last 18 years and on a different level, the motivations for the Karl paper.

rising again

According to furlong, my representation of 1997 is more valid.

Again an upward trend.

Which I have never argued.

It's called cherry-picking

Wrong. Its called calculation.


ooop. donglish flaming out now ? c'mon monkey, post us one of your potty sites so we can all have another good laugh :D

Aug 23, 2015
Caliban and Stumpy: relax. You're muted.


Oh, stop it, dongleash --you are only managing to crack me up even more. Why don't you tell your mommy that Caliban is being mean to you.

Perhaps she will care.

Although I doubt it, as trollwives aren't noted for devotion to their young.

Meanwhile, you may ALWAYS rest safe and secure in the knowlwedge that I'll give the ol' truthswitch a twitch every time you post your lying, malicious trollblatt in this forum.

And for all of our sake, do make an effort to get some fresh air and exercise --as it is universally acknowledged that the highest quality trollflesh is a well-marbled, firm meat, as opposed to just the pure blubber generated by the estivating lifestyle of the cellar-dwelling troll.

Aug 23, 2015
Observation is the most important part of the scientific process.

But you are ignoring my observation that the data you insist on using to indicate a cooling period is meaningless. You haven't yet explained why we should ignore your vanishingly small coefficient of determination.
That's not what is being argued. What is being argued is that the theories of GW are falsified by the observations of the last 18 years.

On the contrary, THAT IS what you argued.

I gave you a mathematical argument for why you cannot deduce a cooling trend from the RSS data from 1997 to 2015.
Your immediate response was:
I appreciate the work you've done, but I have to insist that the trend line from 1997 tells us that the troposphere is in a cooling trend.

(to be continued)

Aug 23, 2015
(continued)
When I requested an explanation for this, your answer was:
...Math can argue any number of things, but the final checkmate for/against any theory is observation.

So, your argument was that though I had mathematically shown your claim to be false, it doesn't matter because math can be used to prove anything, which is a non-argument.

Let's stay on topic. You're trying to move on to HADCRUT 4, but I am still focusing on your claim that the RSS data actually shows a cooling trend rather than mere statistical fluctuations. It doesn't, and I already told you why. Please explain what is wrong with my math, and don't cop-out by giving me a silly answer like, "You can demonstrate anything with math."

Aug 23, 2015
@thefurlong,

While we understand that your query was almost certainly rhetorical, it is still notable that the only metric dongleash will acknowlege, nay --will insist upon employing-- is the "coefficient of denialization".

Honestly, it was not rhetorical. My intention was actually to see what the uncertainty in the trendlines demonstrated in the website I provided was. I actually did not expect the coefficient of determination to be so piss poor, but there it is.

My philosphy is always that if you doubt scientific consensus, do your own calculations/experiments. You can argue until you're blue in the face with words, but you can't deny mathematical/scientific results.

@denglish
This is how you ensure you are correct: by actually analyzing the data yourself. It also helps to not be afraid of chucking a preferred theory, if it doesn't actually dovetail with what you find.

Aug 23, 2015
But you are ignoring my observation that the data you insist on using to indicate a cooling period is meaningless.

It isn't meaningless when compared to the theory that predicted the cooling wouldn't be there. The cooling falsifies the theory.

I gave you a mathematical argument for why you cannot deduce a cooling trend

And I gave an observational one. I trust what I can see, not what someone is trying to convince me of. I'm not saying it will continue, I'm saying that it is here and now, and as such, the predictions that didn't predict this need to be questioned.

I had mathematically shown your claim to be false

I don't see how observation is refuted by math.

the RSS data actually shows a cooling trend

Over the last 18 years up to present, yes.

It doesn't, and I already told you why.

Math doesn't trump observation.

you can't deny mathematical/scientific results.

Which is observation.


Aug 23, 2015
This is how you ensure you are correct: by actually analyzing the data yourself.

Not by comparing reality to prediction? Odd. That doesn't seem to be the scientific method that I've known for years.

It also helps to not be afraid of chucking a preferred theory

Agreed. That would be intellectually dishonest if a theory was grasped in a death-hold regardless of observation, or if data was manipulated to prove a theory.

Regarding the California Drought, California is not in an unusual situation given the geologic history of California. Given current observation of RSS readings and pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings, it is disingenuous to say that California's drought is a result of AGW as predicted by models; models that are influencing policy makers.


Aug 23, 2015
It isn't meaningless when compared to the theory that predicted the cooling wouldn't be there. The cooling falsifies the theory.

But you can't argue that if you haven't actually shown that there's cooling. I am telling you, you haven't, at least not if you only go by the RSS data.
And I gave an observational one.

Maybe I misunderstand. What are you using to show that 1997 to 2015 is a cooling period? Are you using the trendline?

If not, what are you using?
I trust what I can see, not what someone is trying to convince me of

You can't trust what you see. Your brain can easily fool you. See http://www.slate....ain.html for examples. This is why we must actually analyze our data. Eyeballing it won't do.
(to be continued)

Aug 23, 2015
(continued)
I don't see how observation is refuted by math.

You are mincing words, here. I am using math to make an observation.

In fact, if you are using the trend line from the 1997 to 2015 data to argue that cooling is taking place, then you, too, are using math to make an observation. If you aren't using the trend line, then you need to explain what you are actually using to show that the data actually represents a cooling period.

You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow curve fitting. I am not.

If I used a set of data points to calculate instantaneous velocity, you wouldn't argue that the calculated velocity was "just math" and not observation. It's the same thing here. I am using a standard tool of statistical analysis to show that your data set is lacking.

