Study shows increase in concurrent droughts and heat waves in US

Study shows increase in concurrent droughts and heat waves in US
Heatwaves place substantial stress on natural and man-made environments. The impact is exacerbated when heatwaves and droughts occur simultaneously. Credit: Jennie Brewton (University of California, Irvine, CA).

(Phys.org)—A pair of researchers with the University of California has found that heat waves and droughts overlapping occurred more frequently during a twenty year span between 1990 and 2010 than occurred during the twenty year span 1960 to 1980. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Omid Mazdiyasni and Amir AghaKouchak describe their study and suggest their results indicate a statistically significant shift in concurrent extremes.

Long heat waves can not only cause damage to crops, they can cause cooling bills to skyrocket stressing budgets and sometimes leading to area wide economic problems. When combined with , as the researchers note, they can lead to significant damage to both society and the environment.

As the research pair also note, the second period of time they looked at occurred during what has been called a hiatus of rising global temperatures (which some have suggested is due to heat being sequestered in the oceans) a period when they were not able to spot any increase in frequency of droughts or heat waves—but they were able to see very clearly that the frequency of droughts coinciding with heat waves increased dramatically. They noted also that the greatest increases were associated with the longest and most severe heat waves.

To come to these conclusions, the researchers studied heat and drought records over the past half century and then assigned certain definitions to conditions to allow for conducting a statistical analysis—a drought for example, was defined as a period of time during which the likelihood of precipitation was approximately 80 percent below the median precipitation level for a given area for a given time. Their analysis shows that most parts of the country experienced more concurrent droughts, but they were most prominent in the South, South West and some of the West. Notably, the reverse was found to be true for some parts of the Midwest and Northern parts of the country.

The researchers conclude by suggesting their study and others like it may help officials, farmers and other people better plan for future meteorological events, perhaps helping to mitigate the damage that is caused by long concurrent and drought events.


Explore further

New index measures the magnitude of heat waves

More information: Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422945112

Abstract
A combination of climate events (e.g., low precipitation and high temperatures) may cause a significant impact on the ecosystem and society, although individual events involved may not be severe extremes themselves. Analyzing historical changes in concurrent climate extremes is critical to preparing for and mitigating the negative effects of climatic change and variability. This study focuses on the changes in concurrences of heatwaves and meteorological droughts from 1960 to 2010. Despite an apparent hiatus in rising temperature and no significant trend in droughts, we show a substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves across most parts of the United States, and a statistically significant shift in the distribution of concurrent extremes. Although commonly used trend analysis methods do not show any trend in concurrent droughts and heatwaves, a unique statistical approach discussed in this study exhibits a statistically significant change in the distribution of the data.

Press release

© 2015 Phys.org

Citation: Study shows increase in concurrent droughts and heat waves in US (2015, September 1) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-09-concurrent-droughts.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.
608 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 01, 2015
More warmest Global Warming HOGWASH!........These so-called climate researchers need to kick the government grant habit and get a real job!

What do you want them to do? Not report on something that is happening just to suit your own bias?

You deniers have set up this self-fulfilling prophecy, where you claim that there is insufficient evidence of global warming predictions, and then dismiss evidence that confirms those predictions, so that you can continue to claim that there is insufficient evidence of global warming predictions.

And yet, you call people who accept the science biased. What a bunch of hypocrites you are.

Sep 01, 2015
...absence of clear climate change in the United States....

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
--James Hansen
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Sep 01, 2015
...absence of clear climate change in the United States....

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
--James Hansen
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Read the rest of the article, antigoracle. What does it say? Let me help you. Here is an excerpt from the next paragraph:
Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

(to be continued)

Sep 01, 2015
Deniers are on their own shrinking island. Go on then Mr Denier, deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Sep 01, 2015
(continued)
And most damning, here is their conclusion,

In the meantime, we can venture two "predictions" on "whither U.S. climate". First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s. The basis for that prediction is the expectation of continued greenhouse warming and probable slackening of regional ocean cooling. Second, regarding precipitation and drought, even without analysis of regional patterns of change, we can offer the probabilistic statement that the frequencies of both extremes, heavy precipitation and floods on the one hand and droughts and forest fires on the other, will increase with increasing global temperature...


What is reading comprehension, and how does it work?

Sep 01, 2015
Yes...and 1900-2000 was the most active solar cycle in >400 years.

Did sunspots then cause the drought?

CO2 has only been measurably "higher" for around 50-100 years.

I guess its clear- CO2 is the culprit since I don't like the rich oil companies

Sep 01, 2015
--James Hansen
@antiG
it was a dark and story night...
-Snoopy

CO2 is the culprit since I don't like the rich oil companies
no, it is about the evidence. regardless of how you feel or who you like or dislike


Sep 01, 2015
Here it is Chicken Littles. The truth and it shall set you free.
https://stevengod...e-fraud/

Sep 01, 2015
Here it is Chicken Littles. The truth and it shall set you free.
https://stevengod...e-fraud/

I find it interesting that you have nothing to say to me showing the article you linked actually SUPPORTS AGW predictions.

So, let me ask you a question. How many of these claims do I need to debunk before you admit that you don't actually have a case?

Sep 01, 2015
FritzVonDago naively & immaturely suggested
More warmest Global Warming HOGWASH!........These so-called climate researchers need to kick the government grant habit and get a real job!
How about getting an education in Physics and especially so
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Which leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Illustrated here
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Why is it FritzVonDago you go to a lot of trouble to show yourself up as uneducated, naive, immature and intent on being classed as a politically driven propagandist who is intrinsically stupid ?

Because a person with average intelligence would have a handle on what they don't know but, you have skipped that step out of bribes or bogan/redneck hubris to spout like a rabid dog.

FFS FritzVonDago get an education and don't even try as you have to appear so very stupid !

Seen you a few times !

Learn Physics

ie. Get an education !

or go away

Sep 01, 2015
This article is cool because the paper is available for reading:

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf


Sep 01, 2015
Deng said:
This article is cool because the paper is available for reading:

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf



Yes, this is a good paper. There are many good ones out there.

If you notice, it is heavy in statistics and if you go to the "supporting information" you will see how they did almost everything. This is something the climate change researchers did years ago. They made everything available. Because of that, if you are capable, you can go through their data and try to falsify the claim of each paper. So far, the theory of global warming caused by human increase of GHGs has not been falsified by anyone. Please show me one legitimate paper that falsifies human induced warming due to GHGs? I can show you a dozen web sites that CLAIM that AGW is a conspiracy but none of them are able to show that without serious problems in their methodology. Correct me if you have a good one that falsifies AGW.

Sep 01, 2015
How many of these claims do I need to debunk...yak..yak..yakity...yak

What have you debunked?
The "Father" of global warming shows you the UNDENIABLE RECORD that the US has cooled since the 1930s, while it emitted the most CO2 of any nation. Then, despite this FACT and with absolutely nothing to support it, he makes a PREDICTION that the US will suddenly start to warm, while, it turns out, the globe actually cooled.
And, how did the AGW Cult fulfil that prophesy?
With FRAUD of course - https://stevengod...e-fraud/
Now debunk that!!

Sep 01, 2015
Because a person with average intelligence would have a handle on what they don't know but, you have skipped that step out of bribes or bogan/redneck hubris to spout like a rabid dog.

Oh lookee, it's Muttering Mike, back and still PRETENDING to know science. This time though, he is braying like a donkey. Welcome back BRAYING Mike.

Sep 01, 2015
How many of these claims do I need to debunk...yak..yak..yakity...yak

What have you debunked?
The "Father" of global warming...


You didn't answer my question. How many of your claims do I need to debunk to convince you that you don't have a case?

If you don't want to answer that question, then, at least answer this: How many claims do I need to debunk to convince you that your case isn't as strong as you think it is?

As a token of sincerity, I can tell you how many it would take to convince me my case wasn't as strong: take anything that is considered scientific fact concerning AGW, and show me it is wrong.

Now, how many of the claims that goddard is making do I need to debunk for you?

Sep 01, 2015
So, a PREDICTION by an AGW Cult leader is now FACT.
How many times must I ask you this, before I can convince you, that you are an idiot?

Sep 01, 2015
So, a PREDICTION by an AGW Cult leader is now FACT.
How many times must I ask you this, before I can convince you, that you are an idiot?


There's no need to get defensive. Just answer the question. I want to know if I am wasting time by attempting to address the claims you are making.

Sep 01, 2015
I'm the one wasting time, you are a waste of skin.
https://stevengod...e-fraud/

Sep 01, 2015
This article is cool because the paper is available for reading:

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf


Thank you for the paper, denglish. It makes some interesting claims. One thing that drew my attention was
. Environmental hazards
often result from a combination of climatic events over a
range of spatial and temporal scales ...Most analyses of climate and
weather extremes typically tend to focus on a single climatic
condition; however, this univariate approach may underestimate the
effects of concurrent and compound extremes

If true, it's a good point. We might not be seeing the entire picture by only considering extreme conditions.

I have not read all of it, yet.

Anyway, thermo is correct. This stuff is widely available. You seem interested enough in this subject, and you already seem to spend a lot of time commenting. Why not spend some of that time, instead, getting more acquainted with the methods used?

Sep 01, 2015
Wow, antigoracle, way to step up to the plate for your cause! I think you're more interested in talking than proving your point.

I will give you one more chance, and then I will simply relegate you to the idiot table. How many of Goddard's claims do I have to debunk before you decide that your case isn't as strong as you thought it was? It isn't a difficult question.

As I said, for me, all you have to do is successfully debunk ONE thing in AGW that climate scientists have reached a consensus on.

What would it take for you? Last chance.

Sep 02, 2015
Aaaahh another round of whack n mole with the ususal suspects, i see the socks are back from the washing antisciencegorilla and his sockpuppet donglish competing as to who can comment the dumbest post as ever, cograts both of your hands fairing equally dumbl so far :D

Sep 02, 2015
More warmest Global Warming HOGWASH!........These so-called climate researchers need to kick the government grant habit and get a real job!


Spoken by an idiot paid in peanuts to spend his life commenting the biggest hogwash on physorg every day of his sorry assed life, got your peanuts for today for doing everything you can do be the first to add a dumb comment ?

Sep 02, 2015
Here it is Chicken Littles. The truth and it shall set you free.
https://stevengod...e-fraud/

I find it interesting that you have nothing to say to me showing the article you linked actually SUPPORTS AGW predictions.

So, let me ask you a question. How many of these claims do I need to debunk before you admit that you don't actually have a case?


