Hundreds of deaths in two cities in 2003 heatwave due to man-made climate change: study

July 7, 2016
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Scientists have specified how many deaths can be attributed to man-made climate change during an extreme heatwave in two European cities in 2003. They calculate that in Paris, the hottest city in Europe during the heatwave in summer 2003, 506 out of 735 summer deaths recorded in the French capital were due to a heatwave made worse by man-made climate change. The impact of climate change was less severe in London, with an additional 64 deaths out of a total of 315 heat-related deaths, says the paper published in the scientific journal, Environmental Research Letters. The study, led by the University of Oxford, suggests that such research gives policymakers better information about the damaging effects of heatwaves to help them respond to the future challenges of climate change

The findings were generated by putting the results of climate model simulations of the 2003 heatwave into a health impact assessment of death rates. Using computer time donated by thousands of volunteers from the weather@home project, the researchers ran many thousands of high-resolution regional . They found that human-induced climate change increased the risk of heat-related deaths in central Paris by around 70% and by 20% in London.

The paper says the mortality rate attributed to man-made climate change in both these cities is notably high, but they are just two of a large number of cities that were affected by the heatwave that year. It suggests that the resulting total number of deaths across Europe due to climate change is likely to be substantially higher.

The paper looks at the three months June to August. It warns that no heatwave on record has ever had such a widespread effect on human health, as experienced during those months of 2003. Previous studies have attributed changes in heatwave frequency and severity to human-caused climate change, or demonstrated the effect of on human mortality. This paper is the first to attribute the number of premature deaths to climate change during extreme heat waves.

Lead author Dr Daniel Mitchell, from the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, comments: 'It is often difficult to understand the implications of a planet that is one degree warmer than preindustrial levels in the global average, but we are now at the stage where we can identify the cost to our health of man-made global warming. This research reveals that in two cities alone hundreds of deaths can be attributed to much higher temperatures resulting from human-induced climate change.'

Co-author Dr Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, says: 'Traditionally, climate research has linked increasing levels of greenhouses gases simply to trends in weather, such as generally higher day-to-day temperatures. However, linking the impact of burning of fossil fuels right through to health implications enables much better planning to prepare for any further climatic changes.'

By starkly showing we can measure the toll in human lives that climate change is already taking through worsening extreme heat, this study shines a spotlight on our responsibilities as a society for limiting further damage,' adds co-author Dr Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, USA.

The paper concludes that with projected to increase the frequency and severity of future heatwaves, these results highlight an emerging trend. It suggests that further research should focus on possible changes in future rates, taking into account population and demographic changes.

Explore further: Scientists identify ways to prevent heat-related deaths from climate change

More information: 'Attributing human mortality during extreme heatwaves to anthropogenic climate change', by Daniel Mitchell, Clare Heaviside, Sotiris Vardoulakis, Chris Huntingford, Giacomo Masato, Benoit Guillod, Peter Frumhoff, Andy Bowery, David Wallom, and Myles Allen, Environmental Research Letters, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006

Related Stories

Extreme heatwaves may hit Europe in the short term

November 27, 2015

Regional climate projections for the two coming decades (2021-2040) suggest enhanced probability of heatwaves anywhere in Europe, which would be comparable or greater than the Russian heatwave in 2010 - the worst since 1950 ...

Climate change health impacts loom large

July 7, 2016

The world should brace for potentially devastating impacts on human health due to climate change, top policy makers and officials from around the globe meeting in Paris said Thursday.

Recommended for you

126 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (38) Jul 07, 2016
Weather is not climate.
France is not the globe.

More fodder for the ignorant, hungry Chicken Littles... eat up.
BongThePuffin
Jul 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (35) Jul 07, 2016
Even if you accept the notion that recent warming is almost entirely "man made" it's difficult to believe that a difference of approximately 0.3 C to 0.6 C (depending on which data set you use) above the 20th century average would cause hundreds of deaths.

HadCRUT4 temperature (see 2003):
https://crudata.u...RUT4.png

UAH satellite temperature (see 2003):
http://nsstc.uah....2016.jpg

You can't even feel the difference between, say, 40° C and 40.6° C. That's the temperature difference between street level and 20 stories above street level on a day without any wind.

we are now at the stage where we can identify the cost to our health of man-made global warming

Not even close. It is impossible to accurately model climate change impacts with any meaningful precision much less assign blame to human emissions. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke (or CO₂).
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (34) Jul 07, 2016
Here is a suggestion for the Chicken Littles to ignore. Search the heatwave of 1540, when they could walk across the dry bed of the Seine.
https://www.googl...fe_rd=cr

Man-made globull warming now with more bull.
ElectricBoobVerses
Jul 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (36) Jul 07, 2016
Anthropogenic global warming has proven to be so useful in the promulgation of social change that it has become almost indispensable. That means that it must be constantly reaffirmed in the media and that the supposed effects of it must always be bad and must always be getting worse.