Try it, yourself.

Aug 23, 2015
There was statistically significant warming between 1997 and 2015. What was erronously known as the "pause" was a lower-than-anticipated *increase* in warming for that short-term period. As the time period has increased (because that year was deliberately cherry-picked), it's become clear the warming is consistent with climate models. There was definitely, absolutely, definitively no COOLING. The idea there was is actually completely hilarious. It's like you were looking at data for the wrong planet.

Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
I said
I am using a standard tool of statistical analysis to show that your data set is lacking.

Let me put it a different way. I used a standard tool of statistical analysis to MEASURE the fitness of your data. I did not know what the results would be before hand. What I obtained was an observation that your data set was insufficient to suggest a cooling trend. Had it reported otherwise, I would have had no problem mentioning it to you and conceding that the RSS data was, indeed, evidence for cooling (I admit that I might have had to swallow my pride).

However, my analysis tells me otherwise. I can't ignore it. To do so would be dishonest.

Aug 23, 2015


Oh, Vet, Vet, Vet...lol...really? This, gentle reader is the face of AGW. Vet, seriously... you shouldn't be known for parroting spew. Be original, be yourself; it's much more likable.


You're hiding from Captian Stumpy because you can't intelligently counter his sound arguments and empirical evidence.

Aug 23, 2015
I am telling you, you haven't, at least not if you only go by the RSS data.

I'm also going by pre-Karl HADCRUT4 data.

Are you using the trendline?

Yes

Your brain can easily fool you.

Agreed. The numbers created a graph, that resulted in a trendline.

I am using math to make an observation.

I disagree. You're using math to come to a conclusion, that would need to be observed to be proven true.

definitively no COOLING.

I wonder why the trendline goes down then.

data set was insufficient to suggest a cooling trend

The trendline went down. Are you seeing it go up?

What is a statistically significant period of time for you, and why?

You're hiding from Captian Stumpy because you can't intelligently counter his sound arguments and empirical evidence.

Vet, you're prejudiced. I hope I don't have to, but if you parrot his nonsense, you'll get muted too.


Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
If you are using a trend line to observe something, you have to worry about all the statistical baggage that comes with it.

Trend lines are inherently statistical entities. That means that they come with uncertainty. Any scientist who presents a trend line without also mentioning its uncertainty is not doing his/her job.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the trend line to accept, and which parts to ignore. The trend line that you are using to claim that the RSS data shows cooling, unfortunately for you, comes with a coefficient of determination that is, quite frankly, awful, and we can see this in comparing it with the coefficient of determination of the 1980 to 2015 data set.

Now, it might be that you have other evidence for this cooling, but I am still stuck on your point that the RSS data indicates cooling. Thus far, you have provided no good reason why it does. If I get anything out of this conversation it would be to resolve this point.

Aug 23, 2015


Vet, you're prejudiced. I hope I don't have to, but if you parrot his nonsense, you'll get muted too.

That's what cowards do, stick their fingers in their ears and run away.

Aug 23, 2015
@thefurlong - he's cherry picking his start and end dates and then putting an Excel linear trend line through to accentuate short-term variation. It's classic Daily Mail cherry picking. I appreciate your attempt to be polite to him but someone this committed to denial isn't going to be convinced by evidence or logic.

Even if air temps did show a cooling trend - which they don't - the permafrost is thawing, glaciers are retreating and global sea ice is at record lows. Only someone completely dedicated to denying reality can deny that.

Aug 23, 2015
If only it were simple, ignorant buffoonery
@Caliban
i see your point. and i submit to your judgement. just thought i would add a few thoughts, that's all. THANKS
Math doesn't trump observation
@D
in this case, it is not trumping observation, it is showing you that you are missing something (like: more data to be more accurate. it can't be BOTH cooling and warming- the TREND shows warming. only by cherry-picking the data can you get "cooling")
That doesn't seem to be the scientific method that I've known for years
you have just demonstrated, for the past few months especially, that your "familiarity" with the scientific method stopped in gradfe school... and likely was ignored in high school. especially MATH and Physics
furlong hasn't even gotten that technical yet... all high school level stuff here!
just wait till he starts pulling data out of the current studies! you know, the ones you've ignored from me, Thermo, Runrig, and so many others!

Aug 23, 2015
BTW- THANKS, Vietvet!
Vet, you're prejudiced. I hope I don't have to, but if you parrot his nonsense, you'll get muted too
TRANSLATION: anyone who proves that i am the idiot pushing a known lie/fallacious set of data because i refuse to acknowledge scientific studies and i collect my data from well known widely proven fraudulent sources will be muted so that i can live peacefully in my own little delusional trolling world
he's cherry picking his start and end dates ...linear trend line through to accentuate short-term variation. It's classic Daily Mail ... someone this committed to denial isn't going to be convinced by evidence or logic
@Leetenant
very true
wuwt, daily mail or dr roy are his likely sources for this argument, so he doesn't comprehend what furlong is actually telling him (IOW- scientifically illiterate)
he only knows how to parrot his mentors, not do the work/science

epic failure of his for the world to watch, just like alchie/wp

Aug 23, 2015
Honestly, it was not rhetorical. My intention was actually to see what the uncertainty in the trendlines demonstrated in the website I provided was. I actually did not expect the coefficient of determination to be so piss poor, but there it is.