You can take the monkey out of the bush, but you can't take the bush out of the monkey... ;)

Sep 02, 2015
No, the logic is backwards. In order to make a claim you need to prove it with data.

But they've done this. Over and over again. Over decades.

That's what peer review is for, and why we don't really consider something fact until we have OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for it.

What Thermo is suggesting is simply for denglish to engage in this same process of peer review. In peer review, claims are CONSTANTLY held to scrutiny, even established ones. Indeed, this is why we see articles with headlines like "Einstein's theory confirmed again" after more than 100 years because people are STILL trying to falsify it just to make sure it's true.

I'll tell you what's bad science. That's taking a hypothesis that has reached this status, and pretending like it still needs to be "proven" one more time before actually taking it seriously, like you do. That's called delusion.

Sep 02, 2015
No, the logic is backwards. In order to make a claim you need to prove it with data. You cannot put out an idea, and say that since no one can falsify it, it must be true.

Actually, what I really should have said is this:

They HAVE demonstrated it with data by releasing a paper. That's the whole point of releasing a paper--to demonstrate something. Now, of course, their demonstration could be wrong. But that's why we have PEER REVIEW to falsify it.

What thermo is asking denglish to do is nothing more than participate in peer review.

Sep 02, 2015
Why not spend some of that time, instead, getting more acquainted with the methods used?

I have two sons. Aside from work, I put everything I have into them.

So, no time. :-)

I'm going to read the paper over lunch today.

Sep 02, 2015
Why not spend some of that time, instead, getting more acquainted with the methods used?

I have two sons. Aside from work, I put everything I have into them.

So, no time. :-)

I'm going to read the paper over lunch today.


Yeah, I don't know how people with kids have time for anything, but anyway, what I am saying is that you have SOME time to devote to commenting on the internet, SOME time to find papers like the one you found, and SOME time to read them, even if slowly, over time. You are obviously interested in this subject. So, why not use some of that time to learn it properly? You don't have to learn it all at once. You can do so at your own pace.

Why spend your time looking things up you DON'T understand, when you can spend your time gaining an understanding, instead?

Knowledge is power. An illusion of knowledge is crippling.

Sep 02, 2015
As I said, for me, all you have to do is successfully debunk ONE thing in AGW that climate scientists have reached a consensus on.

What would it take for you? Last chance.

Well, first you have to grow a brain.
Then read this -http://www.wsj.co...13553136

Sep 02, 2015
As I said, for me, all you have to do is successfully debunk ONE thing in AGW that climate scientists have reached a consensus on.

What would it take for you? Last chance.

Well, first you have to grow a brain.
Then read this -http://www.wsj.co...13553136


Oh, yes, the venerable science journal known as the Wall Street Journal.

That, above all things, is where I should get my scientific information.

But why stop there? I hear Vogue is quite the authority on World History, and when I want to learn how stars form, People Magazine is the best source HANDS DOWN.

God, you aren't even trying. Congratulations, antigoracle. You've made it to the idiot table.

Sep 02, 2015
Why not spend some of that time, instead, getting more acquainted with the methods used?

I have two sons. Aside from work, I put everything I have into them.

So, no time. :-)

I'm going to read the paper over lunch today. -denglish

Since you spend hundreds of hours commenting on phys.org, this must be the work you refer to. Paid shill?

Sep 02, 2015
Deng: Did you get a chance to think about the comments I made at:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Your latest comments and your interaction with thefurlong seem to indicate you are really trying to understand the situation. If that is true, then most of us are willing to help you along the way. I would like to know if the concepts I laid out are understandable or if I need to dig into some of the issues to help with some of the details.

Sep 02, 2015
I did say - "first you have to grow a brain".
You see you need a brain to separate the FICTION, i.e. the PROPHESIES of the AGW cult, from the FACT i.e. the REAL WORLD.
Now, try again - http://www.forbes...-claims/

Sep 02, 2015
Anti said:
I did say - "first you have to grow a brain".
You see you need a brain to separate the FICTION, i.e. the PROPHESIES of the AGW cult, from the FACT i.e. the REAL WORLD.
Now, try again - http://www.forbes...-claims/


Ahh, I see you have moved from one great technical source (Wall Street Journal) to the other great source for peer reviewed manuscripts (Forbes). Is this the best you can do?

As for your latest source, the author says:
The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.


However, this seems to counter your argument that the earth is cooling and humans have nothing to do with any of it. How do you reconcile your disagreement with your own source?

Sep 02, 2015
I did say - "first you have to grow a brain".

You need to be more specific. Is this a brain that indulges in conspiratorial ideation? Because I think you have enough of that. We don't need any more.
You see you need a brain to separate the FICTION,

By getting my science from the Wall Street Journal...
i.e. the PROPHESIES of the AGW cult, from the FACT i.e. the REAL WORLD.

May I give you some advice?

People tend to, well, stop listening, when you start talking about global conspiracies. Maybe, follow Scientology's model and start out by sounding sane, and technical, and only hitting them with the crazy once you've gained their trust.
Now, try again - http://www.forbes...-claims/

Oooh. Forbes--a business magazine! Not as respected a science journal as the WSJ, but still.

Excuse me, now, while I go weep for my species.

Sep 02, 2015
Ahh, I see you have moved from one great technical source (Wall Street Journal) to the other great source for peer reviewed manuscripts (Forbes). Is this the best you can do?

He can definitely do better, when it comes to respected science journals. I bet the folks over at http://www.realfairies.net have something to contribute.
However, this seems to counter your argument that the earth is cooling and humans have nothing to do with any of it. How do you reconcile your disagreement with your own source?

coGniTivE DisSonANCE, baby!

My guess is that antigoracle approaches articles like small children approach dressing. He goes with the first thing he sees, and doesn't worry about whether the rest of it matches, fits, or even exists.

Sep 02, 2015
Correct me if you have a good one that falsifies AGW.

I find myself most disturbed by the failed predictions.

Deng: Did you get a chance to think about the comments I made at

Seen them, haven't chewed on it yet.

On to the paper.

Sep 02, 2015
Ok, read the paper, it was fun.

Everything is consistent re: verbiage and method, so there's no reason to question the findings that the percentage of heatwaves is greater in 1990-2010 than 1960-1980.

One of the things that I noticed, from Fig 1, that as the southern, plains, and desert areas increased in percentage, there were other parts of the US that experienced less percentage-wise, and at increasing degrees as time went from 3-day to 7-day.

This makes one wonder. Why is that? there seems to be a ying/yang effect.

It would be interesting to know what the ratio of high pressure events were between the two time periods. Were the heatwaves a result of weather events elsewhere, cascading to the measured point?

The paper, data and findings look solid, the question is; why is it happening? And, is it within the normal bounds of climatic variance over the earth's history?

Sep 02, 2015
I then think to myself, how about snowfall? Wouldn't common sense tell us that warming would be consistent over the seasons, and as such, warmer winters would mean less snowfall?

Not for DC:
https://img.washi...OUd6SebQ

Then I thought, what about winter temps? Shouldn't they go up too?
http://www.worldc...2011.JPG

While I was digging around, I found this. Now I don't know what to think.
http://www.noaane...006b.jpg

Sep 02, 2015
Deng: Part of the reason that the weather on the earth is heterogeneous is that the earth is huge compared to the convection that moves the air and water around. Because of that, energy and mass cannot be transferred instantaneously from the equator to the poles.

You asked about snow and that is a result of both climate and weather. In a warming climate, it is predicted that the amount of water vapor in the air will increase with warming of the air (this is covered under weather and psychrometrics). https://en.wikipe...ometrics

Warm air can hold more water vapor and is expected to do that when in contact with water. The increase in snow only occurs when water vapor is high and the temperatures are low (but not too low). Consequently, the locations of diminished and increased snow fall are hard to predict. This is similar to rainfall where we expect it to increase in some locations and decrease in others. Does that help or, ask for more.

Sep 02, 2015
Deng: You say you are most disturbed by the "failed predictions." Can you give me an example of what you consider failed predictions and where you saw the "failure" reported?

The reason I ask that is that what I have seen is an under-predicting of heat into the oceans and over-predicting of air temperatures. However, that is when "error-bars" are not shown. If the heat content of both air and water is taken into consideration the total enthalpy change seems to be within the error bars. As I said before, the models are coupled hydrodynamic codes and it is the overall change in heat content (enthalpy) which is predicted by the "settled science" not where that heat might end up (which is still a work in progress).

Please show me the sites that led you to believe the models are failures and I will look into it.

Sep 02, 2015
As I said, for me, all you have to do is successfully debunk ONE thing in AGW that climate scientists have reached a consensus on.

What would it take for you? Last chance.

Well, first you have to grow a brain.
Then read this -http://www.wsj.co...13553136


Oh, yes, the venerable science journal known as the Wall Street Journal.

That, above all things, is where I should get my scientific information.

But why stop there? I hear Vogue is quite the authority on World History, and when I want to learn how stars form, People Magazine is the best source HANDS DOWN... Congratulations, antigoracle. You've made it to the idiot table.


as usual, gorillacle can't get to grow a brain..Doh... :D

Sep 02, 2015
Anti said: I did say - "first you have to grow a brain".
You see you need a brain to separate the FICTION, i.e. the PROPHESIES of the AGW cult, from the FACT i.e. the REAL WORLD.
Now, try again

Ahh, I see you have moved from one great technical source (Wall Street Journal) to the other great source for peer reviewed manuscripts (Forbes). Is this the best you can do?

As for your latest source, the author says: The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.
However, this seems to counter your argument that the earth is cooling and humans have nothing to do with any of it. How do you reconcile your disagreement with your own source?

Gorillacle struggling to get those brain pills to grow himself a brain, yet again... Doh :D

Sep 02, 2015
Can you give me an example of what you consider failed predictions and where you saw the "failure" reported?

Thermo, google "temperature predictions vs reality". One gets their choice. :-)

I can understand the argument re: within error bars (shown sometimes), but when the policies being suggested and the news going out is to the high end of the predictions (which isn't being seen), one's sensibilities are affected.

here's one:
https://higherrev...lity.png

And another:
http://www.realcl...l122.jpg

Also, the infamous prediction of the ice caps being completely gone. Didn't happen.
http://ameg.me/

Oh, and Gore's thing too about it too.