What better propaganda than to proclaim that 570 people died in two European cities in 2003 from AGW?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (36) Jul 07, 2016
The Great European Heat Wave and Drought of 1540

The causes of the 1540 catastrophe are unclear; plainly modern climate change is not the culprit.
http://www.dailyk...-of-1540

Europe is hit by a heat wave and drought lasting for about 7 months. Rivers such as the Rhine and Seine dry up and many people die from dysentery and other illnesses caused by lack of safe drinking water....
https://en.wikipe...iki/1540

I would suggest the Chicken Littles get someone with a brain to read and explain the above to you.
philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (35) Jul 07, 2016
When there is a cold spell we are told "That is just weather."
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.4 / 5 (29) Jul 07, 2016
Modern Academia.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (32) Jul 08, 2016
Desire to control the means of production is strong in this one.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (35) Jul 08, 2016
When there is a cold spell we are told "That is just weather."
@philstacy9
no, you weren't

it depended upon what, specifically, you were referring to

see: Francis, et al and the further validations from the past three years
BartV
1.3 / 5 (31) Jul 08, 2016
This article comes out of a craving desire by some men to control their own destiny, and the destiny of the whole world. Of course that is impossible. But they still try very hard.
rderkis
4.5 / 5 (33) Jul 08, 2016
I don't believe much in conspiracies. The fastest way to discredit a person is to label them as conspiracy theorists.
So a neat conspiracy would be to label your opponents conspiracists.
And that is exactly what big oil companies have done. The people that consider themselves smart because they are free thinkers fell right in line with this trap. Parroting exactly what those oil companies want them to say.
BongThePuffin
Jul 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (25) Jul 08, 2016

Financial chaos, social chaos, and climate chaos------Oh please One World Government come soon and save me! My freedoms need to be heavily regulated for my own safety.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (26) Jul 08, 2016
Here in the US people are being paid to protest at Black Lives Matter demonstrations. These domestic terrorists have just shot 12 policeman in Dallas Teas, 5 of which have died. This is all part of the government plan to create chaos and disarm every citizen.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (31) Jul 08, 2016
The first word out of Obama's mouth was oh dear that's too bad ( I am paraphrasing here of course.) The second word was we need to take your guns away. There is no doubt in my mind that government money finds it's way into the BLM terror organization.
antigoracle
1.1 / 5 (28) Jul 08, 2016
The US government definitely believes that. 9/11 conspiracy theories worked so well in eliminating any semblance of serious inquiry that they had to deliberately bait.....hee....hawwww...hee...haawwwww...

Poor Dumberer is jealous, no one baits him, as he goes willingly.
https://www.youtu...ExwB8GCM
rodkeh
1.5 / 5 (33) Jul 08, 2016
AGW is a fraud!
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (30) Jul 08, 2016
Weather is not climate.
France is not the globe.

More fodder for the ignorant, hungry Chicken Littles... eat up.


o you asking for bannanas again, eat up theres plenty more we got for u... ;)
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (30) Jul 08, 2016
The US government definitely believes that. 9/11 conspiracy theories worked so well in eliminating any semblance of serious inquiry that they had to deliberately bait.....hee....hawwww...hee...haawwwww...

Poor Dumberer is jealous, no one baits him, as he goes willingly.
https://www.youtu...ExwB8GCM

aaaah it's my favorite monkey :D you can take monkey goralicle out of the bush, but not the bush out of the monkey yes... :D
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (30) Jul 08, 2016
Anthropogenic global warming has proven to be so useful in the promulgation of social change that it has become almost indispensable. That means that it must be constantly reaffirmed in the media and that the supposed effects of it must always be bad and must always be getting worse.

What better propaganda than to proclaim that 570 people died in two European cities in 2003 from AGW?

a long time since using your dogfart sock monkey goricle... luckily i got Plenty bannanas for u.... :D
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (29) Jul 08, 2016
HeloMenelo,

I'm not anyone's sock puppet.

I keep thinking you will learn that insults are not arguments. I guess I am attributing too much to your ability.
rderkis
4.7 / 5 (31) Jul 09, 2016
I find the people that bad mouth our government, have never been to a third world country or a communist country, or a dictator ship. I am 69 and have been to all the aforementioned places. We live better and freer than 95% of the world. Generaly what ever the government is now doing and has done in the past is working, Let me tell you, I live on a small SS fixed income, BUT WOULD GLADLY PAY 4 TIMES the taxes I currently pay to live here. You will notice even most of the bums on the street corners are not starving to death and have shoes. Plus here the poor generaly don't have malaria, typhus or many of the other dieses killing other poor people around the world.
Now I know there are problems but not as many or as serious as some malcontents would have you believe.
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (29) Jul 09, 2016
got some more bananaaaas.... come and get it antiscience gorilla sock.... ;)
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2016
I vote to restrict this forum to matters of science, and leave personal attacks out of it.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (29) Jul 09, 2016
Sorry... you've been outvoted... but only because those who argue against science, has no interest in science tyo begin with, only their filthy pockets full of greed, those who lie without conscious will be exposed first, and secondly ridiculed over and over and over, there is no excuse whatsoever for defending a side that has no conscious over the well being of this planet.

Everyone coming to this site will clearly be able to distinguish the good from the bad.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (28) Jul 09, 2016
nope i saw you bunking under a street lamp pole with a coin box shaking it like a rattle snake, so it's not true.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (29) Jul 09, 2016
Attacking the earth by defending the harm done to it by harmful human induced activity personally attacks each and every human being on earth, trying to defend it is ludicrous and will forever be exposed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (30) Jul 09, 2016
Weather is not climate.

Well, yes...that's beside the point, here, but you at least get a sticker for saying something correct.

France is not the globe.

From the abstract:
"...we explicitly quantify the role of human activity on climate and heat-related mortality in an event attribution framework, analyzing both the EUROPE-WIDE TEMPERATURE RESPONSE in 2003...we perform many thousands of climate simulations of a high-resolution regional climate model."

Again, you're right. And, again, that's besides the point. The globe is not the only thing that has climate. Large regions of the globe have climate, too, and Europe is large enough that you can speak of its climate meaningfully, and we can tell that it's changing. Hence, we can ask how much that change contributes to localized mortality rates.