My philosphy is always that if you doubt scientific consensus, do your own calculations/experiments. You can argue until you're blue in the face with words, but you can't deny mathematical/scientific results
@furlong
you should actually review his comments here as well: http://phys.org/n...sts.html

they might offer insight to his delusion and his reasoning for ignoring data
personally, i don't think you will get through... you will eventually be "muted"... but continue to post. it shows more and more about his failings and the data i am getting is GREAT

i can use it all

Aug 24, 2015
Donglish ever so making a clown of himself really expressing his shallow understanding of science, still alienated by the word itself, those silkwormies really controlling his mind here, remember little monkey, there is life outside the box, real life... we'll help you when you get out.. ;)

Aug 24, 2015
Thus far, you have provided no good reason why it does. If I get anything out of this conversation it would be to resolve this point.

Because the trendline goes down.

I recognize that a longer trend is more accurate. This is why I asked you what a statistically significant period of time would be.

he's cherry picking his start and end dates and then putting an Excel linear trend line through to accentuate short-term variation.

No, I'm calculating how far we can go back in time and still trace to the present day an indicated cooling trend. I didn't put any lines in there; it all comes from the woodfortrees application. If you want to indict them, I suggest you go to the source.

Even if air temps did show a cooling trend - which they don't

Over the last 18 years, they do.

the permafrost is thawing, glaciers are retreating and global sea ice is at record lows

Are any of these changes outside the natural bounds of variance?


Aug 24, 2015


Vet, you're prejudiced. I hope I don't have to, but if you parrot his nonsense, you'll get muted too.

That's what cowards do, stick their fingers in their ears and run away.

You're George, aren't you? lol how many accounts do you have, mytwocts? Anyway, if you parrot the idiocy, you'll go the same way they did.

Stumpy, Menelo, you're still muted. Relax.

Aug 24, 2015
@denglish
Because the trendline goes down.

And it has a vanishingly small coefficient of determination. But you don't seem to understand just how damning that is, so let me point something else out to you that I actually just realized.

Take a look at the slope of your trend line, and its uncertainty.

The slope is -0.00025947
The uncertainty is 0.002052849

Now, the first thing I will point out about this is that the absolute value of your uncertainty is LARGER than that of your value. That's BAD, but you probably don't understand why, so let's think about this further.

Your actual slope is ANYWHERE BETWEEN -0.00025947-0.002052849 and -0.00025947+0.002052849

Explicitly, your slope could be anywhere between -0.002312319 and 0.001793379. Your slope could actually be positive! So, 43.68% of your possible slopes are positive.

What does this mean? Basically, you could be right or wrong. Based off of this data set, WE DON'T KNOW.
(to be continued)

Aug 24, 2015
(continued)
So, considered alone, your trend line is about as good as a statistical fluctuation. We don't even need to compare it to any other data set to see how poor it is. You're really clutching at straws if you think that it is evidence of a cooling trend. What you are implicitly claiming is that statistical fluctuations are sufficient for claiming actual trends. That's bad science.

Now, we don't really need to compare them at this point, but let's do it for kicks, and consider the uncertainty for the 1980 to 2015 data set.

Explicitly, the slope there is 0.012163171+-0.000808985. Notice, here, that the uncertainty is ORDERS of magnitude SMALLER than the value. Compare this with the previous slope in which the uncertainty was actually 10x larger than the value!

Explicitly, the slopes are anywhere between 0.011354186 and 0.012972156. So, at its most inaccurate, the actual slope is STILL positive.

See the stark difference?

Aug 24, 2015
Because the trendline goes down.

And actually, this isn't even accurate.

The trend line COULD be going down, BUT NOT NECESSARILY. It's also just about as likely to go up. Yes, it is just slightly more biased towards going down than going up. Yes, it's evidence for cooling, but it is extremely weak evidence. If you're using it as the main reason for you claim, you either don't understand how evidence works, or you are desperate.

I remain unconvinced of your claim.

Aug 24, 2015
Basically, you could be right or wrong. Based off of this data set, WE DON'T KNOW.

So what is a statistically significant period of time?

Basically, it's evidence for cooling, but extremely weak evidence.

Evidence is evidence.

If you're using it as the main reason for you claim

I would use the HADCRUT4 readings too, but those were changed by the Karl paper.

you either don't understand how evidence works, or you are desperate

Its pretty clear to me. Evidence is not hard to understand. Not desperate, just an interested observer.

So, I'll revise my position.
1. California's drought is not a significant event when viewed from the standpoint of geologic history.
2. There is some evidence of troposphere cooling over the last 18 years, which from a short-term standpoint (18 years), brings the article's title into question.

Aug 24, 2015
Check out what I found.

California Mean temperature Departure 1949-2015.

http://www.calclim.dri.edu/

What do you make of it? My first thought is that according to this graphic, I don't think California has warmed significantly enough to write an article ascribing the drought to AGW, or global warming.

Aug 24, 2015
"But warming changes the baseline amount of water that's available to us, because it sends water back into the sky."

Where it condenses, forms clouds, and rains again? Wouldn't the evaporation rate also be increasing over the Pacific Ocean where I'd presume California rains come from to begin with?

Aug 24, 2015
Any scientist who presents a trend line without also mentioning its uncertainty is not doing his/her job.

Uh huh, and what do you say about those who manipulate...er excuse...correct the temperature data and present it as fact.

Aug 24, 2015
So what is a statistically significant period of time?

Currently, I don't know. Stumpy says 30 years, and I am inclined to believe him, but regardless of that, it certainly isn't a period of time with a trend line that has a slope that is 10x smaller than its uncertainty.
Evidence is evidence.