Sep 02, 2015
Deng: Here is a "global" comparison of models with measurements. Note the gray area is showing us the uncertainty in the models. Every model and every measurement should have uncertainty listed. In the case of measured temperatures the uncertainty is small enough that on these graphs the line would cover the uncertainty.

http://web.archiv...odels-2/

I want to be clear, I am not saying that models are right. In fact, the models that are used to build airplanes are not even right - but they are very useful for design. They still have to fly planes to test them and that usually results in modifications that the models did not catch. However, it would be impossible to build a modern airplane without models.

Just as aircraft models are useful and getting better, GCMs are useful and getting better.

Continued for Deng


Sep 02, 2015
For Deng (continued): As for the predictions of the United Planet Faith and Science Initiative predictions, I think their name says enough. In answer to their observation about methane, there are still some scientists who have predicted high rates of release and other studies that have said that will not happen in the next few hundred years. I consider this to be an area that needs serious study (not a part of the settled science). There are real disagreements on this issue that have been going on for more than a decade.

When the faith-based research group quotes the NY times and "movie producers" as sources, we have to be skeptical of them. This is no better than antigorical quoting the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. However, they are discussing an issue that has a chance of happening (even if it is small in the next 85 years.

The arctic is melting:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Continued

Sep 02, 2015
Continued for Deng: It is melting at an alarming rate. I watch the graphs a few times a week and it is amazing from a statistical point of view how fast the melting is taking place. Note on the ice graphs they show the gray area as a deviation from the mean that measures 2 standard deviations from the mean. To be below or above the gray area in summer is a radical departure (can you explain why I used the modifier of "summer?").

Let me go back to the first graph you showed.

It has no uncertainty listed.
It is not global (it is equatorial).
It uses balloons and satellites for specific parts of the atmosphere column instead of either looking at means or showing the global sub-areas that are being modeled.

In other words, it is not comparing apples and apples.

For the second graph you list, it shows that the forecasts are within the error bars.

There is a lot more to say about all of this, but let me pass the ball to you to ask any other specific questions.

Sep 03, 2015
weather on the earth is heterogeneous

Yes, but one wonders; why is there a direct correlation between the increase in percentage in certain places in the map, and a decrease in others? This suggests to me that there is a need for greater understanding here.

the locations of diminished and increased snow fall are hard to predict

Cold is cold.

Every model and every measurement should have uncertainty listed.

A sampling of a whole lot of models and their means not getting close to observation is a significant falsification of the models' theories.

nited Planet Faith and Science Initiative

Where did you catch that?

The arctic is melting:

Yes, it does that in the summer. And 2012 seems to be worse than 2015, highlighting that ice replenishes itself. 2015 melt is also within the std deviation of 1981-2010. The 2012 and 2015 lines do not have uncertainties, so the melt may be actually less than 1981-2010.


Sep 03, 2015
It is melting at an alarming rate.

It does that in summer. It also comes back in the winter.

So, we ask ourselves, given the epoch we live in, is the wax and wane of polar ice out of the norm? Since 1979, a little:

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

It actually looks like we're on a comeback from 2011 and 2012.
http://ocean.dmi...._new.png

But remember when there was *a lot* of ice? I think we're lucky its in wane instead of wax:
http://polarmet.o...rain.jpg

Let me go back to the first graph you showed.

I can show a thousand others. Regardless of how we can pick them apart there is a message there: does man contribute to climate change? Yeah, probably. Does he contribute to the extent that justifies crippling economies and morals? To the extent of destroying the planet? No, probably not.

Sep 03, 2015
From Deng:

United Planet Faith and Science Initiative


Where did you catch that?


From the lead in to the video you linked. I had to watch it a couple of times and pause it to catch the name.

It is attention to detail that is a characteristic of science training. When I read a paper I read it multiple times and check the math. You would be surprise how errors can creep into a paper and it is the responsibility of the readers to make sure they understand all of it if they are going to use it later.

Go back to the COP video that is linked to your post and you can check me.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng said:
I can show a thousand others. Regardless of how we can pick them apart there is a message there: does man contribute to climate change? Yeah, probably. Does he contribute to the extent that justifies crippling economies and morals? To the extent of destroying the planet? No, probably not.


First, if I am given a figure from a peer reviewed paper there are not many ways to "pick them apart." That is part of what happens when you read a technical paper. You try to pick it apart. If you can, then the paper is not well written or thought out. However, with blog posts or poorly written papers it is easy to pick them apart. A second year engineering or science student should be able to catch the errors in a poorly written or thought out paper. That is why peer review is valuable.

Second, there is no evidence that mitigation of CO2 will "cripple" economies or "destroy the planet" so the argument is specious. Please show where this is shown to be true.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng said:
It is melting at an alarming rate.

It does that in summer. It also comes back in the winter.

So, we ask ourselves, given the epoch we live in, is the wax and wane of polar ice out of the norm? Since 1979, a little:

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


Deng, go back and look at what I said. I said the ARCTIC is melting and you showed the combined sea ice of the arctic and antarctic. This is what I was saying about attention to detail. If you don't pay attention to what is being said you will miss the point. This is part of the process of understanding what is being said. Every word should be understood. If you want to make your own point, make sure you are arguing apples against apples.

Sep 03, 2015
Go back to the COP video

Ah, that explains it. I didn't watch the video, I was referring to the Cambridge Professor.

Yes, very interesting name. :-)

You try to pick it apart.

On this site we are not at that level. If the graphs are libelous, no-one has acted on it that I am aware of. Well, besides the hockey-stick prediction that there has been some threat of a libel suit, but I don't anything has come of it except counterattack.

there is no evidence that mitigation of CO2 will "cripple" economies or "destroy the planet"

I did not say mitigation of C02 would destroy the planet. I believe the exact opposite. I think C02 is good for the planet. Attention to detail. :-)

Google CA SB 350. Not allowing workers to go to work will destroy California's economy.

Then, google CA AB 32. Businesses are limited in their output, with a goal of consist reduction, thus crippling their ability to produce.


Sep 03, 2015
There's plenty more concern regarding cap and trade and its impact on economies:
http://www.herita...nd-trade

This is what I was saying about attention to detail.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said polar.

If you don't pay attention to what is being said you will miss the point.

Totally agree. The point being that are we experiencing anything out of the norm in global time frames?

This is part of the process of understanding what is being said. Every word should be understood.

You're right in that understanding what is written is in short supply on this site.

If you want to make your own point, make sure you are arguing apples against apples.

Which is exactly what I did. Attention to detail. Read what I wrote above. Is the wax and wane of polar ice out of the norm? No, it doesn't appear to be.

Now, let's stop lecturing each other like children. Neither of us appreciates it.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng says:
There's plenty more concern regarding cap and trade and its impact on economies:
http://www.herita...nd-trade


Deng: Did you notice that this is the opinion (not a paper) by a member of the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank). You have to do better than this. There are a number of peer reviewed cost/benefit analyses that show different results. I consider the cost to be one of the "soft" analyses because we really don't know how much it will cost. Nor do we know if it will mean more or less jobs. Nor do we have a good idea of the impact in 100 or 200 years (this is what the models are for and the models are not there yet). It has been explained to you by me and others that the models are not the science, they are basic predictions based on the science (let me know if I need to explain that more).

Please let me know why you think an opinion piece from a Heritage employee is a legitimate URL for a discussion of the science?

Sep 03, 2015
I said the ARCTIC is melting and you showed the combined sea ice of the arctic and antarctic. This is what I was saying about attention to detail.
--thermoron.

Yep. What is that line you Chicken Littles use..... the Antarctic is NOT THE GLOBE, so GloBULL warming can't go there and that's why the ice is growing.
AGW Cult "science", where cherry-picking is "attention to detail".

Sep 03, 2015
I said the ARCTIC is melting and you showed the combined sea ice of the arctic and antarctic. This is what I was saying about attention to detail.
--thermoron.

Yep. What is that line you Chicken Littles use..... the Antarctic is NOT THE GLOBE, so GloBULL warming can't go there and that's why the ice is growing.
AGW Cult "science", where cherry-picking is "attention to detail".


This coming from the guy who does not understand the solubility of CO2 in water.

Great conversation going on at:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

It shows that Anti has zero science understanding. It is no wonder he does not understand the difference between an ocean (arctic) and continent (antarctica).

All he can do is call names such as "Chicken Little."

Sep 03, 2015
You have to do better than this.

I thought the same thing, but put it in there for a couple of reasons.
1. Political bias shouldn't drive beliefs.
2. He's a PhD in economics.
3. There appeared to be sound reasoning.
4. He made verifiable predictions.

Prediction: By 2015, about 500,000 jobs would be lost. Considering how many people have left the workforce, this prediction seems verified.

I'd be interested to know where you take exception to the paper.

"soft" analyses


No way. those are hard costs.

Nor do we have a good idea of the impact in 100 or 200 years

Makes sense. A PhD economist wouldn't go past 2030 from 2009. However, we are pushing our climate models (the ones driving the policy whose affects cannot be predicted) that far.


Sep 03, 2015
Please let me know why you think an opinion piece from a Heritage employee is a legitimate URL for a discussion of the science?

Its not. It is a side-bar re: the impact of AGW legislation on economies.

You requested it after I stated that falsified predictions and no firm evidence of globally unusual fluctuations do not warrant crippling our economies or our morals.


Sep 03, 2015
Deng said:
I thought the same thing, but put it in there for a couple of reasons.
1. Political bias shouldn't drive beliefs.
2. He's a PhD in economics.
3. There appeared to be sound reasoning.
4. He made verifiable predictions.

Prediction: By 2015, about 500,000 jobs would be lost. Considering how many people have left the workforce, this prediction seems verified.

I'd be interested to know where you take exception to the paper.


That is very reasonable. I will give you my objections to the paper. You did exactly the right thing by laying out the reason you chose this paper. Now it is my responsibility to explain why I see this as a political opinion piece instead of an actual analysis. This will take a while and I won't start on it for a few hours.

Sep 03, 2015
Cool, I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Here's a new one that make me wonder even more about the veracity of the models. Evidently, there are *far* more trees than we originally thought:
http://www.nature...-1.18287

I wonder how many trees were factored into CMIP5 as C02 sinks, and how this plays out re: the predictions vs. observations.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng said:
Makes sense. A PhD economist wouldn't go past 2030 from 2009. However, we are pushing our climate models (the ones driving the policy whose affects cannot be predicted) that far.