...I know, right?!!! Using the climate of a region to talk about how places within that region are affected by it? What black magic is this?
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (34) Jul 09, 2016
The causes of the 1540 catastrophe are unclear; plainly modern climate change is not the culprit.
http://www.dailyk...-of-1540

Interesting, but why do you quote only a single sentence? Include the next one as well:
"The causes of the 1540 catastrophe are unclear; plainly modern climate change is not the culprit. What is clear is that such extreme heat waves are more likely now than ever before in human history. "
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (32) Jul 09, 2016
The causes of the 1540 catastrophe are unclear; plainly modern climate change is not the culprit.
http://www.dailyk...-of-1540

Interesting, but why do you quote only a single sentence? Include the next one as well:
"The causes of the 1540 catastrophe are unclear; plainly modern climate change is not the culprit. What is clear is that such extreme heat waves are more likely now than ever before in human history. "

Well, in 1540, both the Rhine and Seine dried up. Now, how many times has that happened in recent times? None!! So, that begs the question, what's your point?
FritzVonDago
1.4 / 5 (32) Jul 09, 2016
More climate change HOGWASH!
tblakely1357
3.1 / 5 (27) Jul 09, 2016
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (31) Jul 09, 2016
Even if you accept the notion that recent warming is almost entirely "man made" it's difficult to believe that a difference of approximately 0.3 C to 0.6 C (depending on which data set you use) above the 20th century average would cause hundreds of deaths.
IE - "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong" Your simplistic argument is wrong at so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. Do you understand what "average" means?
You can't even feel the difference between, say, 40° C and 40.6° C. That's the temperature difference between street level and 20 stories above street level on a day without any wind.
And again, your statements show a utterly simplistic view of how average global temperature affects the planet.. When you have such a rudimentary and simplistic understanding of the subject, why do you even bother to post?

Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (32) Jul 09, 2016
we are now at the stage where we can identify the cost to our health of man-made global warming

Not even close. It is impossible to accurately model climate change impacts with any meaningful precision much less assign blame to human emissions. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke (or CO₂).
And, again, "I do not understand how it can be done, therefore it must be wrong." Do you even read what you post?
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (30) Jul 10, 2016
More climate change HOGWASH!


More antigorilicle sockpuppet hot air comments , meanwhile Climate Change has been proven over and over and over, but monkey chose to read different kinds of books:

http://wecoloring...page.gif

greenonions
4.7 / 5 (27) Jul 10, 2016
Dogbert
I keep thinking you will learn that insults are not arguments.
Agreed - and that point presents an interesting dilemma for people wanting to work with 'arguments' (meaning reasoned discourse.) Reasoned discourse requires integrity. Let's take one tine example - Rodkeh
AGW is a fraud!
This is an absurd statement (one of thousands). It is very easy to refute - using reasoning. Mountains of evidence tell us that the earth is warming, and the culprit is green house gases. In a reasoned discussion - Rodkeh, or shootis, or goracle, etc. etc. are demolished. So they pop up on the next thread - making the same absurd statements. Unreasonable people - completely control the dialogue - especially when they demand reason - but do not reciprocate. Do you agree the AGW is a fraud? Do you propose that we engage in eternal circular - down the rabbit hole debate with people with not integrity? What to do?
marcush
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2016
Hundreds dead back in 2003! Hmm we're in for a rough ride.....
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jul 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BiteMe
Jul 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BigusDickus
Jul 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2016
21 years before the first thermometer was invented!

You know, when you go cherry picking, you toss the rotten ones?

Uh huh, you need a thermometer to measure drought.
You know, when you pull your head out of where the sun don't shine, you shouldn't rush to plaster the forum, with what you are covered in.
https://weatherac...an-2003/
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions
5 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2016
Goracle
Uh huh, you need a thermometer to measure drought.
Nope - you need a thermometer to measure a heat wave - which is what today's article was about - as you may infer from the title - "Hundreds of deaths in two cities in 2003 heatwave " And as the article goracle referenced points out -

Of course temperature records do not go back as far as the sixteenth century
ForFreeMinds
1 / 5 (22) Jul 10, 2016
All those people could have been saved with air conditioning and electricity. Seems like the AGW crowd wants less air conditioning.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2016
All those people could have been saved with air conditioning and electricity. Seems like the AGW crowd wants less air conditioning.

That's a non sequitur.

Saying that X is a problem, and not mentioning that Y might have helped mitigate its harmful effects does not imply that you don't support Y. Why would you think that?

Not to mention that some people actually have to go outside (they have jobs) and don't have air conditioned vehicles to travel in.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2016
Weather is not climate.

Well, yes...that's beside the point, here, but you at least get a sticker for saying something correct.

Uh huh, BESIDE, like your ears are beside the empty space between them. You should put some stickers on them, since they are of no use to you.

France is not the globe.

"...we perform many thousands of climate simulations."
Europe is large enough that you can speak of its climate meaningfully, and we can tell that it's changing.
...I know, right?!!! Using the climate of a region to talk about how places within that region are affected by it? What black magic is this?

Brilliant!! Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIONS REQUIRED] since the 1930's? Maybe it's not large enough?
I know, right?!!! Using the climate of a region to talk about how places within that region are doing the opposite of gloBull warming. What black magic is this?
chileastro
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2016
antigoracle 1 /5 (3) 19 hours ago

Uh huh, you need a thermometer to measure drought.
You know, when you pull your head out of where the sun don't shine, you shouldn't rush to plaster the forum, with what you are covered in.


Reading comprehension is fundamental. LOOK AT THE POST ABOVE. It specifically outed your fabricated claim about the rivers. You just ignored what is inconvenient. Again.

The fact is droughts during the middle ages in Europe were infrequent and limited to that area. What happened to "France is not the world"? NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY. You start out with one course of "logic" and then switch 180 degrees after a few statements when it suits you.

He really doesn't get that, does he? He started out saying "it's local"...then ended up using local data to say "it always does that".

