Human-caused warming likely led to recent streak of record-breaking temperatures: study

August 10, 2017, American Geophysical Union
Rising global temperatures are linked to more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, and droughts. Credit: Luis Iranzo Navarro-Olivares

It is "extremely unlikely" 2014, 2015 and 2016 would have been the warmest consecutive years on record without the influence of human-caused climate change, according to the authors of a new study.

Temperature records were first broken in 2014, when that year became the hottest year since global records began in 1880. These temperatures were then surpassed in 2015 and 2016, making last year the hottest year ever recorded. In 2016, the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.94 degrees Celsius (1.69 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average of 13.9 degrees Celsius (57.0 degrees Fahrenheit), according to NOAA.

Combining historical temperature data and state-of-the-art model simulations, the new study finds the likelihood of experiencing consecutive -breaking global temperatures from 2014 to 2016 without the effects of human-caused climate change is no greater than 0.03 percent and the likelihood of three consecutive record-breaking years happening any time since 2000 is no more than 0.7 percent. When anthropogenic warming is considered, the likelihood of three consecutive record-breaking years happening any time since 2000 rises to as high as 50 percent, according to the new study.

That means human-caused climate change is very likely to blame for the three consecutive record-hot years, according to the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

"With climate change, this is the kind of thing we would expect to see. And without climate change, we really would not expect to see it," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania, and lead author of the new study.

An animation of global temperatures since 1880. Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have found that Earth’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late-19th century. Credit: NASA / Scientific Visualization Studio

A warming planet

Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that would otherwise escape into space. Excess greenhouse gases from industrial activities, like burning fossil fuels, are trapping additional heat in the atmosphere, causing the Earth's temperatures to rise. The average surface temperature of the planet has risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century, and the past 35 years have seen a majority of the warming, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001, according to NASA.

Scientists are now trying to characterize the relationship between yearly record high temperatures and human-caused global warming.

In response to the past three years' record-breaking temperatures, authors of the new study calculated the likelihood of observing a three-year streak of record high temperatures since yearly global temperature records began in the late 19th century and the likelihood of seeing such a streak since 2000, when much of the warming has been observed. The study's authors determined how likely this kind of event was to happen both with and without the influence of human-caused warming.

The new study considers that each year is not independent of the ones coming before and after it, in contrast to previous estimates that assumed individual years are statistically independent from each other. There are both natural and human events that make temperature changes cluster together, such as climate patterns like El Niño, the solar cycle and volcanic eruptions, according to Mann.

A graph of the global mean surface temperature for the six-month period of January through June of each year from 1880-2016. The numbers are the differences from the pre-industrial era, calculated as the average mean surface temperature of 1880-1899. Credit: NASA / GISS

When this dependency is taken into account, the likelihood of these three consecutive record-breaking years occurring since 1880 is about 0.03 percent in the absence of human-caused climate change. When the long-term warming trend from human-caused climate change is considered, the likelihood of 2014-2016 being the hottest consecutive years on record since 1880 rises to between 1 and 3 percent, according to the new study.

The probability that this series of record-breaking years would be observed at some point since 2000 is less than 0.7 percent without the influence of human-caused climate change, but between 30 and 50 percent when the influence of human-caused climate change is considered, the new study finds.

If human-caused climate change is not considered, the warming observed in 2016 would have about a 1-in-a-million chance of occurring, compared with a nearly 1-in-3 chance when anthropogenic is taken into account, according to the study.

The results make it difficult to ignore the role human-caused climate change is having on temperatures around the world, according to Mann. Rising global temperatures are linked to more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, and droughts, which can harm humans, animals, agriculture and natural resources, he said.

"The things that are likely to impact us most about climate change aren't the averages, they're the extremes," Mann said. "Whether it's extreme droughts, or extreme floods, or extreme heat waves, when it comes to ... a lot of the most impactful climate related events are extreme events. The events are being made more frequent and more extreme by human-caused climate change."

Explore further: Report confirms 2016 was another warm year

More information: Michael E. Mann et al, Record Temperature Streak Bears Anthropogenic Fingerprint, Geophysical Research Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074056

Related Stories

Report confirms 2016 was another warm year

August 9, 2017

A new report published in Weather confirms that 2016 was another exceptionally warm year, with global temperature having reached 0.77± 0.09?C above its level between 1961 and 1990. Although 2016 was not measurably warmer ...

The human fingerprint on Europe's recent heat

June 30, 2017

This June, Europe experienced some remarkable heat. Temperature records were smashed across the west of the continent with extremely hot days followed by warm uncomfortable nights for many.

Planet's monthly hot streak ebbs in September

October 18, 2016

The planet's longest hot streak in 137 years of record-keeping came to an end Tuesday, with last month registering as the second warmest September in modern times, said US government scientists.

Recommended for you

Rainfall's natural variation hides climate change signal

February 22, 2018

New research from The Australian National University (ANU) and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science suggests natural rainfall variation is so great that it could take a human lifetime for significant climate ...

Seasonal patterns in the Amazon explained

February 22, 2018

Environmental scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory have led an international collaboration to improve satellite observations of tropical forests.

240 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

J Doug
1 / 5 (23) Aug 10, 2017
"The things that are likely to impact us most about climate change aren't the averages, they're the extremes," Mann said. "Whether it's extreme droughts, or extreme floods, or extreme heat waves, when it comes to climate change impacts ... a lot of the most impactful climate related events are extreme events. The events are being made more frequent and more extreme by human-caused climate change."

Mann needed to do more research than he did on his fraudulent "hockey stick" graph before coming up with this bit of garbage.

"4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year. The unusual hurricane activ
HeloMenelo
4.1 / 5 (17) Aug 11, 2017
Monkeynuts here above desperate to preach his propoganda does not have any proof of his never ending babble spree here on physorg so he reverts back to an old debunked claim that the hockey stick does not hold merit

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis)
They confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2017
Oh, look, another #climatedenier to put on ignore.