No, that's not correct. In establishing anything, you need ENOUGH evidence. To even say that this indicates that a cooling trend exists is a stretch. Really, I am giving this too much credit. This %^&*&@! wouldn't fly in an undergraduate physics lab. You know what we do to values that are smaller than their uncertainties, there? WE TREAT THEM AS NEGLIGIBLE. I am being kind by saying that it is even the barest of evidence.

Just going by the RSS data, you don't have enough. You're not even close. So, I will concede that it is evidence, only if you concede that it is not nearly enough to substantiate your claim.

Aug 24, 2015
Any scientist who presents a trend line without also mentioning its uncertainty is not doing his/her job.

Uh huh, and what do you say about those who manipulate...er excuse...correct the temperature data and present it as fact.

I call them climate deniers. ;)

Aug 24, 2015
Uh huh, and what do you say about those who manipulate...er excuse...correct the temperature data and present it as fact.

In all seriousness, though, we can certainly have a debate about whether this actually happens enough in climate science to warrant incredulity at some point in the future, but right now, we are not talking about that.

Right now, we are trying to establish whether denglish is correct in claiming that the RSS data gives sufficient evidence for cooling to warrant any further discussion about cooling, and so far, he hasn't presented a very convincing argument.

We need to stay on topic. That's the only way we'll ever resolve anything.

For that matter, antigoracle, what do you say to the fact that denglish's trendline's slope uncertainty is larger than its slope? Would you consider this sufficient evidence for cooling?

Aug 24, 2015
Currently, I don't know. Stumpy says 30 years, and I am inclined to believe him, but regardless of that, it certainly isn't a period of time with a trend line that has a slope that is 10x smaller than its uncertainty
@furlong
this argument started with uba and it appears d is taking the same tactic, but using a slightly different argument... like you said
This %^&*&@! wouldn't fly in an undergraduate physics lab
i contacted NOAA/EPA and WMO- trends usually are 30yrs minimum
these facts can be verified here: http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#C
you can also contact WMO (etc) to verify
or, if you really feel like wasting time, google search arguments between uba and i (LOL)

your reasoning above is completely destroying his argument, he just simply doesn't understand it
he gets his info from anti-AGW sites, wuwt, dr roy, etc...so unless they post something about this, he will be in the dark as to what to say about your posts

Aug 24, 2015
@furlong... after you teach the idiot dung about statistics and how to get accurate answers... perhaps you should address his attempt at diversion?
I don't think California has warmed significantly enough to write an article ascribing the drought to AGW, or global warming
i want to know how he thinks that weather or localised climate somehow trumps global measurements...
i would also like to know why he selected such a small area (cali) rather than, say, the Sahara (3,629,360 sq mi), or even a regional area?
his argument is like saying "the temperature in the forest shade in my back yard in Alaska on the northern slope of the mountain which always has a cold northern wind is always a nice cool spot, plus freezes my creek in winter, so global warming can't be real"

or perhaps something like "my A/C in my house keeps the temp at 65deg f, so global warming can't be real"

THANKS for continuing so patiently!
d is a "reg mundy" denier type, FYI

Aug 24, 2015
So, I will concede that it is evidence, only if you concede that it is not nearly enough to substantiate your claim.

I'll take your word for it; I'm not a statistician, let's see what happens in 12 years. :-)

In the meantime, I'll continue to say it, because I think that coupled with the pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings, it is reasonable to say more than it is reasonable to say the RSS reading indicate warming.

Settled? I hope so.

I call them climate deniers.

Even Karl et. al.? :-)

What did you guys think of the California Mean Temperature Departure? After looking at it closer, it does get interesting on several fronts.

You're still muted Stumpy, relax.


Aug 24, 2015
I'll take your word for it; I'm not a statistician

Finally! Praise Bob! We are getting somewhere...I think.
In the meantime, I'll continue to say it, because I think that coupled with the pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings, it is reasonable to say more than it is reasonable to say the RSS reading indicate warming.

All right, so I will ask something similar to what I asked you before.

Namely, do you have any other evidence than RSS and the pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings? This is important, because it helps us establish a threshold for when one of us should concede to the other.

If those are the only evidence, and I show your HADCRUT4 claim to be lacking, like I have shown your RSS claim to be lacking, then would that be sufficient to cast doubt on your assertion that we are in a cooling period? (To be honest, I don't know if I will because I haven't yet done the research. It's entirely possible that your claim is justiifed as I currently know nothing about it).

Aug 24, 2015
In the meantime, I'll continue to say it
TRANSLATION: since it has been explained to me in a methodical, logical manner and i can see that i am wrong, i am gonna continue to spread this blatant lie because i don't want to accept the scientific evidence, nor the facts
because I think that coupled with..
TRANSLATION: even though it was explained, and everyone can see that i am a complete idiot and as scientifically literate as a grade-school failure, i am going to make irrelevant references so that i sound smart, because my anti-AGW sites tell me to
What did you guys think of...
DISTRACTION: irrelevant red herring- see above
You're still muted Stumpy
TRANSLATION: since i can't provide ANY reputable evidence, i will ignore anyone refuting me repeatedly proving that i am simply here to TROLL and obfuscate actual science with known fallacies, irrelevant data, red herrings, strawman, stupidity and debunked lies...
then tell them whenever they post to anyone

Aug 24, 2015
i contacted NOAA/EPA and WMO- trends usually are 30yrs minimum
these facts can be verified here: http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#C
you can also contact WMO (etc) to verify

Thanks, Captain. Do you know the justification for 30 years, though?

Also, I came across this:
http://www.realcl...or-what/

, which mentioned this algorithm:
http://www.change...ion.html

that is used to determine the regions in a data set that have the most statistically significant amount of change, so I kind of wonder if 30 years is a bit of an oversimplification. What do you think?