And, of course, it's a bridge too far for them to consider AGW influences in the Middle Ages. Circular reasoning. Again.
greenonions
5 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2016
Goracle
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's


https://www.googl...L6ihM%3A
Garrote
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2016
I have an imagine of a bratty sophist pointing their finger and being generally bratty that I use as a target for my .357 magnum. People with no intellectual integrity are not worth arguing with. I can tell you you'll get a lot more satisfaction, and practice, doing it my way.
Garrote
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
MR166 1.9 / 5 (31) Jul 08, 2016 There is no doubt in my mind that government money finds it's way into the BLM terror organization.


Oh, well done phys.org! In only one week you've suborned an openly anti-semitic rant from a Putin-bot, and attracted the posts of one of Cliven Bundy's nut cases! We have the regular EU cranks, the fundies... I think you've covered all the bases. Oh, yeah, all the "I've seen ET" nutters a few weeks back. benji/bshit always holds up the New Age Woo end of things. Most psychological disorders well represented...yeah. I think that's pretty much every nut possible in the crank arboretum.

Looks like your lack of responsible moderation has finally succeeded. Every nutter on the planet is represented and in full voice. Now you can concentrate on selling your grandmother into white slavery. Seems about par.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2016
Goracle
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's


https://www.googl...L6ihM%3A

Astonishing!! This Chicken Little retard does not know the difference between 1930 and 1960. Then again, why should it, when the rest of the Chicken Littles sustain its ignorance.
https://www.youtu...ExwB8GCM
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2016
Monkeyyyyy..... heeeere you are.... :D i got a few presents for youuuuuu ;) But first, Let's get the party started.:D

Try and read the map, say I R Baboon i R can, don't look so stumped:
http://s2.dmcdn.n...-jh3.jpg
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
Goracle Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's

https://www.googl...L6ihM%3A

Now now monkey first you have to be able to understand the evidence before you can comment on it.... go back to the map and do lesson nr 1, see i always give you another chance even though you will be failing this one again. ;)
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2016
https://www.euroc...2014.pdf

The drought that hit central and Eastern Europe in the 1500s has been described as a "worst case" by modern scientists

Less than a hundred years after the 1540 drought, the same region dried out again. Rivers again receded, and people marked the low levels in the Elbe River with "hunger stones"

This time period is known for the "Irish Famine," which was actually worse than the infamous Irish Potato Famine that struck a century later.

"Never within the memory of living men has it been so hot, and especially so dry, as during this ill-starred year," wrote one person in the Paris Figaro on July 23, 1893.

http://www.smiths.../?no-ist
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
Brilliant!!

I know.
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIONS REQUIRED] since the 1930's? Maybe it's not large enough?

Or maybe you're delusional. Using this the data set, here,

http://berkeleyea...rend.txt

I calculate that the slope is 0.007 degrees per month of with uncertainty of 0.001. You can try it yourself by using LINEST in excel or Open Office Calc.

I know, right?!!!

I am glad we agree that you are delusional.
Using the climate of a region to talk about how places within that region are doing the opposite of gloBull warming. What black magic is this?

You need to check your data.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2016
@antigoracle
I have published the spreadsheet to the web, so you can see it for yourself:
https://docs.goog.../pubhtml
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2016
@antigoracle
I have published the spreadsheet to the web, so you can see it for yourself:
https://docs.goog.../pubhtml


Now remember you're dealing with i r baboon, it's a roulette wheel trying to know how he might intepret it, swinging trees though is what he was groomed for :D
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2016
Now remember you're dealing with i r baboon, it's a roulette wheel trying to know how he might intepret it, swinging trees though is what he was groomed for :D


I know he's a lost cause. But my hope is that a little dose of hard data/analysis helps to immediately dissuade anybody on the fence who reads these comments and doesn't know who to trust, of his false claims.

The thing that gets me about AGW denial is that you don't really need to know a whole lot of theory in order to look at the data and become convinced of it, yourself. You need only understand the basics of uncertainty, and regression analysis, and physics, to get a pretty good idea of how and why the globe is warming. A prerequisite for that is, of course, nuanced thought, which crazies like I.R. Baboon lack.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2016
The thing that gets me about AGW denial is that you don't really need to know a whole lot of theory in order to look at the data and become convinced of it

Uh huh. How many MONTHS has it been since you started looking at the DATA trying to prove your lie that warming oceans absorb more CO2?
The thing that gets me about these ignorant Chicken Littles is that, in their delusions, they imagine that they know a whole lot of theory and so become convinced of their lies.
https://www.youtu...QeUoPOi4
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
Uh huh. How many MONTHS has it been since you started looking at the DATA trying to prove your lie that warming oceans absorb more CO2?

I already expressed doubt I said this, and asked you to find where I said it. I have been attempting to find it myself, and have not yet succeeded.

Assuming you can't find it either, I don't know what you hope to get out of this.

If you're hoping to discredit me, I would like to point out that, of the two of us, I am the only one who has actually performed formal analysis of the data.

All you're doing is avoiding the points I just made. This confirms GO's point. You have no integrity. If you had any, you would at least acknowledge that my analysis does indicate warming in the contiguous US, or you would provide an argument against it.

You have done neither, but have chosen to fart violently, instead. Congratulations.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2016
I already expressed doubt I said this, and asked you to find where I said it.

LOL. The "logic" of the ignorant Chicken Little liar.
First, deny.
Then, accuse.
Follow with defence by admitting to their lie.
Then, accuse some more, with more lies.

Keep looking, you might just find the fraud you are.

https://www.youtu...QeUoPOi4
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
I already expressed doubt I said this, and asked you to find where I said it.

LOL. The "logic" of the ignorant Chicken Little liar...