No, those who don't understand the difference between the "settled science" and the models keep bringing this concept up. That is not what I (and thefurlong) have been trying to point out to you. The science that is settled shows us that the imbalance in IR radiation will continue until we reach a new steady state. That steady state is shown to be more energetic (higher fluid and solid enthalpy than we have now). Again, how the extra enthalpy is distributed is the job of the models. There is significant uncertainty in the way the energy is distributed. We have a much more limited uncertainty in how much energy will increase over these periods of time. Let me know if you have more questions along these lines.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng observed:
Here's a new one that make me wonder even more about the veracity of the models. Evidently, there are *far* more trees than we originally thought:
http://www.nature...-1.18287

I wonder how many trees were factored into CMIP5 as C02 sinks, and how this plays out re: the predictions vs. observations.


Great question. When I first saw this I had to go back to the paper and the literature to verify my thoughts. Let me summarize the conclusion I came to.

1) The models do not get down to the level of individual trees. Instead, the models use grids that are hundreds of km in span.

http://www.ipcc-d...ide.html

2) The anthropogenic increases in CO2 are not dependent on the number of trees because they are measured values. They are attributed to specific sources because the sources are well known.

Cont

Sep 03, 2015
Cont for Deng:

3) Carbon sinks are defined by areas related to the resolution of the models and cannot take the number of trees into consideration. Instead they rely on information from forest specialists to provide CO2 balances.

It is interesting to note that based on measurements there have been "missing sinks" that have not been located. They don't even know if they are on land or oceans. The thought is that they are on land in the northern hemisphere because of the seasonal change in measured CO2 in the atmosphere. It may be that the missing sinks are individual trees and this paper will have an impact on future CO2 balances in the models (by changing the influence in specific grid locations).

Since the CO2 increases are measured and then balanced to determine how the model is to handle them (not based on individual cows or trees but rather bulk balances) the number of cows or trees does not matter.

Let me know if you want more on any of this.

Sep 03, 2015
Deng: I am now going to start through the URL you linked. It will take a while because there is a lot to cover in it. When I am done, I will let you know with an explicit note that says I am done. Please recognize that this will not be an exhaustive review, nor am I expecting to answer all questions related to the URL. However, I do expect you to bring up a number of points or questions that either I, or some others on the list, can respond to. Recognize that we are always at the mercy of the 1000 character limit per message and the 3 minute flood control. Because of that, I will try to put continued or cont at the bottom of a page I am going to write more on. If you have questions on something that says it is continued, please wait until I have posted the continued portions before asking your questions.

Onward to my analysis.

Sep 03, 2015
For Deng: Point 1) The URL says:

The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.


This is a disclaimer that you will never see in a technical journal. The reason is that companies, Government agencies, and Universities stand behind the research that is done by their employees. They expect quality control on the output from their researchers and there is considerable blow-back if there is any kind of chicanery. Being wrong about something is no reason for a disclaimer since scientists can make mistakes. However, such an occurrence results in retractions or corrections and any author does their best to be right, reflect well on their organization, and correct any mistakes. Please find me papers in peer reviewed journals that have a disclaimer like this. Seeing something like this brings my ears up.

Next up:

Sep 03, 2015
For Deng: Point 2) The URL says:

What Is the Problem with Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?

Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, is not directly harmful to human health, and is not projected to become so--even without legislative or regulatory action. CO2 is fundamental to all known forms of life. Indeed, studies show that increased CO2 levels are beneficial for crop production.

Nevertheless, driven by concern that increasing levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) will lead to a warmer world and cause environmental damage, there have been calls to significantly restrict emissions of all greenhouse gasses, but especially CO2. Among the proposals to reduce CO2 levels are carbon taxes and cap and trade.


Note that there are no mentions of the possible costs of warming. In fact, the first paragraph covers the concept that CO2 is a benign gas (direct effects) and is needed for crops. It does not mention that the present level of CO2 is what agriculture was bred for. Cont

Sep 03, 2015
For Deng, Point 2 continued: It is not like there are not a large numbers of papers out there on economics related to climate change. Here is an example:

http://ase.tufts....sts.html

I did not choose this because I think it is a great study. To tell you the truth, when it comes to economics this is not my field and I will stick to pointing out why something is technically wrong. In the case of this monolog, it is wrong on a lot of levels that are technical in nature. For instance, the only benefit listed is the "gain" they list as a drop in 25 ppm from otherwise attained CO2 levels. There is no mention at all of the predicted impact of rising sea level, ocean acidification, rising temperatures, loss of ice, etc... Without noting those this is a study that only looks at costs without weighing benefits. Continued

Sep 03, 2015
Continued point 2 for Deng: Again, I did not pick the URL I sent to you because of anything about the substance. Instead, it is available as a PDF that can be download for free and it shows the use of references. Notice that the references in the Heritage link number 3. Compare that with the references from the NRDC paper. What that means is that we cannot easily reconstruct what Kreutzer calculated because his methods are not clear. Whereas in the NRDC paper the methods are transparent and can be reconstructed. If I were serious about either of these papers I would dig in and try to reconstruct some of the predictions. That is the way I learn some of these new concepts. That cannot be done with the summary approach of the URL you linked.

Next point.

Sep 03, 2015
Point 3 for Deng: Back to the references. I expect there to be information in the references, from other sources, that bolster the arguments of the author. So, I tried to get into the references.

The first link gives me a 404 error for a broken link. It is also a reference from the Heritage foundation.

The second reference also gives me a 404 error and is also from Heritage.

The third reference is a single number that is supposed to come from EPA but it gives me a broken link. There is a second reference under the same number to IPCC and is another broken link. Maybe you can do better with the links. The bottom line is that one normally wants references from other researchers and organizations so that you can show you are not a single source for every number involved - or you show your methodology so it can be replicated. This URL fails that test for validity.

Sep 03, 2015
Point 4 for Deng: Point 4) The URL says
Our analytical models are not suited to making projections beyond 2030. Nevertheless, the economic impacts of this cap-and-trade program in just the first two decades were extraordinary. The estimated aggregate losses to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), adjusted for inflation, are $4.8 trillion. By 2029 the job losses in the manufacturing sector will be nearly 3 million. This is over and above the nearly one million manufacturing job losses that most economists predict will occur even in the absence of global-warming legislation.


The methodology is not shown and no cost of climate change is included. That means that they are saying that there will be no cost of global warming during this period. Their stopping at 2029 is also interesting because it means that they are discounting any costs of impacts in later years. The scientists are not just interested in the next 14 years, but also the next few hundred. Cont

Sep 03, 2015
Point 4 continued for Deng: The impact of CO2 generated now is expected to carry on for hundreds of years. What that means is that there is a compounding effect in that the impact today will be added to the impact of the next increment of CO2 next year and so on until the CO2 content starts dropping (not exactly, but close enough using a year as an example time interval). There will be a knock-on effect 100, 200, 300... years into the future. Not many people care when a century is a time frame because they will all be dead. However, scientists are supposed to look where others don't to see things the others don't. The next century is fair game for scientific projection. Probably not for economic. Let me give you an example. We expect Miami to be flooded by sometime next century under a business as usual scenario. What will it cost to relocate the equivalent of Miami in 100 years? Will the oceans be that high? Yes, analysis says that is likely. Cont

Sep 03, 2015
Point 4 continued for Deng: This is an economic projection and it does not even attempt to calculate the cost of doing nothing. You made the observation that one of the reasons you did not discount the link is that the author is a PhD. Do you think a PhD economist would just forget to balance the accounts and neglect potential benefits of action to lower the levels of CO2? It does not seem credible to me and I do not think this analysis would stand up to any peer review. What would you say if there was a paper out that was in favor of action and left out the costs of that action and ONLY included the costs of inaction? I am not saying there are not papers out there that do that, I am just saying they play to a biased base and are not fair papers.

Sep 03, 2015
Point 5 for Deng: The link says
The manufacturing job losses are shown in an attached chart taken from a study of an EPA mandated 70 percent cut in CO2.[2] Also attached is a map showing the relative importance of manufacturing to a state's economy.


Again, the reference is supposed to show the basis and the link is broken. How was that chart derived (derived by the same author). This is referred to as an "incestous" reference because it is by the same author. This just says that I am using this other person's analysis - and, oh yes, it does happen to be me.

Sep 03, 2015
Part 6 for Deng: The paper says
Some of the workers forced out of manufacturing will find employment in the service sector, but overall, the economy loses jobs. In some years, this overall job loss exceeds 800,000.


Again, no methodology. Did they pull these numbers out of a dark hole? Without available references the paper is worthless. This could be well defined or it could not. Is there any reason you would suggest I believe these numbers in the light of:

A) They have no working links to the three papers they cite?
B) Two of the three papers are from Heritage.
C) They have neglected to included the cost of inaction (no cost/benefit, just cost).

Sep 03, 2015
Part 7 for Deng:
Note: Current law already has many provisions for curtailing CO2 emissions. They range from local renewable-portfolio mandates to increased nationwide Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to subsidies for ethanol production. While the reductions in CO2 emissions are included for the purposes of meeting the emissions targets, the considerable cost of these programs is not included in our analysis. This is because the costs are attributable to existing legislation and will occur even without additional laws or regulations. Of course, if they were included, job and GDP loss totals would be even higher.


CAFE was designed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not to cut CO2. Don't get me wrong, the regulations are helping keep CO2 emissions from increasing as fast as they can, but have you noticed that manufacturers are making gas-guzzling super-cars again (which I love). Check out the Camero Z28 and others.

Sep 03, 2015
Part 8 for Deng: The URL says:
Eighty-five percent of our energy use today is based on CO2-emitting fossil fuels. The ability to switch to non-CO2-emitting energy sources over the next 20 years is limited and expensive. Therefore, significant cuts in CO2 emissions require significant cuts in energy use. The energy cuts, in turn, reduce economic activity, shrink GDP, and destroy jobs.