If you can't look at these images and see what's going on you're ignoring the evidence to trumpet your opinion, @J. You don't even have to learn math (which appears to be an advantage for an idiot like you).
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
@Helo,
They confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
The graph above shows the developing blade of the hockey stick, following the line Mann predicted going on forty years ago now. When scientists make predictions based on hypotheses and they turn out right, we generally start calling the hypothesis a theory. That's a promotion, as you surely know.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2017
"4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year. The unusual hurricane activ

Wow. Deniers have sunk to a new low. Hurricane Sandy killed 53 people and did $32 billion in damage in 2012, but somehow it's not "major."
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2017
Climate change is man made, but it's chemtrauils, no "fossil fuels", that are responsible. Chemtrails were first visible in 1997, when the atmosphere evidently became saturated with weather modification chemical. That was the same year the spate of climate change events, from the worst hurricane season; to the worst "el Nino" event; to the Northwest Passage becoming open; to the accelerated melting of glaciers; to the hottest years on record; to the development of the new cloud species, undulatis asperatus, began. Since the number of tornadoes per year began increasing around 1950, and that's when the first new cloud species, cirrus intortus, developed, chemtrails likely began then but were invisible and became visible when the atmosphere became saturated with chemical.
J Doug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2017
I would hope that barakn has the capacity to be able to look at the dates that these real hurricanes struck and understand the significance of that fact.
"The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the deadliest hurricane to ever hit the United States and caused between 8000 and 12000 deaths. The storm reached the Texas coast south of Galveston on September 8 as a Category 4 hurricane with a storm surge of 8 to 15 feet."

HURDAT Era
Name Dates active Deaths
Sea Islands August 15 – September 2, 1893 1,000–2,000
Chenier Caminanda September 27 – October 5, 1893 1,800–2,000
San Ciriaco August 3 – September 4, 1899 3,433
Galveston August 27 – September 15, 1900 6,000–12,000
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2017
Unfortunately the capacity is not within your self to grasp the scientific evidence, chasing bannanas though is... ;)
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2017
WTF?
LOL
I would hope that barakn has the capacity...
and i would hope that j doug has the capacity to comprehend the difference between weather and climate, and then understand the significance of that fact

but i doubt that is going to happen considering you're not able to elucidate your justification for posting weather as proof of ... what, exactly?

which brings us to this:
Mann needed to do more research than he did on his fraudulent "hockey stick" graph before coming up with this bit of garbage
1- where is your evidence for any of the science being "fraudulent"?
just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is (the Santa Claus argument fail for you)

2- where is your evidence that the above study is "garbage"?
you can't provide equivalent studies to validate your claim, so it's belief, not evidence

-denier rhetoric isn't proof of anything but delusion
so you've only proven your capacity for delusion thus far
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017

Due to a self-imposed isolation from what is the truth all of these years, I doubt that Captain Stumpy has ever heard of Richard Muller

Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
by Richard Muller October 15, 2004
"I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue."

In the final analysis, Captain Stumpy, I prefer to go with info that MIT believes to be correct and not what a biased source that you believe to be so great puts forth.
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
Da Schneib: A brief observation tells me that you would be advised to instead of issuing ad hominem attacks on someone who knows enough about this subject to look for facts and not the fraudulent graph that this publication provided. Here is what you will never find with your limited ability to seek the truth:
Use this site below to see that the chart presented in this debunked piece of fiction that you think is so great is not accurate.
"National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. USHCN data for January 1895 to August 2014 will remain available for historical comparison."

I do hope that your closed minded approach to this issue does not prevent you from seeing the difference between the graph you recommend and the one that the NOAA link takes you to.
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Captain Stumpy: Thanks, I will use your own words to ask this of you.

"what I am asking, and what I have continually asked, is for EMPIRICAL DATA...
NOT your opinion
NOT your conjectures
NOT your beliefs
EMPIRICAL DATA…
until you can give empirical data SHOWING SOMETHING, then your argument is circular, stupid, and not worth continuing.

J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
#1 Captain Stumpy, showing the ignorance that prevails with his kind of alarmism, states; "2- where is your evidence that the above study is "garbage"? you can't provide equivalent studies to validate your claim, so it's belief, not evidence"
Here is how Mann and your kind of math works & this is from an issue of MIT Technology Review
"Sustainable Energy
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
by Richard Muller October 15, 2004":
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
#2 "Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
@jdouTROLL
I doubt that Captain Stumpy has ever heard of Richard Muller
1- yes, i have

2- one persons opinion written in a 10year old article is not relevant, regardless of their background
that would be argument from authority, and if you want to consider authority, then the overwhelming majority of scientists accepting AGW wins hands down over any singular or small minority

Moreover, muller himself acknowledges AGW in that same article, so using him as some sort of scapegoat to argue against AGW or climate change makes you look kinda stupid

especially as the Mann chart has been vindicated: Pearce, Fred (2010)
or Penn state's investigation report: http://news.psu.e...port.pdf

3- the implications of Manns hockey stick graph are about rate of change
do you even know what that means?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
@jd the jdswallows sock TROLL cont'd
Here is how Mann and your kind of math works
and if you will look above, not only is Mann vindicated, but your article is proven wrong by multiple sources, both quoted

if you can read, that is

i noticed that you still have a problem differentiating what constitutes evidence: in that same thread you could not produce any empirical evidence tying your historical weather issues to the random delusional point you think you made: https://phys.org/...ent.html

you even missed and ignored the link explaining the cold snap in AGW that i gave you (Francis et al - now validated) in other threads

plus, you still don't comprehend basic physics and how CO2 works with things like water vapor

so you've established that you completely ignore the science when it's presented and you haven't learned anything

and now you want another round to prove you're an idiot...

why?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
@jdswallowed: a review
Global Warming Bombshell... This improper normalization procedure
debunked here: http://news.psu.e...port.pdf

note: the Mann graph is about rate of change
feel free to actually try to discuss it if you can manage to wrap your head around it
ever heard of Richard Muller
argument from authority, debunked by Mullers own arguments supporting AGW
showing the ignorance that prevails with his kind of alarmism
appeal to emotion
my argument isn't alarmist
Here is how Mann and your kind of math works & this is from an issue of MIT
1- redirection and repetition: repeating your delusional belief doesn't make it more true

2- evidence has vindicated Mann and the rate of change (more than just a singular individual and your arguments)

3- still argument from authority which is debunked by links above, or Pearce, Fred (2010), or several other sources: see google scholar

care to repeat again?
interictal
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
J Doug - It's amusing to use Muller's statements in an attempt to cast doubt on Hockey Stick. As I understand it, he lead a major effort that essentially supported it and was quoted (in 2012) by the NY Times as saying "[G]lobal warming [is] real .... Humans are almost entirely the cause.". Not sure I would mention him if I were to try to make your argument.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017

Due to a self-imposed isolation from what is the truth all of these years, I doubt that Captain Stumpy has ever heard of Richard Muller


Hi JD, I don't normally approve of arguments from authority, but in this case maybe we should just let the man talk for himself

https://www.youtu...8WQ4Wb5w
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
SteveS; I hope that this Richard A. Muller You Tube will be of interest to you as well as the ever confused Captain Stumpy.