@antigoracle
You have still not responded to my analysis. We can certainly get back to your accusation, after you actually admit that it does show a warming trend in the contiguous United States, or offer a reason how it is wrong that is better than "It's just math."

@everyone else
If somebody has a recollection of which article this buffoon is alluding to, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2016
Uh huh, your analysis of cooked data.
http://www.thereg..._barnum/
Now run along and prove how warming oceans are absorbing more CO2.
leetennant
5 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2016
This article relates to a heatwave that occurred more than 10 years ago. That's actually quite frightening considering temperatures have risen so significantly since then.
CockyChocachubra
Jul 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2016
Uh huh, your analysis of cooked data.
http://www.thereg..._barnum/
...

That was not a satisfactory answer.

The article is arguing that Muller is merely arguing that Muller is biased. Nowhere does it suggest that the data is cooked. What it does argue is that it might not be as good quality as desired. Whether these claims are correct is not yet for me to say. I have to learn more about how much more precise the WMO standard data is claimed to be.

The data I used relies on a well known method in statistical analysis, known as kriging, which is used to account for the biases introduced by sensor location. It is a method of estimating unknown values by analyzing statistical behavior of local values, and estimating the likeliest value based on that.

You can read about his method here:
http://berkeleyea...y-14.pdf

But, fine, you don't like that data, we'll use another set:

(tbc)
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2016
(continued)
For example:
http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2016

You can see a trendline steadily going up, for the month of January.

For your edification (hahah), I have calculated my own trendline:
https://docs.goog.../pubhtml

As you can see, my prediction matches the trendline given in the website.

See, this is not so mysterious. It is simple statistical regression.

So, once again, I have provided via ANOTHER data, more evidence of warming since 1930.

You want more plots? I can give you more.

All you have to do is acknowledge that there is a warming trend as shown by the math, that you were simply wrong that it's been cooling since 1930, and we can move on to your silly attempt at discrediting me.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2016
@antigoracle, indeed, if you plot this for every month, you will get a significant upward trend in all but July (0 deg per year) and October (-0.003 deg per year). Interestingly, however, for october, this slope has an uncertainty that is larger than its actual value, indicating that it could actually be positive (it could be as low as -0.01 or as high as 0.004).

Seriously, dude, there is no way you are going to win this argument. The data is in my favor. Give up, and acknowledge that you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with doing that. I won't make fun of you for it.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2016
I already expressed doubt I said this, and asked you to find where I said it. I have been attempting to find it myself, and have not yet succeeded.
I tend to doubt that you would say something like that, given that it is not true. Cooling ocean waters absorb more CO2 whereas warming waters will release it. It all depends on the amount of CO2 in the water.

it's another feedback effect that oceanographers who study ocean chemistry have grave concerns about. Marine chemists note that ocean temperature have also risen faster than just about any point we can see in earth's history, and there is a great repository of CO2 in the deep oceans that could begin to release as the water temperature in the abyss rises.

Here's a little bit on it: http://www.treehu...ide.html

No sense discussing this with againstseeing, he wouldn't understand it anyway.

thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2016
Cooling ocean waters absorb more CO2 whereas warming waters will release it...

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

It is likelier that I said I'd do something related, like look over a paper and apply my own analysis to determine the soundness of its arguments, and he reinterpreted it his "special" way 6 or so months later.

No sense discussing this with againstseeing...

Yup.

I have very little confidence that the additional analysis I just provided will make a difference either.

I have never seen him react to any independent analysis in a dynamic way (which is true for most other cranks here). At best, he will link to some related article (almost never written by a certified authority) whose arguments were long ago debunked. He will never actually argue with the ACTUAL merits of your own analysis, and will, without fail, discredit it as derived from "cooked" data, or "just math."
HeloMenelo
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
Told you monkey goracle see monkey goracle do, that is picking his nose learning from his cousins in the forest, he cannot and will not understand science, it's beyond his comprehension....he does espond to bannanas though... :D
HeloMenelo
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
Monkey wants another bannana....
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016

Now run along and prove how warming oceans are absorbing more CO2.

As ocean water is not saturated the CO2 content can go up as well as the temperature.
Since the atmospheric concentration is going up so will the ocean water concentration.
It is called physics.
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
I already expressed doubt I said this, and asked you to find where I said it.

LOL. The "logic" of the ignorant Chicken Little liar.
First, deny.
Then, accuse.
...
the fraud you are.

If you had one live neuron in your barren brains,
one that was not atrophied by stupidity and arrogance,
you would recognise this as psychological projection.
humy
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2016
Even if you accept the notion that recent warming is almost entirely "man made" it's difficult to believe that a difference of approximately 0.3 C to 0.6 C (depending on which data set you use) above the 20th century average would cause hundreds of deaths....

Why "difficult to believe"?
What reason can you imagine that an extra 0.3 C temperature rise during a heatwave wouldn't mean on average some n extra number of deaths from heatstroke?
Surely, with all else being equal, the higher the temperature in a heatwave, there more likely there would be some n number of more deaths?
If so, depending on the amount of extra temperature, why cannot that n be hundreds of people?
-seems pretty stupid to deny that possibility.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2016
Wow, antigoracle, you're so quiet all of a sudden, even though, you've been posting the same peurile nonsense in these articles since the 12th:
http://phys.org/n...orm.html

Why, it's almost as if you got caught in a lie, and don't want to admit you were wrong, or something!

All those posts, and not ONE of them of any actual substance. What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2016
antigoracle
1 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2016
What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.

Uh huh, if anyone should know what a sad, little, desperate, person is, it would be you. Why else would you claim you were invited to peer review papers after they were published and boast how you would prove warming oceans absorb more CO2, then months later make excuses.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2016
What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.