This is a false premise. He, as many others do, assumes that we are going to have to go back to the stone-age to be able to cut carbon. His idea that we must cut energy use to reduce CO2. One of my jobs used the term "energy services provided" instead of power produced. I have always like that perspective because it opens up alternate approaches to providing a service that does not have to go back to primary energy. In other words, if I want to cut down a tree, I have a number of methods available but they all provide the same "energy service" of cutting down the tree. Cont

Sep 03, 2015
Part 8 for Deng continued: Any reasonably good engineer can come up with alternate ways to provide an energy service. When it comes to CO2, I can give you the example of the cars and the CAFE standards. One of the reasons that engineers are able to produce the super-cars that chug down gasoline is that they have plug-in hybrids to balance the V-10 monsters. I am involved in a project to apply magnetohydrodynamic high-temperature combustors to use as topping units for coal fired utilities to assist in reducing the CO2 production by increasing efficiency. What we are doing is reducing the carbon intensity, even using coal. This is just one of many approaches that are being looked at to reduce CO2 without impacting our way of life. I have seen you, Deng, making the assumption that our standard of living has to go backwards instead of forwards. That might happen but it will be because of population pressures, not CO2. There are ways to reduce CO2 with less impact. cont

Sep 03, 2015
Part 8 cont for Deng: The idea that we are going to have to give up everything and change the way we live has zero basis in fact. It is total conjecture. It can be done that way (and politicians might) but it is not a technical barrier. If we can help people understand that they can still eat a hot meal, drive to work, air condition their house, heat their house, and lead the lives they are used to, we could get moving on mitigating global warming. If we toss up our hands and say that we are going to be sent back to living in caves or pedaling bicycles to run our hair driers (as your author claimed) it is no wonder the folks looking at the system, push back. I don't want to sleep in the cold and dark or walk to work when it is 25 miles away. Neither does anyone else and it won't happen. The whole idea of destruction of the economy has no basis in fact (or at least not in any legitimate paper I have read).

Sep 03, 2015
Part 9 for Deng:
Attached is a copy of a page from a 1945 issue of Mechanix Illustrated. It shows a cyclist pedaling a jerry-built generator to power hair dryers in a Parisian beauty salon. Though not the sort of green job that is currently talked about, this human-powered generator illustrates why costly energy policies are not a stimulus.


Really? 1945 for someone in Paris? Then to say
this human-powered generator illustrates why costly energy policies are not a stimulus.


You are going to have to explain to me why Paris right after WW-II shows us how we are going to have to produce power because of "costly energy policies." I'm serious on this one, please explain where he came up with the relationship between post-occupation France and costly energy policies.

I see this as deceptive for a PhD and something that will not sway anyone with any sense (but he was aiming it at the House of Representatives so he might have been right on message).

Sep 03, 2015
Part 10 for Deng: The URL says:
The cap-and-trade schemes, as well as more straight-forward carbon taxes, limit emissions by making energy sufficiently more expensive that they cut their energy use.
'

No, the plan is to reduce the carbon intensity of energy services (as I defined it above). Instead, the idea is to emphasize renewables and and energy efficiency so that those who deliver more energy services with less carbon have a competitive advantage. It is not intended to move me into a cave.

Sep 03, 2015
Part 11 for Deng: The URL says:
A person on a bicycle generator would do very well to average 150 watts of output during a day. At this level, a modern-day cyclist/generator could produce electricity worth 10-15 cents per day at retail prices. With sufficient subsidies, people could be induced to power such generators and the proponents could then point to the "green " jobs that have been "created." What is not seen is the value of the cyclists' forgone output elsewhere. Even at minimum wage, the value of the labor is $52.40 per day. So each human-powered generator would shrink the economy by over $50 per day. This is not an economic stimulus.


This is just in case anyone thinks the author was joking about the bicycle rider in France. He actually uses this example to show why it is not a good idea. Is he really expecting anyone to buy that this is where we are headed? Is this the insight we expect from a PhD? This is just reprehensible.

Sep 03, 2015
Part 12 for Deng: The URL says
Alternative energy schemes that require subsidies or that require protection from competing with conventional sources of power cannot be economic stimuli--their output is worth less than their inputs. An industry whose inputs cost more than its output is making the economy smaller and will necessarily reduce overall income.


The entire energy sector is subsidized. Why is the author in favor of subsidies for fossil fuels and not for renewables? If there was some mention of the past, present, and future subsidies for fossil fuels and their comparison to renewable subsidies this would have some merit. However, to ignore the subsidies for fossil fuels shows an interesting perspective. Doesn't this seem a little lame for a PhD?

Sep 03, 2015
Deng: As I said earlier, this will not be an exhaustive review. In fact, I am stopping at 12 points we can discuss. I think that further analysis of each sentence he put together would not add much to what I have shown as my view of the paper. Please look over what I have said, ask or critique (don't worry I have a thick skin) to your heart's content. I appreciate your listening. I consider my input done for now.

Sep 03, 2015
This is just in case anyone thinks the author was joking about the bicycle rider in France. He actually uses this example to show why it is not a good idea. Is he really expecting anyone to buy that this is where we are headed? Is this the insight we expect from a PhD? This is just reprehensible.

Hahaha. I have enjoyed watching your excellent appraisal of the URL go from mild interest to utter disgust and disbelief. It really is shocking to see the level of sophistry that "authoritative" global warming denialists engage in.

What sucks, though, is that a lot of people, who lack scientific training, are taken in by them, simply because they APPEAR professional. Maybe there ARE expert denialists, but these guys certainly aren't helping their case. If I were truly a respectable climate scientist, who did not subscribe to the consensus, I would be very vocal about distancing myself from the likes of these charlatans.

Sep 03, 2015
@denglish
Please try to address thermo's points before the comment I just made. I think they are more important for you to read.

Sep 04, 2015
This is just in case anyone thinks the author was joking about the bicycle rider in France.

I thought that was odd too, but went past it to the logical reasoning.

I think just about everyone from every side uses absurd imagery nowadays- probably something about the mentality of the average reader.

denialists

I'm not offended by this term, but as a German-Jew, it does hurt. Sometimes I wonder about the use of this term. How deep it is supposed to cut, and what the end-game is.

Anywho, lots to go over, thanks for the input, and bear with me.

Sep 04, 2015
Note that there are no mentions of the possible costs of warming.

Not the topic.

concept that CO2 is a benign gas

More than benign. Essential to life on earth. it is not a pollutant.

It does not mention that the present level of CO2 is what agriculture was bred for.

An anthropocentric initiative and unintended consequence.

Here is an example:

Economics of climate change, not the cost of trying to control something that might be out of our control.

There is no mention at all of...

All of these things have yet to be shown to be outside the bounds of natural climate variation.

Time to work, and its gettin' deep bbl.


Sep 04, 2015
I think just about everyone from every side uses absurd imagery nowadays- probably something about the mentality of the average reader.

Hi denglish. I don't think that's fair, though. For example take a look through the paper you initially linked: http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

They don't use ridiculous imagery. It's pretty much just a cut and dried exposition on how they analyzed data and showed an increase in concurrent droughts.

I think the point is, that if they use absurd examples in a serious manner to illustrate a point, like acting as if french people are going to start peddling bikes as a response to cutting fossil fuel use, then that should be a warning flag. Why don't you strive for better?

Sep 04, 2015
It's pretty much just a cut and dried exposition on how they analyzed data and showed an increase in concurrent droughts.

Yep, it's pretty much cut when you compare a cool cycle with a warm one. To truly make it dry, they would have to go back to the previous warm cycle, but conveniently did not.

Sep 04, 2015
I'm not offended by this term, but as a German-Jew, it does hurt. Sometimes I wonder about the use of this term. How deep it is supposed to cut, and what the end-game is.

I am not Jewish, so I don't have any idea of what the sensitive buttons Jewish people commonly have, and so, perhaps you are justified in being offended.

It just strikes me as peculiar, though, how you could appropriate a word that has such a wide application (and that has few substitutions) for the purposes of being offended. The appropriate term used for people in denial of the Holocaust was "Holocaust Denier".

Just so you know, I am half black, and am thus, no stranger to cultural micro-aggressions and faux-pas, but to me, your protestation of the use of "denialist" seems like a black person protesting the use of "racist", when not applied to a person who is being racist towards black people. I see no reason to be offended by it.

Sep 04, 2015
It's pretty much just a cut and dried exposition on how they analyzed data and showed an increase in concurrent droughts.

Yep, it's pretty much cut when you compare a cool cycle with a warm one. To truly make it dry, they would have to go back to the previous warm cycle, but conveniently did not.

antigoracle, shush. You had your chance to play with the adults, and you blew it.

Denglish and Thermo are doing it right. You are doing it wrong.

Sep 04, 2015
concept that CO2 is a benign gas


More than benign. Essential to life on earth. it is not a pollutant.


That's a specious argument. Anything in too large a quantity can be a pollutant. Water is essential for life, too. It would still be a bad thing, if say, you flooded the earth with it.

Moreover, CO2 is toxic to humans, and all aerobic life (as far as I know). Too much CO2 leads to hypercapnea. This is a bad thing. My mother died from it, slowly.

Sep 04, 2015
It's pretty much just a cut and dried exposition on how they analyzed data and showed an increase in concurrent droughts.

Yep, it's pretty much cut when you compare a cool cycle with a warm one. To truly make it dry, they would have to go back to the previous warm cycle, but conveniently did not.

antigoracle, shush. You had your chance to play with the adults, and you blew it.

Denglish and Thermo are doing it right. You are doing it wrong.

What am I doing wrong. Let me fix it.

BTW you are really going to go with the following.
Moreover, CO2 is toxic to humans, and all aerobic life (as far as I know). Too much CO2 leads to hypercapnea. This is a bad thing. My mother died from it, slowly.

Talk about absurd examples.

Sep 04, 2015
It does not mention that the present level of CO2 is what agriculture was bred for.


An anthropocentric initiative and unintended consequence.


Well, unless you know something, I don't, you are a member of the human race, so I don't know why it isn't a concern for you that something would endanger us, or at least make life harder for us. Of course, you likely won't be around for the worst effects of global warming that are predicted, but still, I would like to think you have sympathy for the people who come after you.

Sep 04, 2015
What am I doing wrong. Let me fix it.

For starters, provide articles actually come from science sources and not business journals.

But mostly, you need to converse fairly. Nobody is interested in conversing with a person who doesn't address to a counter-argument, and you don't. And it's really annoying.

BTW you are really going to go with the following.
Moreover, CO2 is toxic to humans, and all aerobic life (as far as I know). Too much CO2 leads to hypercapnea. This is a bad thing. My mother died from it, slowly.


Talk about absurd examples.

It's absurd to point out that CO2 is toxic to humans, or that I have personal, first-hand experience, with the effects of hypercapnea?

Sep 04, 2015
I see no reason to be offended by it.

Like I said, not offended. But by using such a term, do you expect, or do you present yourself as being able to deliver, constructive dialogue?

Sep 04, 2015
we cannot easily reconstruct what Kreutzer calculated

Good point, but he gives quantifiable predictions that can be verified.

Maybe you can do better with the links.