Aug 24, 2015
THANKS for continuing so patiently!
d is a "reg mundy" denier type, FYI

Do not mention he who shall not be named! I am sure he scours the internets looking for anyone who mentions him just to satisfy his perverse sense of narcissism.

Aug 24, 2015
would that be sufficient to cast doubt on your assertion that we are in a cooling period?

I'd be interested to see what you arrive at, but from what I've seen of the two graphs in question, that there is greater reason to have doubt that they indicate warming.

So, it may be a waste of your time. I can buy your statistical analysis, but in the end I'm a regular Joe that sees a line - starting 18 years ago all way up to the present - going down, not up.


Aug 24, 2015
Do not mention he who shall not be named! I am sure he scours the internets looking for anyone who mentions him just to satisfy his perverse sense of narcissism.

Oh furlong, and you were doing so well. :-(

Aug 24, 2015
Do not mention he who shall not be named! I am sure he scours the internets looking for anyone who mentions him just to satisfy his perverse sense of narcissism.

Oh furlong, and you were doing so well. :-(

That wasn't about you. That was about someone who goes by the handle of Reg Mundy, but I prefer not to talk about him, because, like a particularly incompetent version of Beetlejuice, mentioning his name too many times might cause him to appear and immediately do a face plant of reasoning failure.

Aug 24, 2015
Do not mention he who shall not be named! I am sure he scours the internets looking for anyone who mentions him just to satisfy his perverse sense of narcissism.

Oh furlong, and you were doing so well. :-(

That wasn't about you. That was about someone who goes by the handle of Reg Mundy, but I prefer not to talk about him, because, like a particularly incompetent version of Beetlejuice, mentioning his name too many times might cause him to appear and immediately do a face plant of reasoning failure.

Ah, gotcha. thanks for the clarification, and lol.

Aug 24, 2015
I'd be interested to see what you arrive at, but from what I've seen of the two graphs in question, that there is greater reason to have doubt that they indicate warming.

No offense, but given your level of vehemence in rejecting modern climate science, unless there is some other evidence you use, I find it surprising that you would be so wishy-washy about this. If you consider it strong evidence, you should have no objection to agreeing to reexamine your premise if it is shown to be insufficient.

After all, it IS strong, right? If so, then I will be unable to show that it is insufficient, so what do you have to lose?

Aug 24, 2015
Thanks, Captain. Do you know the justification for 30 years, though?
@furlong
i am still looking for that e-mail i got from them... sorry i can't find it. i don't remember right off hand, but i do have it somewhere. sorry
it might actually be faster to directly contact them, so i will do that as well as keep looking. i have about 5 different computers to sift through
Do not mention he who shall not be named!
ROTFLMFAO
kinda like rc? LMFAO
mentioning his name too many times might cause him to appear and immediately do a face plant of reasoning failure
i am SO going to find a pic of him and apply this to it for the funniest PO meme ever! ROTFLMFAO

if you can, set up a sciforum or sapo's joint account and contact me via PM... my handle is TruckCaptainStumpy (PO would let me have Truck in the name... too long i guess)

Aug 24, 2015
So, it may be a waste of your time. I can buy your statistical analysis, but in the end I'm a regular Joe that sees a line - starting 18 years ago all way up to the present - going down, not up.

Right, but you need to consider the fact that when you just see the line, you aren't seeing everything. What they really need to show is not a line, but a...err...region, for lack of a better word. The line is just there for easy visualization, but trend lines are ALWAYS calculated with an uncertainty. Whenever you see one, you should always ask what the uncertainty is.

I, too, am a layman in climate science. The only thing I would say I have over you is that I have more mathematical/physics training, so I can often recognize technical BS, even when dressed up in fancy jargon.

But otherwise, admittedly, I am only certain because I trust the consensus of climate science. The more I learn about this, though, the more that changes.

Aug 24, 2015
Capt:
I got your mail re the 30 years thing.

I have just assumed it to be a convention in that, that period of time eliminates natural climate cycles, though I know the AMO may last longer.
I found this on a WMO page....
"A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.".

Aug 24, 2015
Capt:
I got your mail re the 30 years thing
@Runrig
Thank you for that information. I didn't catch that on the WMO page, must have been reading too fast?

Thanks again

@Furlong
is that enough or shall i continue to dig for more information?

Aug 24, 2015
Capt:
I got your mail re the 30 years thing
@Runrig
Thank you for that information. I didn't catch that on the WMO page, must have been reading too fast?

Thanks again

@Furlong
is that enough or shall i continue to dig for more information?


No probs Capt ... always like to help.

Aug 24, 2015
I find it surprising that you would be so wishy-washy about this.

I used to be a believer in AGW. I don't' know that there was any one event that made me suspect it, but I like to think my skepticism goes both ways.

If you consider it strong evidence, you should have no objection to agreeing to reexamine your premise if it is shown to be insufficient.

Absolutely! But just keep in mind, I'm a guy looking at lines, and that's it.

What they really need to show is not a line, but a...err...region

This is an excellent point. One wonders what the margin of error is, and if they chose the median of it, or otherwise.

The more I learn about this, though, the more that changes.

In the end, what we do here will amount to nothing in the bigger picture. All I can do is let off steam, and hopefully learn something in the process.