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

https://www.youtu...pciw8suk
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
One can wonder if julianpenrod is for real. No wonder you people who comment on there do not use your real names.
"Since the number of tornadoes per year began increasing around 1950,"

"These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."

https://www.ncdc....y/trends
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
#1 This below is an example of how people who Captain Stumpy admires conducts their kind of "science". These are the people that Richard Muller was questioning their integrity in the You Tube you will not watch because it contradicts your preconceived and flawed view of this subject, agw . It is easy to see why people who comment here do not use their real names. Do you remember old always wrong Tony Banton, AKA, runrig?
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
#2 This is from the climategate emails & I hope that Captain Stumpy is astute enough to know that "Mike" has the last name of Mann.
"Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land 
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. 
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil"

http://www.assass...8124.txt
J Doug
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
#1 interictal; It will be interesting to see if you find the valid info below to be "amusing"

"The second concern Muller refers to is the "data selection" employed by the three major groups collecting global temperature data: NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US; and the Met Office's Hadley Centre in the UK. Muller says that the number of stations being used between 1980 and the present day has dropped from 6000 to less than 2000, with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature.
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
#2 The third issue is that rapid urbanization in the regions surrounding temperature stations might have led to localized temperature increases, or what is known as the "urban heat island" effect. The fourth concern, which Muller calls "data correction", refers to the small adjustments that the climate groups make to temperature readings as a result of changes in instruments and locations. Muller says the records describing why individual corrections have been made are very poor."

http://bishophill...tts.html
J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2017
#1 What Muller maintained mirrors what Smith was stating here, don't you think, interictal? "Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA's "selection bias" that Smith found infinitely more troubling."
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
#2 "It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations.
 
For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers."

http://www.americ..._ti.html

SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2017
SteveS; I hope that this Richard A. Muller You Tube will be of interest to you


Hi JD
You obviously have a great deal of respect for Richard Muller so please check the chronology of the links you and I have provided. Richard Muller was concerned about many aspects of how climate data was processed so he did what any reputable scientist would do and set up a team to reproduce the data taking everything he felt was incorrect into account.In my link he discusses his findings and explains that his results not only support the previous records but also that in his opinion the increase in temperature can only be explained by the increase in CO2. This is the team he set up

http://berkeleyearth.org/team/

and these are their findings
http://berkeleyea...indings/
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
Da Schneib states; "The graph above shows the developing blade of the hockey stick, following the line Mann predicted going on forty years ago now……"
"Expert Software Engineer Calls Level Of Fraud In Leaked US Gov Climate Report "Sickening" "

http://notrickszo...NEp.dpbs

I would certainly hope that you are able to notice the year that these records were set.
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 5, 1936 GANN VALLEY
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 MC INTOSH

In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121⁰F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60⁰ F.

http://www.ncdc.n.../records
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2017
i looked up Muller, seems like a straight dude , here is the result

http://berkeleyea...indings/

but the HUGE! increase is 1/2 a degree or so
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2017
@SteveS, awesome. From Muller's own mouth: "Try carbon dioxide. Smack on." Way to own the #climatedeniers. 5s all around.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2017
@snoose you have already been challenged to provide scientifically relevant data and failed here: https://phys.org/...ate.html

If you don't have an answer on that thread you are lying. Specifically you passively acknowledge that there is no evidence that would convince you. This is not connected with reality but with your beliefs, and you admit that *no evidence would convince you to change your mind*. You are not rational.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2017
@JD you also fail, and in your case your very own chosen source denies your claims. If you acknowledge your source, then you must accept his conclusions; if you do not then you are irrational. No one here is going to listen to the irrational. Get over it.
interictal
5 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
Hi J Doug. I took a few minutes and found that the dropped stations actually reported greater warming than the others. Please correct me if I am wrong.
https://skeptical...ect.html

Cheers, Hal
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2017
i looked up Muller, seems like a straight dude , here is the result

http://berkeleyea...indings/

but the HUGE! increase is 1/2 a degree or so


So you agree that NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOSS/NCDC are accurate then?

http://berkeleyea...mall.png
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2017
here's an interesting one about the glaciers in my back yard.

http://cjes.geosc...4/9/1215

quote,
'' They [garibaldi glaciers ] were only slightly more extensive than today in the 13th century,''
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2017
i looked up Muller, seems like a straight dude , here is the result

http://berkeleyea...indings/


So do you now agree that the NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOSS/NCDC data sets are accurate or not?
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
Part 1
Herein lays the rational for prudent skepticism.

Observation -- Record highs for all 50 states, except 1, occur before 1994 and appear (eye-balled) randomly distributed except for some clustering in the 30s. Seems there some be some correlation between the recent years and state highs of which there are none.

"according to Mann" is a self-admitted GW alarmists, could be some bias?

Temperature graph uses NASA GISTEMP as baseline. Would IPCC data been better? I don't know how much data has been homogenized, reanalyzed, normalized, etc. My understanding is that we have basically a combination of 3 data sets:

1. Thermometer readings begin (1880) in a world with a very limited number of data recording sites.

2. Historical thermometer record is concentrated in the developed world. Asia, S.A., Antarctica & Africa are basically devoid of data for most the period.

3. Later data transitions to satellite inferred temperatures.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2017
@snoose has no answer and tries to change the subject. Transparent to a 5-year-old, @snoose.

@Turbid, US statistics are irrelevant to a global phenomenon. Try to keep up.

Caught lying, like the usual #climatedeniers.
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
Part 2

Uses largest variance temperature change 1.1 C I have seen.
Would love to see the temperature track overlay with a graph of increasing accuracy of temperature recording.

Precision is too much. .03% is basically certainty. Rather exceptional for a soft science.

Funny Note: It was 35 years ago that politician Margaret Thatcher first coined the term GW for political purposes.