Uh huh, if anyone should know what a sad, little, desperate, person is, it would be you. Why else would you claim you were invited to peer review papers after they were published and boast how you would prove warming oceans absorb more CO2, then months later make excuses.

Haha. Well that was some fast turnaround time!

Once we got back to childish personal attacks you were all over it, lickity split!

As for actually responding to my most recent analysis using USHCN/GHCN/ClimDIV data, OTOH, we only have awkward silence.

How predictable...
And boring.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2016
LOL.
Yep, how predictable, you Chicken Littles are. Caught in your lies, you switch the conversation.
Here's the fraud that is the USHCN data.
https://stevengod...hcngiss/

Now run along and peer review some published papers and when you can find the time, prove how warming oceans absorb more CO2.
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2016
What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.

Uh huh, if anyone should know what a sad, little, desperate, person is, it would be you. Why else would you claim you were invited to peer review papers after they were published and boast how you would prove warming oceans absorb more CO2, then months later make excuses.


Uh huhh uhh ?... monkey struggling to speak, again....i r baboon wants another banana.... :D

HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2016
LOL.
Yep, how predictable, you Chicken Littles are. Caught in your lies, you switch the conversation.
Here's the fraud that is the USHCN data.
https://stevengod...hcngiss/

Now run along and peer review some published papers and when you can find the time, prove how warming oceans absorb more CO2.


Another bogus claim posted by monkey goracle, now let me show you how the deniers Lie
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
thefurlong
5 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2016
Here's the fraud that is the USHCN data.
https://stevengod...hcngiss/

I am looking at the article, now. I will tell you what I will do.

First, I will download the raw data, and do my computations, and see, if, indeed, it does cool like Goddard claims.

If it isn't true, we stop there.

If not, I will look at what the adjustments are, and try to find out whether they are justified.

Now, you are both, unself-aware, and a staunch practitioner of confirmation bias, so whatever I find will likely not make an impact on you. If I cannot justify the adjustments, you will claim victory, and if I can, you will simply claim it is just math or something like that.

That being said, here's a question for you. How much DO the data sets I used depend on the USHCN data? If I removed it from my calculation, would it make a big difference?

Now being firmly incurious, I don't expect you to attempt to answer this question, but we'll see.
novaman
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2016
O man 10 aces for the furlong and helo, this goracle guy really seem to be thew bafoon he's making himself out to be, you guys really opened my eyes towards man made climate change.... keep it up !
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2016
thefurlong, he'll reply like he always does, with thub sucked opinions and fraudulent or cherrypicked statistics....
whatever he replies with can always be ridiculed even further, that is what exposes him even further with everyone watching... :D

All for the good of human kind Nova thx.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2016
You can find the ushcn data here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...hcn/v2.5

the raw data is in ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

Just a note related to the EVIL adjustments that they are doing with the obvious intention of cooking the data (there couldn't be any other possible reason, amirite?): The status.txt and readme.txt suggest that they use the Pairwise Homogeneization
Algorithm to adjust temperature measurements.

Also, here is an article from Berkely Earth explaining how the temperature adjustments are made, and that there IS a cooling bias.

http://berkeleyea...re-data/
For the latter, they refer to this page:
http://rankexploi...to-mmts/

Again, I am sure that antigoracle, being eminently intellectually incurious, will make no attempt to look into these things and understand them.

I guess I have to do all the work.
HeloMenelo
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2016
i r baboon will do some more tree swinging, he always does :D
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2016
Here is a paper describing the algorithm they use:

http://journals.a...LI2263.1

The full text is available. From the abstract:
"Discontinuities in a climate series can be induced by virtually any change in instrumentation or observation practice. The relocation, replacement, or recalibration of an instrument, for example, can lead to an abrupt shift in time-ordered observations that is unrelated to any real change in climate. Likewise, alterations to the land use or land cover surrounding a measurement site might induce a sudden or "creeping" change...that could limit the degree to which observations are representative of a particular region."

In other words, the raw data that deniers like anti and Goddard are so fond of actually REQUIRES adjusting in order to eliminate systematic error.

So, ultimately, we have the same old silly gripe from these oxygen wasters, which is
"We don't trust it because you used scary math to understand it!"
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2016
LOL ...

... insane laughter in some basement ...
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2016
What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.

Uh huh, if anyone should know what a sad, little, desperate, person is, it would be you.

No it would be you. Let's have a vote. Wait, no need.
The consistent 1-votes on your posts say it all.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
goracle
Astonishing!! This Chicken Little retard does not know the difference between 1930 and 1960.

Yes I do. Let me guess - you failed logic class. See - if I say that it has been raining since 1930 - and you can show that between 1960 and the present - it did not rain - then you have proved my statement false. Just simple logic. If you said "it has rained since 1930" - that could indicate a one time event - perhaps prior to 1960. You chose a tense that indicates an on going event "it has been cooling since 1930". If I show that from 1960 to the present it was NOT cooling - then I have shown your statement to be false. This means you are wrong/ignorant.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
- if I say that it has been raining since 1930 - and you can show that between 1960 and the present - it did not rain - then you have proved my statement false.

You cut that out!

Nuanced thought leads to scary math. Scary math leads to realizing we're f*cked. Realizing we're f*cked leads to dirty hippie measures that help people.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the raw USHCN data does have a systematic error that introduces a cooling bias, so I can tell you what's going to happen, here. No matter what I do, antigoracle will have a super +infinity trump card (well, at least according to stupid people) that says that adjusting data means you automatically cooked it, and the only data we can ever use is raw data that is completely perfect, and has no biases. You know, the kind that you only get by studying unicorns. Otherwise, all you can do is throw it away and pine you know nothing, unless of course, analysis is given by Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
Yes I do. Let me guess - you failed logic class. See - if I say that it has been raining since 1930 - and you can show that between 1960 and the present - it did not rain - then you have proved my statement false. Just simple logic.