Aug 24, 2015
@furlong - 30yrs is the accepted time period for determining a climatic trend. Anything less than that could be normal variation

Aug 24, 2015
No probs Capt ... always like to help.
I think i found that reference
@furlong
read this link: https://www.wmo.i...ucts.php

in fact, you might want to forward it to the idiot d as well... especially the parts about using statistics

Another document that seems to be REALLY relevant and helpful is here: http://www.wmo.in..._1_1.pdf

Guidelines on Analysis of extremes in a changing climate in support of informed decisions for adaptation
this document holds a lot of info... in the contents (Pg 4) might help you a lot, too

I am still reading through it, but if you search for "trend" then you will get some good info and references... just a start, though
sorry i can't do more

I can e-mail the above PDF if you contact me at sciforums or sapo's joint, if you can't DL it directly


Aug 24, 2015
I used to be a believer in AGW. I don't' know that there was any one event that made me suspect it, but I like to think my skepticism goes both ways
TRANSLATION: i fell for the conspiracy theorists because i am not scientifically literate enough to ask for source material that is reputable, and i can't differentiate between fallacious pseudoscience and actual science because i am too focused on my distrust of regulating/gov't agencies with my conspiracy ideation: see also- http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

...what we do here will amount to nothing...All I can do is let off steam, and hopefully learn something in the process
TRANSLATION: i know i am wrong because i have no evidence to support my conclusions without referencing debunked conspiracy sites, but i will continue to spread misinformation and lies b/c conspiracy
repeat ad nauseum

Aug 24, 2015
i am SO going to find a pic of him and apply this to it for the funniest PO meme ever! ROTFLMFAO

Wait, there are pictures of him on the internet? How unkempt is his hair? Does he have half an old-timey twirly mustache?
I found this on a WMO page....
"A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.".

Thanks, runrig.
I think i found that reference
@furlong
read this link: https://www.wmo.i...ucts.php

Thanks, Captain, that does help. Thanks, also leet.

@denglish
here are the links they provided:
https://www.wmo.i...ucts.php
http://www.wmo.in..._1_1.pdf

Aug 24, 2015
I used to be a believer in AGW. I don't' know that there was any one event that made me suspect it, but I like to think my skepticism goes both ways.

Well, may I ask why you did believe in AGW, in the first place?
Absolutely! But just keep in mind, I'm a guy looking at lines, and that's it.

Well, honestly, it sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What I mean is that it doesn't make sense to condemn climate scientists' methods without actually understanding them. What if you are missing something vital? You already WERE in presenting the RSS trendline as sufficient evidence of cooling--the uncertainty of the trendline.

If you aren't actually well versed in the methods used--if you are just "looking at lines", then why should that be satisfactory for you, let alone, convincing to us?

(to be continued)

Aug 24, 2015
(continued)
May I ask you a question? Shouldn't it bother you to have to take my word for it, when it comes to statistics? I mean, yes, I acknowledge that you don't have time to learn statistics, but at the same time, shouldn't it bother you that you don't understand statistical methods enough to confirm for yourself whether I am right or wrong?

I mean, what if I were FUNDAMENTALLY wrong, but you just didn't understand statistics well enough to spot my basic error? If I were you, that would bother me immensely.

I think you are doing yourself and your cohorts a disservice by publicly expressing such strong opinions without gaining an equally strong understanding of theory you reject. Imagine the butt you might have kicked had you been able to claim a strong understanding of the subject. Maybe I'm actually a lightweight, but you wouldn't know it because you are just, in your words, "a guy looking at lines."

Aug 24, 2015
@denglish
Anyway, that's all food for thought. I do intend to continue this topic, and follow through with the HADCRUT4 data, but it might take some time. Thank you for humoring me, though.

Aug 25, 2015
I mean, what if I were FUNDAMENTALLY wrong, but you just didn't understand statistics well enough to spot my basic error? If I were you, that would bother me immensely
this right here is the reason all of d's replies tend to be almost verbatim from wuwt and other conspiracy/anti-science sites. he can't understand that he is being taken- and being made the fool

for those who are on the fence:
i am not claiming that the peer reviewed system is perfect, nor that science is perfect
HOWEVER
when it comes right down to the nut-cutting... the evidence should be where you put your belief, and no one brings objective evidence to the table better than the scientific method

if it aint a reputable peer reviewed source, you should question it
AND
validated studies are the pinnacle of evidence... you can't get more "real" than a study that has been repeated and repeatedly validated (See GR/SR for examples)

Aug 25, 2015
Wait, there are pictures of him on the internet? How unkempt is his hair? Does he have half an old-timey twirly mustache?
@furlong
as long as there is a digital picture of a person on file somewhere (say: drivers license) then there is a pic of someone on the internet. all you have to do is know how and where to look.... dung gives off clues to location in posts, syntax, etc... then, with the right skills, you can snatch more information than you would ever need through various means

plus, with the popularity of social media and other internet stuff... there is bound to be something to be found

long story short:
if you are on the internet, you are vulnerable to information loss and your information is out there
no way around that at all
(case in point: recent cloud hacks of personal pics from phones)

plus: PO allows a lot of malicious software already in it's ad-ware etc... that's why JeanTate left

all ya gotta have is a little know-how & patience
ask SAPO

Aug 25, 2015


Vet, you're prejudiced. I hope I don't have to, but if you parrot his nonsense, you'll get muted too.

That's what cowards do, stick their fingers in their ears and run away.

You're George, aren't you? lol how many accounts do you have, mytwocts? Anyway, if you parrot the idiocy, you'll go the same way they did.

Stumpy, Menelo, you're still muted. Relax.


And we still and never will care if wer're muted by you, we care what the world sees and i'm sorry to say the world sees you looking like an idiot. Do get in some sleep though, it looks like you are anxiously spending your whole life behind the pc posting here, fresh air, friends and sunlight can be good you know.