Nope, the same. the article is 6 years old. I have to assume that the links were good for a reasonable period of time afterword.

The reason I chose the article was because it gave hard numbers that we could look up to see how the predictions went.

The methodology is not shown and no cost of climate change is included.

Were the predictions accurate? For unemployment they are. There is no cost for climate change because the article is about the cost of cap-and-trade, not climate change.

GDP predictions are yet to be verifiable. Predictions from different sources are all over the place.

Their stopping at 2029

They said that their models were only reliable up to 2030.

but also the next few hundred

So far, those models looking far out aren't doing too good.

Sep 04, 2015
next century is fair game for scientific projection

Sure, but if the models projecting are already being falsified, then making policy decisions based on thsoe models is erroneous.

We expect Miami to be flooded by sometime next century under a business as usual scenario.

Miami averages to be 6 ft above seal-level. According to Yale, the seas are rising at an average of 1.7mm per year. 6ft = 1828mm / 1.7 = 1,075 years.

An unverifiable prediction, and certainly within the bounds of the earth's natural variances.

This is an economic projection and it does not even attempt to calculate the cost of doing nothing.

That's because the paper is about Cap & Trade, not doing nothing.

Do you think a PhD economist would just forget to balance the accounts and neglect potential benefits of action

Not within the scope of the paper.


Sep 04, 2015
I see no reason to be offended by it.

Like I said, not offended. But by using such a term, do you expect, or do you present yourself as being able to deliver, constructive dialogue?

That's a good point. It carries negative connotations, and, as such, has the possibility of shutting the other person off, especially if they don't share your view.

However, you also need to understand that the person making this accusation truly believes it. The intent is not just to personally attack you. It's (hopefully) to shock you by being brutally honest. It's also a matter of attempting to shift a narrative that we feel has been hijacked by your movement. Before, you were called "climate skeptics." But most of you aren't skeptics, and do not apply critical thinking to your claims (or the claims you reject, for that matter), and so don't deserve to be called skeptics.

(to be continued)

Sep 04, 2015
(continued)
It's also a matter of the TYPE of arguments you use. People who don't subscribe to AGW tend to use extremely fallacious arguments. As an example, consider antigoracle. He thinks that name-dropping Al Gore somehow has something to do with the arguments that climate scientists actually make.

Or, consider the article that you provided. A trustworthy author would not offer such ludicrous non-sequiturs as "If we curb the use of fossil fuels, we'll all get our power by pedaling bicycles." Or, say things that are undeniably wrong, like, "CO2 is not harmful."

Sep 04, 2015
Wow. Just wow. Ok, back to the paper.

Sep 04, 2015
Again, no methodology.

That we can verify. the reference links are aged.
However, the prediction can be checked. According to their chart, ~ 500,000 jobs will be lost by 2015. Today, we learn that perhaps 92 million have dropped out of the workforce.

Prediction verified.


A) They have no working links to the three papers they cite?
B) Two of the three papers are from Heritage.
C) They have neglected to included the cost of inaction (no cost/benefit, just cost).

A) The paper is from 2009, the links are probably aged-out.
B) Are the predictions verifiable, and/or verified?
C) Not within the scope of the paper.

CAFE was designed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not to cut CO2.

Yes, but at what cost? (CA SB 350, and CA AB 32) Drivers and industry are curtailed in their product output when their exhaust output is mandated. Less stuff, less money. More regulations, companies go elsewhere (Unfortunately CA is another great example of that).




Sep 04, 2015
My first car was a '65 Goat. Now I'm a bald guy in a Prius. :-)

He, as many others do, assumes that we are going to have to go back to the stone-age to be able to cut carbon.

I don't think there are, at this time, any viable options to carbon and nuclear.

making the assumption that our standard of living has to go backwards instead of forwards. That might happen but it will be because of population pressures, not CO2

The belief that the C02 reduction folks are really more interested in population control is getting less and less ludicrous the more and more I learn.

The idea that we are going to have to give up everything and change the way we live has zero basis in fact.

Can you show me any alternative to coal and nukes that can deliver what we need right now?

Really? 1945 for someone in Paris?

I know. Ya gotta wonder what they were doing there.


Sep 04, 2015
No, the plan is to reduce the carbon intensity of energy services

Right. But how? In California, they're going to limit our gas use by 50%.

Instead, the idea is to emphasize renewables and and energy efficiency so that those who deliver more energy services with less carbon have a competitive advantage

By upping the prices on everything else? :-)
Everyone wants a clean planet, and alternative power is obviously the wise choice for the future. It makes no sense to curtail the energy sources that will get us there.

It is not intended to move me into a cave.

There are no viable energy alternatives at the moment...unless the population was reduced significantly.

This is just reprehensible.

Agreed.

Why is the author in favor of subsidies for fossil fuels and not for renewables?

Return on investment is a good place to start.


Sep 04, 2015
I am stopping at 12 points we can discuss.

Thank you. That was a lot to swallow. :-)

To come back to the pressing question:
Can you show me any alternative to coal and nukes that can deliver what we need right now?

Sep 04, 2015
Wow. Just wow. Ok, back to the paper.

I did not mean that to sound so brutal. I was actually trying to continue to engage in a conversation about why people like me tend to react so strongly towards people who question AGW. My intention was not to put you off.

I noticed that some of the things I wrote were poorly worded. For example,
It's also a matter of the TYPE of arguments you use. People who don't subscribe to AGW tend to use extremely fallacious arguments.

I shouldn't have said "you". I should have said, "members of your movement."

Sep 04, 2015
Apology accepted. :-)

I'm not in a movement.

Sep 04, 2015
Apology accepted. :-)

I'm not in a movement.

How about "School of thought?"

So, I DID want to engage in a conversation about this.

I think I can speak comfortably for those of us who understand scientific methods, especially things like error propagation, and subscribe to AGW when I say that people who are BOTH experts in the subject of climate science AND reject AGW seem to be nearly mythical.

The expert AGW doubter (see what I did there?) seems to be something that regular AGW doubters talk about as if they are numerous, when in reality, such "experts" never seem to actually perform as advertised.

This is why I'd hoped you'd react to my juxtaposition of the methods of the original concurrent-droughts paper, and that of the URL you provided. The first might, somehow, be wrong, but the second plainly reeks of sophistry.

(to be continued)

Sep 04, 2015
(continued)
With all due respect, I would also like to note your excusing some of this sophistry. I am glad you acknowledge that his bike-peddling example was absurd, but I question why you WOULDN'T think sources with broken-links was a warning sign.

A good researcher at the mercy of peer review makes sure that there is traceability in all his/her sources. This is ESPECIALLY true when making a controversial claim.

You don't want people to easily dispute your claim with a technicality like broken links. Why not upload PDFs, or actually provide a CITATION? Just name the article, and the author. It is then up to the critic to find this source, but at least he/she'll know where to start.

When your claim is controversial, why make it HARDER for a person to accept your claim?

Sep 04, 2015
He thinks that name-dropping Al Gore somehow has something to do with the arguments that climate scientists actually make.

It has to do with the ignorance and hypocrisy of you AGW Chicken Littles.

Sep 04, 2015
He thinks that name-dropping Al Gore somehow has something to do with the arguments that climate scientists actually make.

It has to do with the ignorance and hypocrisy of you AGW Chicken Littles.

Hush, now, little one.

Sep 04, 2015
He thinks that name-dropping Al Gore somehow has something to do with the arguments that climate scientists actually make.

It has to do with the ignorance and hypocrisy of you AGW Chicken Littles.

Hush, now, little one.

Keep braying big donkey.
Your ignorance is not new but still truly refreshing. The mark of a true believer in the AGW Cult.
I especially enjoyed your rant about climate experts. Perhaps you can name a few?

Sep 04, 2015
If someone wouldn't mind posting the below to Deng: thanks
...but as a German-Jew, it does hurt. Sometimes I wonder about the use of this term. How deep it is supposed to cut, and what the end-game is
@Deng
why?
it is not a question of your heritage, it is a label that states, specifically, that you are refusing to accept the bulk of the scientific evidence for a known topic (in this case, AGW and climate change) and that you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence/science

there is no "end-game"
it is simply a label, just like a label used to differentiate between, say, a screw and a bolt

or more appropriately, a person who is ignorant of the facts and a person who selectively chooses sources to support a conspiratorial or other ideation and personal cause

it specifically states that a person is not willing to accept scientific facts over opinionated obfuscation or conjecture without evidence

Sep 04, 2015
It's (hopefully) to shock you by being brutally honest
@furlong
yes and no
sometimes it is simply used as a warning to anyone else who is also reading
especially when said "denialist" [whomever] might intentionally disregard evidence and then utilise debunked info, opinion, blogs or other non-scientific support as somehow equivalent to scientific evidence published in a peer reviewed journal

this means there is an intentional desire to obfuscate or mislead (especially when said point is proven false or debunked with empirical evidence)
when someone ignores validated data for the sake of ideation, belief, religion or other non-scientific evidence, they can be so labeled to insure others are aware of the coming tactics or delusional thought process

take above: i am learning a LOT by the exchange, but i am only downvoting d's more blatant posts of ideation or fallacy- things he KNOWS is a lie, but continues to post anyway
(conspiracy ideation, etc)

Sep 04, 2015

How about "School of thought?"

No. Predilection towards labeling may be handicapping you. One that begins prejudiced stands little chance towards gaining anything from their endeavor.

When your claim is controversial, why make it HARDER for a person to accept your claim?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Sep 04, 2015
My first car was a '65 Goat
wish i had that right now!
one of my personal favourite cars
NI-I-ICE
I'm not in a movement
i disagree on this point
call it guilt by association...

although you might not be a part of a database or membership, you have continued to posit and share links and references which are being espoused by said movement, and when you consider that you ignore relevant studies which debunk or falsify said data or movement propaganda, then it suggests you are not willing to examine the issue due to some internal reticence or personal belief system which is supported by said movement

thus, whether named "school of thought" or "Movement", it is the same thing, really

the only difference may be that you aren't paying dues in the former ... but you ARE continuing to spread the word or message like any other acolyte, even though the evidence (& observations) demonstrate(s) it is a fallacy

Sep 04, 2015
No. Predilection towards labeling may be handicapping you. One that begins prejudiced stands little chance towards gaining anything from their endeavor
again, i disagree
it also allows you to gain insight to the individual

for instance: your posts demonstrate you are angry towards the gov't because of economic and political reasons WRT the climate change issue, thus feeding your distrust about gov't sanctioned research, regardless of the outcome of the study

This then feeds your internal convictions &/of conspiracy which provides you with a personal justification to assign higher relevance to any post (evidence) that you perceive to be anti-gov't, and specifically to be economically challenging

add a touch of personal experience (negative)

plus your (sometimes selective) ignorance on the subject and ...

it really is clear WHY you have chosen to accept the anti-AGW movement

what is NOT understood is why you refuse to accept the science at all

Sep 04, 2015
Still muted, big guy.