Last para. I guess Mann is postulating extreme events will be more extreme and frequent. It seems that recent history extremes particularly tropical storm extremes have substantially subsided. In 1988 I saw hurricane Gilbert take off every leaf on every tree in the Virginia islands. With ever growing populations, media hype, and CC bias how are we going to separate the 1000 year flood from the GW induced extreme. Hurricane Katrina was much more damaging due to failure to maintain levies for the inevitable. Same with Hurricane Sandy which was nothing compared to that of 1938.
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
Part 3
Wackadoodle Gang, who find a conspiracy of devil's deceit behind every word, identify your point specifically. If you find something incongruent identify it. If the paper is available read it and perhaps its references. If your vocabulary is only idiot and liar, then PLEASE use "ignore user" button and your GW porn addled minds will have a safe space. In other words tune out your jaundiced minds.
I contribute comments to a journal with 2.2M paid subscribers. We dialogue on controversial issues, sometimes GW and CC. There are polarized opinions. Responses may start with "Disagree". There is a lot of levity and no one as nasty as you, not even the trolls. You're a bunch of sick and venomous cupcakes. Consider civility and levity. If you don't know something it's OK to say so. Intellectual tolerance of the Gang doesn't exist. Repeat anal pores use the "ignore user" function. Radical Jihadi
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
Failed to note that if the 2016 temp was removed there isn't a hockey stick.
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
When climate models incorporate too many variables with ornate math and provide precision future conditions I tend to dismiss them because they pretend we are smarter than we are. In all projections I have seen the line is linear and the shorter the interval to present the steeper the future temperature projection becomes. Use of the linear graph is counter intuitive if you think about it. In other words there is no reason temperature to CO2 ration should be constant. There is more reason the graph should be non-linear than linear. Has a non-linear regression been done with temperature and any variable? This excludes junk regressions using mechanisms like 1/(x^2). Isolation of this could change our current understanding of climate dynamics.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2017
from Berkley re urban heat:

'' The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating. ''

so they conclude urban heat has next to zero influence , as 'very rural ' had next to no influence on their conclusion. ???
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2017
@snoose tries changing the subject on not just one but two threads while @Turbid has a meltdown.

/me hears circus calliope music playing.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2017
@turdTROLL idiocy part one
Observation -- Record highs for all 50 states, except 1, occur before 1994
1- you just posted gish gallop of conspiracist ideation demonstrating your epic failure to comprehend basic science, let alone climate science

2- you are still not able to comprehend the difference between weather and climate

highest temp in any state is a single temp (weather), whereas those high climate temps are about the average

plus, the US is not the globe (i know, it's hard for you to comprehend all that)
as for the rest of your post, see: https://isotropic...cken.pdf

part 2
Would love to see the temperature track overlay with a graph of increasing accuracy of temperature recording
for that you would have to actually read the studies that aren't located at your political denier sites
.03% is basically certainty. Rather exceptional for a soft science.
since when is physics a soft science?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2017
@turdTROLL idiocy cont'd - part three
identify your point specifically. If you find something incongruent identify it
tried that
gave you links and references
specified your failure ( https://phys.org/...hot.html )

you still didn't learn the difference between climate and weather, which is where one of your fundamental errors came from
then PLEASE use "ignore user" button
it is not ad hominem if its demonstrable and you provide the evidence for the label in your own posts
I contribute comments to a journal with 2.2M paid subscribers
calling bullsh*t - you can't tell the difference between weather and climate
you just proved that in multiple threads, including above

how can you expect people to believe you're reputable (or even literate) when you refused to even consider or read the references that directly refuted your claim?

2Bcont'd
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2017
from Berkley re urban heat:

'' The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating. ''

so they conclude urban heat has next to zero influence , as 'very rural ' had next to no influence on their conclusion. ???


You can read their full paper here

http://static.ber...-104.pdf

So do you agree that Berkeley Earth proves that NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOSS/NCDC are accurate or not?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2017
@turdTROLL idiocy cont'd
We dialogue on controversial issues, sometimes GW and CC. There are polarized opinions
the only contentious or controversial issues in AGW, GW or CC is what we can do about it and if we can correct it soon enough not to really screw things up

there is absolutely no controversy about if it exists

and therein lies the biggest problem of your claims: you claim to be able to talk details or data, but when specific data that is using validated science references (not singular studies, mind you), you specifically chose not to read it and even stated
I bother not with your citations
tell me again that isn't the mark of blatant denial and delusional behaviour

by all means, continue to make your speech about " Radical Jihadi" or "Intellectual tolerance"
you just demonstrated them both by refusing to actually deal with facts over your beliefs
above and here: https://phys.org/...hot.html

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
Failed to note that if the 2016 temp was removed there isn't a hockey stick
please provide studies and references that prove this, not just claims
When climate models incorporate too many variables with ornate math and provide precision future conditions I tend to dismiss them
1- that is because you deny science and facts

2- when models accurately reproduce and predict, then your dismissal reinforces my point about your denial of evidence

3- it doesn't matter what you believe
science doesn't care, and facts that are proven and validated are still real, factual, and directly in opposition of your beliefs

the rest of your gish gallop was dealt with in prior links and references that were supported by peer reviewed scientific journal studies you chose not to read

choosing to still ignore them indicates delusional fanaticism for a false belief, regardless of how you dress it up in language and proven fake tech-jargon
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
SteveS "Hi JD, I don't normally approve of arguments from authority…….". After watching this You Tube that you recommended, you certainly need to know the background of the "authority".
There is no question regarding what has influenced Dr. Muller's views on this subject and why he now thinks that CO₂ drives the earth's climate. He mentions his daughter in this video.

"Elizabeth Muller is listed as "Founder and Executive Director" of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she's been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick "the right technologies" – presumably meaning the right "Green" technologies."

http://joannenova...ultancy/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2017
One cannot help but note that @J does not address the data. Instead it attempts to smear Dr. Muller as being motivated by something other than that data, which is what #climatedeniers always fall back on when the data turn out, as they always have, not to support their claims.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
I hope that SteveS is able to see the connection between CO₂, the Muller & Associates team & money. It is the control factor and the chance to make money off of this hoax of anthropogenic global warming that keeps it alive & totally disregarding science that makes it clear that amount of CO₂ in today's atmosphere does not cause cataclysmic changes to to the climate.