And, you've never stopped confirming what a retard you are. Congratulations, you've just won retard of the month. Did the temperature stop at anytime since 1930?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2016
No matter what I do

Like boast you can prove warming oceans are absorbing more CO2, then come back and make excuses as to why you failed and to top it off, pretend you didn't make the claim in the first place.
You are nothing but a fraud, NOAA could use you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
No matter what I do

Like boast you can prove warming oceans are absorbing more CO2...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which you have none, or have you found the comment where I did this? I certainly would not have boasted about it. I boast only about things I know well.

This is all I could find:
http://phys.org/n...ots.html

But that has nothing to do with "proving" that warming oceans absorb more CO2. This involved you sending me the Vostok Petit data, which has to do with CO2 in ice cores. I told you I would compare time series, but I never got around to it. As I said, after that, I got married, and bought a house--two things that interfere with taking the time to learn a new subject just to prove a chatbot on the Internet wrong.

Sorry, but unless you can find actual evidence, for all intents and purposes, it didn't happen.

Welcome to science 101. :-)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2016
Yes I do. Let me guess - you failed logic class. See - if I say that it has been raining since 1930 - and you can show that between 1960 and the present - it did not rain - then you have proved my statement false. Just simple logic.

And, you've never stopped confirming what a retard you are. Congratulations, you've just won retard of the month. Did the temperature stop at anytime since 1930?

Why even ask this question? You've already decided the answer won't be good enough.

Come to think of it, why are you still here? Have you learned a goddamn thing in the 100 years you've been a member of this forum?

What do you hope to gain from this? Seriously, is there a thing anyone here can say to even begin to change the arguments you use?

You say the same thing over, and over again, no matter what anyone says. You're like what would happen if there was a Terminator whose neural net processor was replaced with Eliza.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
goracle
Did the temperature stop at anytime since 1930?
No (really stupid question actually - how can temperature stop?) - but the warming did. It is understood by people who read a bit on the climate - that warming - in one part of the system (atmosphere for example) - does not proceed in a linear fashion. Meaning it is not a straight line up - but more step wise. Some years up, some years down, but overall trend is up. Now you claim that the trend is down -
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's
Your claim is false - and the graph that I linked proved this. It seems to me that resorting to childish insults - especially when you are wrong - just shows the world that you don't know the facts.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's

Your claim is false - and the graph that I linked proved this. It seems to me that resorting to childish insults - especially when you are wrong - just shows the world that you don't know the facts.

Well, his brain IS broken, but what I think he's trying to say in his own "special" way, is that the span from 1930 to 2016 shows a cooling trend via the raw data, which might, or might not be true. I suspect it's true, but I also suspect that it's due to systematic errors in measuring it, like spending some years measuring temperature at night, but others in the day, as everything I have read indicates.

Of course, since his reasoning faculties are...unique, and he's a chatbot, his Bayesian inferencing has not yet fully grasped the nuances of language that would enable him to communicate what passes for his thoughts correctly.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
the furlong
I suspect it's true,
Based on what? The graph I showed https://www.googl...L6ihM%3A Shows a very marked upward trend. There is plenty of other meta data available - here is one - http://www.climat...at-is-on
The continental U.S. has warmed by about 1.3°F over the past 100 years
The full report is linked.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2016
I suspect it's true, but I also suspect that it's due to systematic errors in measuring it...

Of course you are suspicious, so I urge caution as some may brand you a heretic.
Now, let's look at some of the other empirical evidence, such as, the worse droughts that led to the dust bowl and heatwaves not only in the US but extending into Canada. Extreme weather of that magnitude and duration hasn't been repeated since the 1930's despite all the claims of global warming.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2016
the furlong
I suspect it's true,
Based on what? The graph I showed https://www.googl...L6ihM%3A

Right, but I don't think that's from the raw data.
The continental U.S. has warmed by about 1.3°F over the past 100 years
This is certainly true, but the interval chatbot is talking about is a well known interval where systematic error distorts the raw data. The warming in this interval is deduced from application of the Pairwise Adjustment Algorithm/Quality Control process that removes systematic error from the data without introducing more bias than it removed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
Of course you are suspicious, so I urge caution as some may brand you a heretic.

Nobody is going to brand me a heretic, because I am actually doing analysis and following evidence, and not linking to demonstrated frauds like Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard or opinion articles from the WSJ. If you would do your own analysis, and link to what the actual literature says, and bother to read what you link to, instead of linking to frauds, childishly insulting, and using tired arguments that have been debunked years ago, people might respect you, too. Notice that, during the brief period Denglish attempted to have a reasonable discussion, I respected him.

Also, it's been well known for a while that systematic error introduces false signals in various data sets like USHCN. My speculation that there is, indeed a cooling trend from the raw USHCN (which IS still just speculation at this point), is not in conflict with the idea that it HAS been warming since 1930.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
goracle
Extreme weather of that magnitude and duration hasn't been repeated since the 1930's despite all the claims of global warming.
Pure anecdotal - without any data. Typical of someone who does not know what he/she is talking about. Where is your data goracle?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2016
the furlong
The continental U.S. has warmed by about 1.3°F over the past 100 years


This is certainly true

Of course it is true - and the data supports this. It is also in 180 degree conflict with goracle's statement.
Did you know the US has been cooling [NO SIMULATIOS REQUIRED] since the 1930's
This is a lie - and goracle has produced zero support for this lie.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2016
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2016
Pay attention, chatbot, GO and I are having a discussion. This is how it's supposed to be.
Of course it is true - and the data supports this.

Yes, but I don't think he understands even basic things like how statistical regression works, or error propagation.