Aug 25, 2015
Well, may I ask why you did believe in AGW, in the first place?

Because the original message was certainly a cause for alarm. I remember feeling disillusioned when the predictions didn't pan out, and climate-gate was revealed, and now the gigantic slush funds being created in California.

Then, I started reading. Climatology is very complicated, and it seems we learn something new almost every day of the earth's machinations. so, to call climate science "settled" is either naive, or disingenuous.

Well, honestly, it sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Fair point. I'm just a regular guy, and I see a line going down, not up. :)

I think condemn is too strong. I prefer questioning. Perhaps I need to be more careful in language used.

take my word for it, when it comes to statistics

My job is all about making decisions based on input from experts. I have a decent feel for it I think.


Aug 25, 2015
I mean, what if I were FUNDAMENTALLY wrong, but you just didn't understand statistics well enough to spot my basic error? If I were you, that would bother me immensely

this right here is the reason all of d's replies tend to be almost verbatim from wuwt and other conspiracy/anti-science sites. he can't understand that he is being taken- and being made the fool

I would say the same thing about wuwt, Dr. Roy, and everyone else he quotes. How does he know that they actually know their stuff?

My point is not to suggest that for any authority, "how do you know they're correct?" My point is, if you are going to express a strong opinion that goes against not just one authority, but scientific consensus, you should know what you are talking about so you don't waste everyone's time, including your own.

We could have avoided this entire RSS data tangent if denglish had understood, in the first place, that his trend line's uncertainty was unacceptable.

Aug 25, 2015
I think you are doing yourself and your cohorts a disservice by publicly expressing such strong opinions without gaining an equally strong understanding of theory you reject

I have to trust experts; from both sides, and there are plenty of them.

In the end if prediction doesn't meet reality, decisions get much easier.

Imagine the butt you might have kicked had you been able to claim a strong understanding of the subject

A butt-kicking contest goes both ways. :-) In the end, learning is the goal, as I know nothing done on these forums will impact the outside world.

Maybe I'm actually a lightweight, but you wouldn't know it because you are just, in your words, "a guy looking at lines."

Observations don't lie. If the line went up, it wouldn't be an issue relative to the predictions made by the theories.

Thank you for humoring me, though.

Likewise. :-)


Aug 25, 2015
Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate (CCSP, 2008). Indeed, "confidence has increased that some extremes will become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense during the 21st century" (IPCC, 2007).


From the introduction of the WMO paper. Placekeeper.

Aug 25, 2015
I would say the same thing about wuwt, Dr. Roy, and everyone else he quotes. How does he know that they actually know their stuff?

How do you know they don't?

In the end, it comes down to what is predicted vs observation.

the observations are not proving the predictions. Hence, the placekeeper re: IPCC storm predictions. I'm going to look into that a bit.


Aug 25, 2015
Because the original message was certainly a cause for alarm.

Interesting. Where did you first hear about it? Were you taught about it in high school? On television? In a book?
I first heard about it when they taught me about the greenhouse effect in middle school. That's why I find it so shocking that culture treats it as a controversial subject. To me, they might as well be questioning whether Native Americans lived in the US and Canada before the arrival of European settlers.

Aug 25, 2015
Then, I started reading. Climatology is very complicated, and it seems we learn something new almost every day of the earth's machinations. so, to call climate science "settled" is either naive, or disingenuous.

Well, I don't think anybody is saying that climate science, itself is settled.

No scientific fields are settled. There are always open questions.

However, specific questions are considered settled, and that does include that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.
My job is all about making decisions based on input from experts. I have a decent feel for it I think.

What do you do for a living if I may ask?

Aug 25, 2015
A butt-kicking contest goes both ways. :-) In the end, learning is the goal, as I know nothing done on these forums will impact the outside world.

On the contrary, I think it does.

There was a study done, which suggested that internet comments often affect public opinion more than the content of the article itself. In fact, the more polarized the comments, the likelier the public is to prefer one specific side over the other. I'll see if I can find it.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. Due to the nature of comments on articles about hot-button issues, it seems like most people simply read the title, then maybe the first paragraph, and then go straight to the comments. I am not sure why, though.

Aug 25, 2015
I would say the same thing about wuwt, Dr. Roy, and everyone else he quotes. How does he know that they actually know their stuff?


How do you know they don't?

That's a good question, and I think, an important one. The answer is also many-fold, but let me just express the most important reasons:

1) I have a technical background in physics and math, and so, though I am not an expert in climate science, I have enough training to often spot B.S. simply by the technical arguments being made.
2) When I don't understand enough of the theory, I look for articles by people with doctoral degrees in the subject that address the points being made. In comparing their arguments, I often find that the latter argument makes more sense.
3) I notice that when they provide sources, they misrepresent the position of the original authors, or cherry pick data to suit their own claims.

Aug 25, 2015
I remember ... disillusioned ...predictions didn't pan out
TRANSLATION: i know NOTHING about the scientific method, statistics and error bars, so when it was not exact and conspiracy theorists hopped on that band wagon to promote a blatant LIE, i hopped right after them
climate-gate
Funny how he hopped on THAT one, but apparently didn't follow all the ACTUAL details of that whole investigation
I started reading
because reading without comprehension is what conspiracy ideation does best! see above for details on that one!
to call climate science "settled"
WHO said it was settled? NOT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, that is for sure! there is more of that reading and comprehension FAIL!
2Bcont'd

Aug 25, 2015
My job is all about making decisions based on input from experts
but only the "experts" that are against AGW and SCIENCE... TRANSLATION: to actually read the scientific studies that prove it all wrong are HARD, and then there is the MATH... so i will simply follow ANY minority that says something that justifies my conspiracy ideation because it makes me think "I have a decent feel for it"
I have to trust experts; from both sides
then why doesn't he trust the SCIENCE? there are 97 "experts" and thousands of papers to every "denial" claim that he discusses... why accept the crackpots over the evidence?
In the end if prediction doesn't meet reality
how will D know this when he doesn't understand what he is looking at? this is proven with his comments about MODELS!

notice how all d's arguments are circular and comes back to "if the deniers say it is true, i MUST accept it as valid"????