"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."

http://www.linked...ciates_2
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2017
Doubling down on the lie won't help, @J. Address the data.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than Da Schneib could ever hope to acquire from where ever they get their delusional information.
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

https://www.amher...port.pdf
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2017
And still not addressing the data, @J. Oh, and speaking of appeal to authority, you have just done it.

Are ad hominem and ad verecundiam all you have? It appears so. And avoiding discussing the data.

We see a lot of #climatedeniers just like you here, @J. And they all lie, and all get caught. Just like you.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
It is very apparent when going back through these comments that Da Schneib has no information to address any data, whatever that might be, because they never supply any. Curt, meaningless & inane comments like the last one that Da Schneib submitted appear to be totally lacking any valid scientific bases that one could learn anything from, and this comes as no surprise.

This latest testament to Da Schneib's knowledge of the subject of CO₂ & climate change and temperature and honesty can be demonstrated by what occurred in Paraguay. "Doubling down on the lie won't help, @J. Address the data."
"All Of Paraguay's Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With" JANUARY 26, 2015

https://notalotof...ed-with/
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
I anxiously await Da Schneib's reply to the reported findings of Roy W. Spencer.

"UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C July 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015)
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click for full size version):

http://www.drroys...1-deg-c/

What have you to counter this report this report with, Da Schneib?
"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.
A Trend Analysis of the 1930–2010 Extreme Heat Events in the Continental United States*,+
Evan M. Oswald and Richard B. Rood

http://journals.a...13-071.1
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
@steve

'You can read their full paper here

http://static.ber...-104.pdf

So do you agree that Berkeley Earth proves that NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOSS/NCDC are accurate or not? ''

From said paper if you read it

'''The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating ''''

even so Muller concludes that there is no urban heating effect ! ? [ contrary to personal experience , no ? ]

so what would that temp graph look like if it included urban heat effect based on 'very rural ' station temps ??
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
Stumpy

Failed to note that if the 2016 temp was removed there isn't a hockey stick


as the hockey stick has been based on prior data.

Look at the graph! It is self evident.

[q please provide studies and references that prove this, not just claims

For the visually clear?

When climate models incorporate too many variables with ornate math and provide precision future conditions I tend to dismiss them


...Parrot hissy fit....

Don't have my 1976 Statistics 201 and some other math text books anymore. Explore for yourself using the data functions of MS Excel. Use the data set used here!

You can buy WolfromAlpha Pro $7.55 per month and play with models yourself. Included are Oceanography, Atmospheric Sciences (really neat stuff), Climate, Weather and Meteorology, Statistics, and more. Alpha Pro has the code YOU can explore with. Learn yourself.

Let's not hear blah, blah, blah,...

Continued

Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
Wackadoodle gang use "ignore user" this may be mature content.

Learn something for yourself. We don't need to cite papers telling us that there are more shootings in Chicago on hot nights.

Unless new knowledge is appropriate I'm not going to waste time engaging you in the battle of cherry picked arguments for really basic knowledge that you should have learned in college, if you attended, and common sense.

You're the Wackadoodle gang of useful idiots played by corrupt politicians to advance their agendas.

Is there any denial in anything here and anywhere else?

boo TRUMP
J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
#1 interictal; After the cartoonist, John Cook, cooked up his fraudulent "97 %" deal, I have little to no faith in this site's credibility and that applies to this bit of nonsense based on what "Tamino, from Open Mind, who plotted the temperature data from the weather stations that were dropped from the GHCN record (labelled 'pre-cutoff'). He then compared this to the temperature data from the weather stations that were kept (labelled 'post-cutoff')."
"Similar to Tamino's results, Clear Climate Code found that the dropped weather stations show a greater warming trend than the kept weather stations."
Solon
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
Nobody has any idea when the peak temperatures of the interglacial period will be, the climate, if indeed it is warming, may have done so even if humans were not around. The whole scam is about creating carbon futures derivatives, perhaps trillion$ at stake.
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
Wackadoodle Gang use "ignore user" this has mature content.

Wackadoodle Gang, In addition to Alpha Pro get a hobbyist/home use version of Mathematica. It is about $300. A back version of accompanying textbook can be bought on the cheap. This is what undergraduate real college students use. You can cut and paste code from Alpha Pro and other places, but you will have to learn something to use the code. Do any of you have the capacity to do that?

Displayed by the behavior of Whackadoodles who might have gone to college:

a) liberal arts education with algebra the greatest challenge
b) No philosophy.
c) No appreciation of what isn't known.
d) Ingrained emotional (jaundiced) reaction rather than critical thinking. "blah, blah, blah,.. fallacious argument"
e) Group/herd think.
f) Gross ignorance
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2017
aaaah TURDgent (aka antigoracle sock) ala waterprophet sock), really cranking up his monkey chatter today, Unfortunetly for him all that chest thumping and monkey babble does nothing but to prove his non existant understanding of science and real life climate events.

He talks about college, yet, he haven't passed primary toddler school yet, i'll get you some crayons to get started (but don't you use them now to draw a clown face on yourself naughty monkey ;)
SteveS
5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2017
Hi JD

There is no question regarding what has influenced Dr. Muller's views on this subject and why he now thinks that CO₂ drives the earth's climate.


You appear to have gone straight from appeal to authority

https://www.logic...uthority

to Ad-Hominem

https://www.logic...stantial

I could ask you where the Berkeley Earth published papers are intentionally misleading or manipulative, but lets keep the argument at the ad hominem level. So why would Saul Perlmutter risk his reputation for Richard Mullers daughter? Fame? Funding? Presure to publish?

https://www.nobel...cts.html

Now ask yourself the same question about the rest of the team.

http://berkeleyearth.org/team/

I don't think the Ad-Hominem argument work any better than the appeal to authority.
HeloMenelo
Aug 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2017
Hi Snoose
even so Muller concludes that there is no urban heating effect ! ? [ contrary to personal experience , no ? ]

so what would that temp graph look like if it included urban heat effect based on 'very rural ' station temps ??