All he sees is a graph of raw data with a trendline (presumably. Maybe he's lying), and concludes that since nobody acknowledges this precious trendline, and it disappears after adjustments are made, there must be some conspiracy, or everyone's simply incompetent.

He doesn't consider that they don't acknowledge this trendline because it is the result of systematic error in the station data.

This is a lie - and goracle has produced zero support for this lie.
Or an error in judgement, yes.

But, as I said, that's because he doesn't understand how, or why they adjust the temperature. All he sees is that it's been adjusted, and assumes "COOKED!"
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
aaaa... here you hiding....But monkey, you see those funny lines in the chart and get's all frisky thinking it explains your limited comprehension on what you see, learn to read and understand science first then try and comment on the links you post see... ;)

HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2016
Let me google that for you.
https://www3.epa....mps.html

see The furlong knows you can learn from him... ;)
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2016
Yes, but I don't think he understands even basic things like how statistical regression works, or error propagation.

LOL.
Says, the fraud, who boasted he could prove how warming oceans are absorbing more CO2, then made up lame excuses when he failed. Just look at what you are reduced too. Fabricating what the heretics are thinking to appease your ignorance. It's what cults do as a last resort.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2016
Yes, but I don't think he understands even basic things like how statistical regression works, or error propagation.

LOL.
Says, the fraud, who boasted he could prove how warming oceans are absorbing more CO2, then made up lame excuses when he failed. Just look at what you are reduced too. Fabricating what the heretics are thinking to appease your ignorance. It's what cults do as a last resort.

The exit condition for the infinite loop you are currently stuck in is to provide the article where I did this. Seeing as I don't have the power to scrub that article from the internet, you should be able to do this.
HeloMenelo
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2016
monkey goracle LOL's everytime he hears the the 2 corn pit's ringing in his skull :D
Science1st
Jul 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
The exit condition for the infinite loop you are currently stuck in is to provide the article where I did this. Seeing as I don't have the power to scrub that article from the internet, you should be able to do this.
Consider this line of discussion carefully furlong, as he is attempting to pull you into a quagmire . While I doubt very much that you said such a thing, even if you had, it does nothing to take away from the truth of what you say elsewhere.

This childish poster is trying to goad you. He has no argument, nor evidence, and less so tact or maturity, so trying to respond to him with such is both wasted time and an exercise in futility.

He is not in this to debate or even have a rational discussion. His only desire is to bait and try to frustrate you.

Never argue with an idiot furlong - they bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience,
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2016
goracle
Let me google that for you.
Well - nice try - but shows that you don't understand the concept of cooling. Your data does not support the assertion that "the u.s. has been cooling since the 1930's" A heat wave index - does not give you comprehensive temperature data. Look - from your site
The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the "Dust Bowl." Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
This is not comprehensive temperature data - it does not support your assertion. You are wrong.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2016
Your data does not support the assertion that "the u.s. has been cooling since the 1930's" A heat wave index - does not give you comprehensive temperature data. Look - from your site
GO I think am important point is being missed. Certainly, there were times that the central US had higher temperatures than the averaged temperature of today, But it is a red herring argument.

The US makes up about 2% of the globe, and while the regional temperatures were higher, global temperatures were not. Furthermore, the temperature spikes of the 1930's were outliers, and you can always find outliers in the temperature record. In other words, this is an example of cherry picking. 1934 (the hottest year of the dustbowl) only ranks as the 50th hottest year across the globe,

It is also disingenuous to say that the US has shown cooling during the intervening years, when you are using an outlier as your starting point, Again, straight-up cherry picking.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
Another aspect of the Dustbowl that our resident loon is trying herd to make you overlook is the role of humans. The drought of the 1930's was contributed to, and amplified by, human activities, most notably poor farming practices,

When the drought began, much of the land was left without cover. As there was no vegetation, there was a higher evaporation rate and a lower moisture retention ability in the soil. In addition, the dust itself added to the drought, in that airborne dust particles amplified the drought by blocking the Sun's energy, which reduced evaporation, cloud formation and rainfall over the region.

for those interested, here are some links: http://www.nature...-1.16157
http://www.pnas.o.../13/4997
https://www.skept...cord.htm
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2016
airborne dust particles amplified the drought by blocking the Sun's energy

Magganus and his blatant fabrications. The dust blocked the Sun, yet take a gander at the heatwaves.
https://www3.epa....mps.html
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2016
airborne dust particles amplified the drought by blocking the Sun's energy

Magganus and his blatant fabrications. The dust blocked the Sun, yet take a gander at the heatwaves.
https://www3.epa....mps.html


I am always amused when someone links to something they don't understand, then try to pretend it says something it doesn't.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
blatant fabrications.

When antigoracle says "blatant fabrications" he means peer reviewed articles in journals of excellent reputation. This is actually a recommendation.
It is when he _agrees_ with something that we should become weary.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2016
which reduced evaporation, cloud formation and rainfall over the region.

Yep, that's the way the water cycle works. The sun evaporates the water, it rises, cools and falls right back down as rain in the same region. Brilliant.
thefurlong
not rated yet Jul 16, 2016
Just chiming in here. I haven't forgotten about the USHCN data. It's just that I have made another theoretical discovery that demands my attention (one in a line of related theoretical discoveries I have been making since December. Stumpy knows a little about the others, but not this one).

I hope to return to the USHCN data, though, because it interests me, but perhaps not in this thread.
chileastro
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2016
antigoracle

1 /5 (10) Jul 13, 2016

What a sad, little, desperate, person you must be.


Uh huh


You give him entirely too much credit. That's why he agreed.

He really is superfluous to the species' requirements.
BongThePuffin
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ChiefFartingDog
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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

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