Storm, meet Teacup. Teacup, meet Storm.

Sep 04, 2015
Still muted, big guy.

Storm, meet Teacup. Teacup, meet Storm.

like i have said, over and over...

why is it you only post this when i am specifically talking to you????

seems odd that you would know that i am talking specifically to you if i am "muted" or "ignored"... you didn't post this after i talked to others!

ROTFLMFAO

caught again!

Sep 04, 2015
Deng: I am back at the computer. I want to tell you that I appreciate the flexibility you have shown in asking questions and not calling names when given answers (like Anti does). It was your measured conversations with thefurlong that led me to believe you are worth spending time with to help you understand some technical issues.

Having said that, I don't have a good feeling for your background. Because of that I will ask a couple of procedural questions so that I understand better how to work with you. There are no wrong answers, we all have holes in our education no matter how much we have had. So:

Are you comfortable with calculus?
Have you had a chemistry course - and do you have your book?
Have you had thermodynamics?
Have you had heat transfer?

It is not a problem if you do not have that background, it just means I have to spend a little time on background. To me, it is worth spending the extra time on someone who wants to understand what is going on.

Sep 04, 2015
Still muted, big guy.

Storm, meet Teacup. Teacup, meet Storm.

like i have said, over and over...

why is it you only post this when i am specifically talking to you????

Take the hint...take...the....hint.... he's being civil and far too generous.

Sep 04, 2015
Still muted, big guy.

Storm, meet Teacup. Teacup, meet Storm.

like i have said, over and over...

why is it you only post this when i am specifically talking to you????

Take the hint...take...the....hint.... he's being civil and far too generous.

The dude doesn't seem to get it that even though I'm not looking at his posts, he is so predictable that it can only be one thing.

Probably alot of CAPS use and exaggerated punctuation too.

Sep 04, 2015
I don't have a good feeling for your background.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it really doesn't matter. We can't save the world from here.

Assume that I can keep up with heavy stuff, but I would rather not. I already have jobs; this is more of a cranial cleansing than anything else.

Having gone over the theories of climate change, I've come to the conclusion that the climate is too large, that there is not enough known, and there are far to many variables to justify the creation of policies that would cripple our abilities to create cleaner and safer alternatives.

However, humans messing everything up is a serious subject, so, we fall back on some rather pedestrian ideas: Are the predictions panning out (vetting the science)? Are the changes we're seeing within the bounds of natural variance (vetting the anthropogenic viewpoint)?

Sep 04, 2015
Deng: I notice that you have muted Truck Captain and I suggest you take him off mute for the duration of this discussion. He is an example of one of the folks who has listened carefully and has gained a lot of knowledge over the years. His comments, normally, contain an interesting perspective and he uses copious good links that I find helpful. If he has offended you, that isn't unusual, he blusters a lot, but he can also have good insight and he provides great references. Just a suggestion for the duration of this discussion.

Sep 04, 2015
Deng said:
I appreciate the sentiment, but it really doesn't matter. We can't save the world from here.

Assume that I can keep up with heavy stuff, but I would rather not. I already have jobs; this is more of a cranial cleansing than anything else.


Thanks Deng. This helps me understand how to present topics. I am going to consider you to have college level science and math and if words come up that are unfamiliar just ask or search for them. It makes it a lot easier to assume the "heavy stuff" is OK.

As for our efforts not changing things, I disagree. If there are concepts that we can work on that, given your curiosity, I suspect you will pass on to others. That could go either way. If I am a lousy communicator and you come out thinking what I am presenting is wrong, then I will have failed to convey the science. If you understand the underlying science then every second I have spent will be worth it. I know thefurlong thinks along the same lines.

Sep 04, 2015
Deng says:
Having gone over the theories of climate change, I've come to the conclusion that the climate is too large, that there is not enough known, and there are far to many variables to justify the creation of policies that would cripple our abilities to create cleaner and safer alternatives.


Let's start slowly. You say that you have gone over the theory of climate change and the climate is too large. I would like you to look up "climate change" using wikipedia or any other source, then look up "global warming."

This goes back to the point I was trying to make in that it is the heat transfer in global warming that is a tractable issue, whereas, global climate change is messy and has much larger error bars.

I tried to point out that global warming is a driver for climate change and is both predictable and measureable. How the warming is distributed is not predictable at this time and they are improving the models to make the predictions better.

Sep 04, 2015
Deng said:
However, humans messing everything up is a serious subject, so, we fall back on some rather pedestrian ideas: Are the predictions panning out (vetting the science)? Are the changes we're seeing within the bounds of natural variance (vetting the anthropogenic viewpoint)?


Again, the predictions of enthalpy increase in the fluids and surface solids of the earth are right in line with predictions and verified by measurements.

They do that by "closing the energy balance" and that is getting easier as more monitoring stations are added to the oceans. Are we there yet? No, but we have good measurements and the errorbars are becoming smaller. There is no room for doubt that the enthalpy is increasing just like the spectroscopy says it should.

Are the changes within natural variation? Not that the paleogeologists have found. It is not just the amplitude but the rate of change that seems to be unprecedented. Cont

Sep 04, 2015
I appreciate the sentiment, but it really doesn't matter. We can't save the world from here.

On the contrary, every little bit helps.

You live in the real world, have children, and presumably interact with like-minded individuals. Likewise, I interact with like-minded individuals. Some of us presumably have children. Finally, those of us who have commented are interested enough in this subject to spend some time learning about it (or our opponents' positions). I argue there is a mutual benefit. If one of us can make the other see things from a different perspective, then an idea has spread, and forgive the hackneyed comparison, but ideas truly ARE like viruses.

If you can make me see things differently, suddenly, you have another person who has your idea. Now, there are two of us. 2 can turn into 4. 4 can turn into 8, and so on.

Sep 04, 2015
Continued for Deng: There is another aspect of global warming that we should discuss. One argument that is used is that "CO2 is feedback, not a driver." That comes about from the fact that, in the past, warming normally leads CO2. So, the argument goes, if the planet is warming through some natural cycle then we should expect to see the CO2 rising and man has nothing to do with it.

This is an easily falsifiable idea. One basis for the falsification is that when we do a CO2 balance with-and-without human produced GHGs (including land use) we see that without human driven sources there would be no increase in GHGs.

A second route is to look at typical forcing including Milankovitch cycles, we are in a time of slight cooling. Hence there is no reason to drive CO2 out of the oceans.

Cont

Sep 04, 2015
Truck Captain and I suggest you take him off mute for the duration of this discussion

That won't happen. That person is banned for life, and not lightly. 'nuff said.

I'll go over your stuff a bit later. Looks like good reading.

Sep 04, 2015
@Captain
yes and no
sometimes it is simply used as a warning to anyone else who is also reading
especially when said "denialist" [whomever] might intentionally disregard evidence and then utilise debunked info, opinion, blogs or other non-scientific support as somehow equivalent to scientific evidence published in a peer reviewed journal

You are correct. I actually omitted some words. These 1000 word limits do that, but, what I meant is that calling a person a denialist can shock a him/her into reexamining the reasons for their beliefs. Unfortunately, it only works with a certain kind of person, I think--one who does not get defensive from earnest criticism.

Sep 04, 2015
Cont for Deng: Finally, the idea that heating led CO2 rise in the past leads folks who can't understand why to insist that heating must be leading CO2 now and we have it all backwards. How many times have you read through these threads and seen the slogans from Rygg2 and Anti that say: "it must have been the dinosaurs driving their SUVs" when people address warmer climates from millions of years ago.

Instead, we know that CO2, generally, followed temperature because other forces (Milankovic) were driving temperature and CO2 (and methane) does follow that.

The reason I bring this up is that the models do a good job of predicting this. They even do a reasonable job of predicting where, only the error bars are larger.

I hope you are beginning to understand that any assessment of models must take into consideration what is being modeled (each model does more than produce a single number) and what the known uncertainty of the model is for that output. Cont

Sep 04, 2015
He thinks that name-dropping Al Gore somehow has something to do with the arguments that climate scientists actually make.

It has to do with the ignorance and hypocrisy of you AGW Chicken Littles.

Hush, now, little one.

Keep braying big donkey.
Your ignorance is not new but still truly refreshing. The mark of a true believer in the AGW Cult.
I especially enjoyed your rant about climate experts. Perhaps you can name a few?

I'll do that if you promise to

1) have a fair conversation.
2) not ignore points that I make when responding to you
3) not change the subject unless both of us agree to.
4) not bring up politics
5) (4 should really cover this) not bring up Al Gore

Sep 04, 2015
For Deng Continued: Continuing with the model question (which you consider to be one of the most egregious faults of AGW) I want to go back to what they do. They are not the same. Here is an explanation of types and their strengths and weaknesses.

https://en.wikipe...on_Model

https://en.wikipe...te_model

Here is an open access peer reviewed paper along these lines. It is an active link in this Guardian news article and it is not paywalled.

http://www.thegua...-warming

Do you understand the difference now between the important predictions (how much extra energy is changing the enthalpy of the Earth) and (where on the surface of the earth that energy is being distributed)?

I have passed on a lot for you to digest and either thefurlong, or runrig, or I, or many others can answer your questions.

Sep 04, 2015
I'll do that if you promise to

1) have a fair conversation.
2) not ignore points that I make when responding to you
3) not change the subject unless both of us agree to.
4) not bring up politics
5) (4 should really cover this) not bring up Al Gore


Wow, really!!
Go back and read our conversation on this thread and see who broke all your rules.

Actually, never mind. I have you on automatic ignore.