Ignore your subjective experience, the conclusion is quite clear

"the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence)"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2017
...you certainly need to know the background of the "authority"
@jdswallow-jdTROLL
so, your authority is relevant and the data is accurate but only the data that meets your bias, regardless of further data?
LOL

thank you for a perfect example of cognitive bias (& many other biases) at work!

from Anchoring or focalism to Availability cascade and confirmation biases (and more)

keep repeating your lie... it's ok. your post will last a long time as a clear demonstration

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL
For the visually clear?
1- it is apparent by my comment that the only person who sees this is you

therefore

2- provide the study reference that shows the removal of a single year temp as removing the whole pattern of the graph
this will require you producing the historical data that then only has the one year removed, which you do not provide for perusal or fact checking, hence my point and request
(this is how science works, after all: do not accept claims - only evidence; then fact check the evidence for validity)
...Parrot hissy fit....
i've already proven your quoted argument from your own post is a parroted hissy fit that is not based in evidence
Explore for yourself using the data functions of MS Excel. Use the data set used here!
there is no need to replicate a known data set that is already freely available

the problem is that you've made a claim counter to the valid peer reviewed evidence without providing evidence

2Bcont'd

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
so if you can't provide evidence, then why argue the point?

moreover, your evidence should be equivalent to the evidence refuting your claims, therefore it should be peer reviewed scientific studies

that brings us to this point about your claims:

given the freely available data, why is it that no person in history to date has been able to assemble their data and show the math failure that you seem to have "spotted"?

in point of fact, this is the very thing that would propel any scientist into the media spotlight as it would immediately falsify the study proving it wrong - making said scientist the hero of the anti-climate change movement

it stands to reason, using basic logic, that because this hasn't happened despite the enormous resources being allocated for exactly that purpose, then said evidence doesn't exist

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
Learn something for yourself.
so why is it that when i produce evidence that directly refutes your claims, i am then challenged to learn something for myself because i don't see your perspective?

if i can present relevant established data that has been proven, validated and stands the test of time to refute your point then it stands to reason i have to be conversant with the information and your point

it is telling that you can't actually provide the same level of evidence for your claims
it means you're wanting me to accept your word on faith, not evidence
Unless new knowledge is appropriate I'm not going to waste time engaging you in the battle of cherry picked arguments for really basic knowledge that you should have learned in college, if you attended, and common sense
translation: you can't provide evidence for your claims so you're running away and blaming everyone else for proving you're an idiot

PS- 2 baccalaureates; 1 in STEM
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2017
Wackadoodles
You confirm what I just articulated. Not even common sense to talk science and never a direct question on point. Just puke. Who are the science deniers? Do you know if variances of solar radiation and/or cosmic ray intensity have added noise to the temperature data set? Just say yes or no. You might want to discuss it. Say something like "because we at the Maunder Minimum recent temperature data should be unaffected and this supports the accuracy of recent temperature records." What paper, which you can't understand, do you need cite? Stumpy do you have any ability to understand the math in the first paper you cited?

Is CO2 the sole driver of GW? Could CO2 have kicked in a secondary mechanism? Do you have any thoughts on that? What is the contribution of urban heat and tilled farmland? Use Google maps and think.

It's absolutely exasperating civil with such Wackadoodles.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
Displayed by the behavior of Whackadoodles
answers to your points:

a- demonstrably you, as you can't specifically provide empirical evidence for your claims like a STEM grad would

b- required for STEM; see any curriculum

c- false claim based upon delusional belief isn't failure to appreciate... STEM requires appreciation of the unknown to establish what is known, you idiot

d- you have shown this repeatedly, including your post i am answering, as you have yet to refute the evidence which directly contradicts your claims with any evidence

e- you've demonstrated this: you can't produce evidence refuting the validated science, therefore you're entire argument is that you're an authority with knowledge no world scientist has (religion) while wanting me to accept this based only on your claims (groupthink)

f- you demonstrate this, otherwise you would provide evidence refuting the studies i linked

it all comes down to evidence
ya still got NONE
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2017
Cont.

GW and CC are politicized so do you drink all the GW and CC porn? Isn't Algore's movie GW and CC porn? So starting with that where does porn begin and solid science kick-in? Strike me dead to ask the question.

My favorite - Obama GW porn. He visited the Exit glacier in Alaska and stated its rapid retreat was proof of GW. Lie. This glacier has been in rampant retreat since at before 1745. This is the first date marker and as you drive three miles to it you see ever more recent date markers.

If you don't know that politicians play us to their ends, you better not cross the street. What have I said which would in any way twist your tiny mind to believe energy companies don't have their own agenda?

I mentioned that it was counter intuitive that temperature trends lines should be linear. Why?
Turgent
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2017
Cont.

There are hardly any linear trend lines in the nature. E=mc^2 is not linear. Animal metabolic rate is "rate = animal mass to the ¾ power". The coefficient of correlation (CC) is very close to 1. Do you care to have any idea of what that means?

If a climate scientist stated "we have 4 years left before the temperatures are deadly" and he would neither release the data set nor algorithms used would you feel comfortable. Non-closure means other scientists can neither criticize nor build on the ideas and concepts. Would you make policy based on this? Would you trust the scientist? Your hockey sick god Michael Mann won't disclose his. Who are the ignorant science deniers?

You ignorant are frightening! Do any of you know how the Maunder cycle could affect heating due to cosmic rays?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
... talk science and never a direct question on point.
this described you perfectly, and i can demonstrate this with your own posts

i not only answer each of your points, but i also specifically gave you links and references that you have yet to answer, in any thread

so, given you want to talk science and be direct:
where is the evidence that directly refutes the specific points that i provided here: https://phys.org/...ate.html

to be clear, i am specifically referring to the post on AUG 02 that gave linked references to your claims which are parroted from a denier site, then repeated above

this link also demonstrably proves you're confusion regarding weather and climate, as well as the fallacious claims you make about temps, models and more, backed by 16+ studies

this link also directly refutes your claims in this thread

where is your refute other than your statement not to peruse the data?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL
GW and CC are politicized so do you drink all the GW and CC porn?
you are the one parroting the political denial arguments
i've provided the science - not articles
LOL
that makes you the idiot who drank the kool-aid!
Isn't Algore's movie
never seen it (either one)
don't care
gore is an idiot

the Science, however, speaks volumes
i notice you have yet to actually address the science with equivalent evidence
yet you want to denigrate everyone else?
Hmmmm
Obama GW porn
you keep bringing up politics, but you're the one claiming we're the delusional ones?

just because you believe something doesn't make it true - refute the science with equivalent studies or demonstrate yet again how big of an idiot you really are
Do any of you know how the Maunder cycle
distraction of point with irrelevant red herring, sans evidence
be specific

and quit making false claims that you can't prove anything about
Turgent
1 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2017
Stumpy and Wackadoodles,

What argument am I making? I'm speaking to science, methodology, tools, and your medieval mindset. What evidence is needed in such a discussion?