Aug 25, 2015
I would say the same thing about wuwt, Dr. Roy, and everyone else he quotes. How does he know that they actually know their stuff?
@furlong
this right here is what i've tried to explain to him in the past: he accepts their "judgement" and conjecture, and follows their dumb'ed down explanation without ever comprehending their intentional fraud!
but when sites discuss this, they're simply extremist from the other side (or he attacks character)

point is: he will accept ANY denier site conjecture over the studies simply because HE CAN'T READ THE SCIENCE

what i don't understand is: he claims to want to learn, but REFUSES to read the studies or accept the VALIDATED facts of the BULK of the community of scientists... but somehow thinks it logical to accept the ravings of conspiracy ideation or frauds who've been outed simply because
My job is all about making decisions ...I have a decent feel for it I think
if he had said feel... he would side with the SCIENCE

Aug 25, 2015
A butt-kicking contest goes both ways. :-) In the end, learning is the goal
lets see what we can LEARN here by examining REALITY:
SCIENTISTS = 10x(1,000) with VALIDATED evidence!
DENIERS= 0
this is demonstrated in this article about a finite time period: http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

what do we learn? dung sides with the deniers because it makes him feel good to justify his conspiracy beliefs and ideation
this is called IRRATIONAL
How do you know they don't?
this was WRT dr roy-etc knowing their stuff
when you can see that something is fraudulent because it is not only wrong, but goes against the bulk of the science, and it is designed to LOOK legitimate when it is NOT a peer reviewed paper... and when you can see that the posts are against the BULK of the VALIDATED science... then the ONLY conclusion you can come to is that they're trying to CON someone

Aug 25, 2015
However, specific questions are considered settled
@furlong
IMHO, the better way to say this is that "there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim". it is not settled so much as there is absolutely NO evidence refuting the claims... in laymans terms, this is considered "settled", but as you well know, science is all about following the evidence, so NO SCIENTISTS will ever make the claim that anything is really "settled" so much as there is "evidence" and it is validated

i love your post refute to D about "How do you know they don't?"
but you can also add:
when they make a conjecture about the fallacious nature of a study (like Karl), but can't provide a peer reviewed study (evidence) which contradicts it and refutes the claims (meaning, they can complain with conjecture without evidence)
then any layman can make the assumption that there is NO refute because there is NO evidence

simple logic there, IMHO
one that d refuses to accept, though

Aug 25, 2015
Where did you first hear about it?

Don't remember. Please, keep in mind that there is no argument re: whether or not Climate Change is real. Of course it is. The concern lies in being able to justify the societal policies based on the science at hand.

Well, I don't think anybody is saying that climate science, itself is settled.

It used to be an AGW battle cry; maybe not anymore.

What do you do for a living if I may ask?

Operations mgt.

On the contrary, I think it does.

I admire your idealism.

That's a good question

I think that on your 1-3, those arguments can and are being brought against both sides and back again.

That's always been confusing to me, so I fall back on what is actually happening vs. predictions. It gets worse, because often observations are represented differently. What to believe? Lets fall back on your community theory. Who is most reasonable? Both sides fail again. What a pickle.


Aug 25, 2015
It used to be an AGW battle cry; maybe not anymore
it has NEVER been a battle cry... that is your "interpretation" of consensus in the subject because you don't understand that the consensus is actually just an observation that the bulk of the individual studies all collectively point to a very select few possibilities (like AGW)
What to believe?...Who is most reasonable? Both sides fail again
no, they don't
only ONE side actually is producing reputable peer reviewed science that is, was, and continues to be VALIDATED... that really is the key to the whole situation!
VALIDATION

d claims that the "pickle" is that neither side is reputable... but when it really boils down to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE... what can we see?
one side abides by the scientific method and actually gets validated data... the denier side has only conjecture, ad hominem, strawman, etc and blatantly has demonstrated an intentionally FRAUDULENT face... this has been demonstrated!

so- d lies!

Aug 25, 2015
It gets worse, because often observations are represented differently. What to believe? Lets fall back on your community theory. Who is most reasonable? Both sides fail again. What a pickle.


Agreed. That the validity of even simple measurements like surface temperature can be legitimately questioned leads to questionable faith in our ability to predict the future.

Aug 25, 2015
Agreed. That the validity of even simple measurements like surface temperature can be legitimately questioned leads to questionable faith in our ability to predict the future
and of course you can provide the empirical evidence in the form of a reputable peer reviewed paper which demonstrates that you are correct, right?

again:
you continue to post as though you have evidence that is considered reputable, but you have YET to be able to provide the same level of evidence that the bulk of the scientific community is giving WRT their studies

if you were correct, there would be 10x(1,000) times more retractions in the scientific world as your fraudulent co-horts published refutations debunking the science and data...

but what is "actually observed"?
your fellow deniers are NOT publishing reputable papers
NOR are they able to get papers retracted, refuted or EVEN CORRECTED

logic says: you have a problem with evidence, reality and living in the real world