Sep 04, 2015
he is so predictable
@dung
Lets talk about predictibility a minute
its not so evident in this particular thread, but if you look at the thread with furlong here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

me: 73 posts- but you only respond when i post directly to you or Vietvet mentions you are doing the statistically impossible

or here: http://phys.org/n...sts.html
44 posts of mine
only replies that i'm muted to those posts i talk to him after i am "muted"- 3 times

Now above.. i posted to others, but you only chimed in when i posted to you

if you are "predicting" when i am posting to you, then your replies should be randomly distributed, but they're not

considering that i am not exclusively posting to you, but you only reply when i am posting to you...
either you are the first true psychic
or you are lying

take your pick

Sep 04, 2015
I suggest you take him off mute for the duration of this discussion
@Thermo
just saw this... i (personally) doubt that he will

now, i have really enjoyed this discussion, and i am learning more as you take him through the steps, but you are dealing with his emotional state as well, and though i might not be expert in Thermodynamics, i do have a little insight on his psychological state
... i don't do the subtle meticulous picking apart of data like you do, and i call it as i see it (for obvious reasons we've discussed).

I doubt he will comply, but ... as you have requested, i will dial down my discourse about his tactical deficiencies and denialist rhetoric because i truly respect what you are doing.

plus, it allows me more insight that i can use... i am not letting go with this study i am doing, even if i have to solo it

PEACE

Sep 04, 2015
@Thermodynamics cont'd
That won't happen. That person is banned for life, and not lightly. 'nuff said.
just found that comment

well, i told you so.
BUT
as i promised, i will attempt to ignore his BS, even when he posts stuff that is blatantly lies because he's been shown in the past to have specifically been taught about the subject
{this thread only!}

You are correct. I actually omitted some words.
@furlong
ok ... that makes sense
i figured it had to be something like that as you tend to be as meticulous as Thermo

Thanks

I'll do that if you promise to

good luck with that one
LOL

Sep 05, 2015
The dude doesn't seem to get it that even though I'm not looking at his posts, he is so predictable that it can only be one thing.

Totally get you. When I scroll through the comments, I can automatically ignore the likes of Stumpy. It's like when I'm strolling down the street and there is dog sh!t ahead, I instinctively avoid it. Well, I was about to say, Stumpy is like dog sh!t, but then I would have to apologize to dogs everywhere.

Sep 05, 2015
Wow, really!!
Go back and read our conversation on this thread and see who broke all your rules.

Actually, never mind. I have you on automatic ignore.


http://notanother...kirk.jpg

I find it interesting that exchanging insults with antigoracle is fine, but asking him to actually have an intelligent, fair, conversation earns me an ignore.

Sep 05, 2015
but asking him to actually have an intelligent, fair, conversation earns me an ignore
@furlong
re: anti-g

she is not here for intelligent, fair conversation
in fact, she is not here for anything other than trolling

i don't think i've found one legitimate post yet...
now, i've uprated a couple because they were flat out funny...

i find her typical hostility rather interesting for other reasons
you will note the immature and adolescent style... if she is older than 20, i would be concerned and suggest counseling and a few MRI's/CT's just to insure there are no influential physical circumstances (like a growth in the skull)

also note the emo-style and bipolar monthly cycles... perhaps the hormones aren't stable?

Sep 05, 2015
@denglish
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What don't you understand?
The author of the Heritage Foundation URL provided broken links. That makes it HARDER for somebody to take their claim seriously.

Wouldn't you agree that if you are making controversial claims that you should provide identifiable sources?

What Thermo and I have been saying is that if the author of the Heritage Foundation is not making much of an effort to appear as one, for reasons that Thermo deftly listed above.

Please respond to this assessment.

Sep 05, 2015
As a note, I would also like to apologize for something else I did wrong. I wrote,
You don't want people to easily dispute your claim with a technicality like broken links. Why not upload PDFs, or actually provide a CITATION? Just name the article, and the author. It is then up to the critic to find this source, but at least he/she'll know where to start.


I was incorrect. He DID provide the title and the author.

However, searching for these articles online doesn't lead anywhere. Has anyone had more luck?

Sep 05, 2015
@Captain
I didn't know she was female. I seem to be batting 1000 lately.

I wonder what drives a person like that.

also note the emo-style and bipolar monthly cycles... perhaps the hormones aren't stable?

Can you explain more about this?

Sep 05, 2015
@denglish
I wrote,
What Thermo and I have been saying is that if the author of the Heritage Foundation is not making much of an effort to appear as one, for reasons that Thermo deftly listed above.


Something about the Phys.org commenting system makes me more prone to typos, here. I should have written,

What Thermo and I have been saying is that if the author of the Heritage Foundation is not making much of an effort to appear as a legitimate professional expert, for reasons that Thermo deftly listed above.


Sep 05, 2015
I didn't know she
@furlong
just my interpretation of the evidence: how can we be sure given the anonymity of the net
I wonder what drives a person like that
well, start with low self esteem and a spineless disposition IRL: they can't confront reality or physical threats, so they retreat to anonymity (the web) and build themselves a persona- in this case, they've found that trolling suits their purpose (note the lack of actual evidence and the typical fallacious argument/links)
that is why the specific refusal to engage with you in discourse: you've proven to be able to out those who claim intellectual superiority with facts, proof and supporting evidence (he who shall not be named-LOL)

What you are seeing is a construct to preserve their anonymity as well as self image built to try to substantiate their imagined self (daydreams of being the great saviour or tyrannical overlord of all, etc)
2Bcont'd

Sep 05, 2015
@furlong cont'd
these delusions are typical of narcissistic sociopathics who are too weak to actually affect their own reality around them, so they take to a fantasy construct and anonymous interactions to create a persona that is "larger than life"... it is not actual discourse or knowledge they crave, nor facts even... the topic is irrelevant: it is the attention they crave

only the attention! negative or positive - be it the rating or posted feedback (hence the quaint suggestion: don't feed the trolls)
Can you explain more about this?
if you read the posts, they're cyclical and tend to be more emotional in periodic stages... i've noticed a cycle that is similar to menstruation & although men can have this cyclical nature in moods as well, given the outbursts, it appears to me more random or even narcissistic, suggesting vanity that is typically assigned to a female offender (in my past experiences)... this may also be a transgender under HT as well...

Sep 05, 2015
@furlong FINAL
Can you explain more about this?
there is also a problem in a format like this... you can tell a lot about a person, but not always enough to make certain assignations concrete... there is only probabilities (like profiling, it is usually based upon a personal decision about the individual)

also note: there are times when it is necessary to "poke the bear" in order to see the teeth... so...

it is all a part of the experiment in order to find results

from what i see, given the emo(tional) style and cycle, and given the instability, there is a distinct possibility of instability that suggests a few possible outcomes, including, but not limited to, hormone instability, mental instability, cultural instability, and a few more instabilities ...

is that more clear?

Sep 05, 2015
@stumpy
Wow, I had no idea dog shit had nerves, because it sure sounds like I stepped on one.

Sep 05, 2015
these delusions are typical of narcissistic sociopathics who are too weak to actually affect their own reality around them, so they take to a fantasy construct and anonymous interactions to create a persona that is "larger than life"... it is not actual discourse or knowledge they crave, nor facts even... the topic is irrelevant: it is the attention they crave
--da dog shit
Really stumpy!!!
When denglish, with great politeness, informed you that he has chosen to ignore you, instead of doing the right thing, what do you do? If your response wasn't that of a narcissistic sociopath, then someone else will have to tell me.
Thanks for confirming, you are not just dog shit, but also the arsehole from whence it came.

Sep 06, 2015
...da dog shit... dog shit.... arsehole...


@antigoricle,
Ok I will feed you. You quickly engage with critical commenters at an emotional level, but don't respond intelligibly when other commenters sensibly critique your unsupported views on climate change.

Why do you find it easier to engage in vitriol instead of demonstrating a desire to correct easily pointed out misconceptions and dig deeper for more credible arguments for your views?

Feel free to do the latter if you are able. Bring up the quality of the dialogue if you have anything useful to communicate.

Sep 06, 2015
they're cyclical and tend to be more emotional in periodic stages... i've noticed a cycle that is similar to menstruation & although men can have this cyclical nature in moods as well, given the outbursts, it appears to me more random or even narcissistic, suggesting vanity that is typically assigned to a female offender (in my past experiences)

@CaptainArsehole
Does your wife know this is what you think of her?
How happy would you be when your daughter's husband think the same of her?

Sep 06, 2015
nevermark, the folk like anti broadcast their motives in their names. He/she is here as a political plant, to stir up things in which he/she sees they are losing.

They do not want to discuss the link between our droughts and Climate Change, because it highlights their unsupported views. It is easier to scream nasties, like some of the others here for "sport", not science.

It is fairly clear they are linked, and just one of the terrible consequences of Climate Change.

Sep 06, 2015
nevermark, the folk like anti broadcast their motives in their names.
--gskam
Well, it's a good thing you're not like us folks. Then we would have to call you - ignorantHypocriticalPathologicalLiar.

Sep 06, 2015
nevermark, you will learn to use the "Ignore" function. I use it for many folk, including antigore. If you'll notice, I give him no ratings because I don't have to read his silly nonsense.

Debating an issue always turns to personal attack by auntigore or Uncle Ira.

Sep 06, 2015
Ok I will feed you
@nevermark
great points... i doubt you will get honest feedback, or anything other than derision
i wish you all the luck, though

perhaps you should read my above assessment of anti-g's instabilities and imbalances...

as you can see, it is apparent that i touched a serious nerve in anti-G... apparently hit a little too close to home for her comfort.

fascinating, isn't it?

Does your wife know
@anti
my wife regularly helps me ...she was instrumental in diagnosing your imbalances


Sep 06, 2015
...da dog shit... dog shit.... arsehole...


@antigoricle,
Ok I will feed you. You quickly engage with critical commenters at an emotional level, but don't respond intelligibly when other commenters sensibly critique your unsupported views on climate change.

Why do you find it easier to engage in vitriol instead of demonstrating a desire to correct easily pointed out misconceptions and dig deeper for more credible arguments for your views?

Feel free to do the latter if you are able. Bring up the quality of the dialogue if you have anything useful to communicate.

She/He will probably tell you to grow a brain or something to that effect, demonstrating her/his unawareness of what, exactly, one is supposed to be used for, once it has been grown.

Sep 06, 2015
my wife regularly helps me ...she was instrumental in diagnosing your imbalances

--CaptainArsehole
Yep, you do need all the help you can get. Sounds like a smart woman, so it makes me wonder why she wanted you, a second arsehole. She should definitely get that medical condition checked.

Sep 06, 2015
my wife regularly helps me
--CaptainArsehole
So she is definitely the brains in family.
Tell me, when she agreed to marry you, was she suffering from diarrhea, and desperately wanted you, a second arsehole?

Sep 06, 2015
Sounds like a smart woman

An admitted bulls-eye it seems Capt

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