"math failure" spotted? Of what article did I speak to "math failure"? No it illustrates your poisoned vision. The point is folks of your limitations see it as linear when a knowledgeable person knows linearity of CO2 to temp would be ridiculous. Again you have no comprehension of what I said and can't speak to it. There is example of intelligent discourse here, what it your problem?

"SCIENCE IS EVIDENCE" no it is explanation of observable or hypothesis thereof.

You guys aren't discussing issues you're getting off on ripping and insulting. It is like the rhesus monkeys at the zoo, except for the Alpha male the rest are in the corner masturbating and yelling Oooh, Oooh, Oooh until they get off. I guess Stumpy is your Alpha and you are his bitches.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL
What argument am I making? I'm speaking to science, methodology, tools, and your medieval mindset
1- you make specific arguments about data that is directly refuted by not only observation, but repeated validated studies

that, very specifically, makes you a denier of science
more to the point, you make claims that the science, methodology and tools are wrong, yet you cannot demonstrate this with equivalent evidence (as in: studies)

2- mindset is your subjective interpretation of why we don't believe your unsubstantiated claims about the science, tools and methodology

the reason i, personally, don't believe you is because every time i've tried to refer back to the science you start making the argument that:
a- we can't see the obvious
b- if only we knew math
c- we only "parrot" political porn (despite the fact that i've only produced science porn as argument, and you're the only one parroting political stupidity)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd
"math failure" spotted? Of what article did I speak to "math failure"?
1- see your arguments above, like
if the 2016 temp was removed
or your advocacy to get Mathematica etc

anyone playing with the data without the knowledge or ability to justify excising data will get skewed results without actually being capable of recognizing the fallacy

more similar math fail claims here: https://phys.org/...ate.html

no it is explanation of observable or hypothesis thereof
incomplete

it can explain, but to do that with any factual accuracy it requires evidence

science isn't just about explaining, it is about the strict adherence to a principle using different levels of evidence that removes bias while being repeatable and verifiable

if ya can't make predictions and it don't meet observation, it's pseudoscience, no matter how explanatory it is
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2017
@turdTROLL
You guys aren't discussing issues you're getting off on ripping and insulting
i tried to engage you nicely and you decided that no one but you could see the proof of what you claimed
(here: https://phys.org/...ate.html )

when you specifically state you refused to review the evidence just to push your delusional belief, then it was plenty of evidence that you're not here to discuss science

at that point, what makes you different from antigorical?
nothing

therefore until you can produce an argument that is equivalent to the validated science, then...

if you can't take responsibility for your own actions, why are you here?
it makes your claims even more religious like than scientific

PS - your "linear" argument doesn't apply because you never took the time to read the evidence linked
until then, you're arguing that apples fall towards the earth because firetrucks are noisy
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#1 "Mullers Daughter Elizabeth registered "GreenGov" in 2008"

 OK, SteveS, &, for obvious reasons, did you not understand what I presented above? You need to be aware that the daughter, Elizabeth, worked with Dr. Muller on this project? From this below, even you should see that there is a monetary element to this that far out weights any scientific aspect & that has been proven time and again with Al Gore, who has made himself very wealthy from this scam.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#2 "It's not just about reducing the Carbon footprint for information and communication technologies – though this is also important. But the real breakthrough for Green ICT will be in helping build consensus among stakeholders, and to bring clarity and transparency to "Green" projects."
 
Strangely, Elizabeth forgot to mention this on her Berkeley Biography. She said she has advised governments, but not that the aim of that advice was to reduce their carbon footprint, and to select the right green technology. 

http://joannenova...ultancy/

It is the best interest of this Father-Daughter team for CO₂ & the nonexistent warming that the huckster try to claim follows a rise in the trace gas.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#2 I will go on computer expert E. Michael Smith & Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo assessment of the facts after the fraudulent and dishonest dealings that the CRU and associates lied about. A logical person asks; how and who is providing the temperatures from these "dropped weather stations"? It is clear that honesty and logic are not a part of the framework that guides S.S. If you can answer this question, interictal, about where the data came from after the stations were closed, please do so.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
Turgent; I had seen where Captain Stumpy had posted this comment (5 / 5 (1)15 hours ago) "1- that is because you deny science and facts 2- when models accurately reproduce and predict, then your dismissal reinforces my point about your denial of evidence" The question that the Stump will not answer is, when have the models predicted anything accurately?

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?
 The uncertainty remained hidden. Now that more real-world factors are being included, the uncertainties endemic in these factors reveal themselves and get tacked on to the models. You thus face an ironic tradeoff; as your models strive to mirror the real world better, they also become more uncertain. It's like swimming in quicksand; the harder you try to get out of it, the deeper you get sucked in.

http://blogs.scie...s-worse/

J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
Captain Stumpy can call people names and whatever else he does well, other than answer simple questions about science.
"Obama's National Climate Assessment is comprised of state-by-state regional climate model projections, however, as noted by Dr. John Christy in this WSJ article today, regional climate models "have no skill" and are far too unreliable to make such predictions. 
"The models are well off track in demonstrating accuracy in something as basic as the global atmospheric temperature, much less local events," he said. "Yet the report does not bring out in clear view for the public to see how poorly models have performed."

http://hockeyscht...nge.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
Can't wait for Captain Stumpy's meaningless comments about this:
"WHY THE ALARMISTS' CLIMATE MODELS ARE WORTHLESS
Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2. But a model in itself is evidence of nothing. The model obeys the dictates of its creator. In the case of climate models, we know they are wrong: they don't accurately reproduce the past, which should be the easy part; they fail to account for many features of the Earth's present climate; and to the extent that they have generated predictions, those predictions have proven to be wrong. There is therefore no reason why anyone should rely on predictions of future climate that are generated by the models."
http://www.powerl...less.php

J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#1 Captain Stumpy said; so, it must be wrong; "2- when models accurately reproduce and predict, then your dismissal reinforces my point about your denial of evidence"
Here is what NOAA said about 2014.
"NOAA: Another warm winter likely for western U.S., South may see colder weather
Repeat of last year's extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely"
October 16, 2014
(Credit: NOAA)
Below average temperatures are favored in parts of the south-central and southeastern United States, while above-average temperatures are most likely in the western U.S., Alaska, Hawaii and New England, according to the U.S. Winter Outlook, issued today by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.

http://www.noaane...ook.html
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
J Doug

In an earlier article discussion I tried to speak to the limits to accuracy inherent in the projections of these models over time and uncertainty inherent to chaotic and complex systems, effect of initial conditions precision, deterministic versus non-deterministic systems, fractals, etc. It received the standard treatment. I have avoided "when have the models predicted anything accurately?" for obvious reasons.

Another way to express the frustration is likening it to urinating into a strong wind.

How much of the population does this mindset represent?
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#2 It appears that NOAA's models didn't work out at all & it looks like the people of New England would more than likely agree. "1- that is because you deny science and facts" Captain Stumpy
Here is what Farmers' Almanac is saying about the 2014 winter.

"The Old Farmer's Almanac's long-range weather predictions for 2014–2015 are available—and another teeth-chatteringly cold winter is on its way across the United States! 
"Colder is just almost too familiar a term," Editor Janice Stillman said. "Think of it as a refriger-nation."
With its traditionally 80 percent–accurate weather forecasts, The Old Farmer's Almanac predicts that this winter will be another arctic blast with above-normal snowfall throughout much of the nation. The extreme weather will continue into Summer 2015, which is expected to be predominantly hot and dry."

http://www.almana...-almanac
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
J Doug

That's the heart of it. They can't pass the test of reconciling with the past temperatures and really crater back from 1977.

Didn't see the WSJ yet.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
#3 To think that my tax dollars go to fund these charlatans and keep their billion dollar computers running is sickening; but, like is said, garbage in-garbage out, and that is sad because before NASA & NOAA got politicized by these charlatans like Hansen and Gavin A. Schmidt, who said this:
"Today's models are flexible tools that can answer a wide range of questions, but at a price: They can be almost as difficult to analyze and understand as the real world." and I might add, to tell the truth about what the findings are, if that truth does not fit the political narrative of the day.
http://www.giss.n...midt_04/
Turgent
1 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2017
WSJ

"In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records."
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
"i tried to engage you nicely and you decided that no one but you could see the proof of what you claimed"
(here: https://phys.org/....html )

This where Captain Stumpy's "proof" would take you.
"Farmer suicides rise in India as climate warms, study shows" July 31, 2017

I know that Captain Stumpy has never heard about the facts that now follow:
"India Bone-Chilling Cold Weather Surprises Northern Parts Without Heating Systems" January 3, 2013.
As many as 114 people have died due to cold temperatures in India
Meteorologist M Duraiswamy said that January 2 was the coldest day in the last 44 years.
Overall, conditions are terrible throughout the region and official can do nothing but hope for temperatures to rise soon."

http://guardianlv...systems/

Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
More of same. HOOVER INSTITUTION is a reputable entity.

http://www.hoover...e-models
J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017

"Delhi's homeless struggle in near-freezing temperatures as cold spell sweeps India Updated Fri 10 Jan 2014
At least 100 people have been killed in a cold spell sweeping across India, and near freezing temperatures in the capital are making life almost impossible for people living on the streets."
http://www.abc.ne.../5193310
J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
"Bomdila and Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh witness heavy snowfall  21 January, 2016
Bomdila and Tawang have witnessed snowfall in Arunachal Pradesh with temperatures dipping to subzero level, informed a Facebook friend of mine from Arunachal Pradesh with a photograph of snow covered new settlements in Bomdila - the headquarters of West Kameng Districts. It is said that the Bomdila-Tawang road was covered with more than one feet of snow for the last few days. The road goes up to China border and considered as a lifeline of the Indian Army. The road has been blocked completely and it would take a few days to clear the snow."
http://www.merine...41.shtml
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2017
"This where Captain Stumpy's "proof" would take you.
"Farmer suicides rise in India as climate warms, study shows" July 31, 2017"

This article is XXX Climate Disaster porn. Projects with precision to 2100!
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2017
Here is further proof that Captain Stumpy has no idea what he talks about.
"Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather"
May 20, 2015
The Lancet
Summary: "Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells."

http://www.scienc...3831.htm
interictal
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2017
Hi J Doug,
So you are aware of studies showing that the dropping out of stations lead to an increase in warming rate ? I'd love to see that info if you know of any. It would be very enlightening.
Thanks, Hal
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
WOW
look at the gish gallop from the denier camp!

@jd/swallows sockTROLL
Here is further proof that
please show where i ever stated hot weather kills more than cold
LOL
you can't link that one because i never said it, you idiot

lying really wont help your cause
and repeating a lie like you did above doesn't make it more true
Bomdila and Tawang have witnessed snowfall in Arunachal Pradesh
so, you both are too stupid to comprehend the difference between weather and climate
its good you demonstrated that for me yet again

.

one thing is painfully obvious to any reader: both jd/swallows and turd have attempted to distract away from and then lie their way out of answering the scientific studies presented to them both

nice demonstration
i will be sure to use it later to show others how you work!
LMFAO

PS@jdTROLL
see Francis et al (validated)
you never did want to acknowledge that one... and now it's biting you in the backside
LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
@turdTROLL
In an earlier article discussion I tried to speak to the limits to accuracy inherent in the projections of these models over time
1- blatant lie
your specific claim was, and i quote
It isn't a deterministic system and even if it was their is not enough information to model climate
https://phys.org/...ate.html

all long term predictions will be off by certain factors, and i never stated otherwise
it's why we can accurately predict weather about 3 days out but there are problems that build after that... all of which is explained in my references..
oh wait, you said
I didn't pursue any more of your citations
ah well, that is demonstrative you're a lying denier of evidence

2- our discussion was never specifically about levels of accuracy over long periods
any semi-literate 5th grader can see that by our conversations

ya tried gish gallop, distraction, strawman, ignoring citations... & failed
so what's next?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
@jd/swallowed the kool-aid
@turdTROLL

i will not accept any blog as evidence from you two, regardless of source, unless it specifically produces links and references to studies that can validate it's claims
(and if it does that, why not just link the studies? - because they don't exist)

also note: you repeat the same series of lies over and over in your above gish-gallop diatribe against me

repeating them doesn't make them more true
it only serves to undermine any potential future argument, especially as i can demonstrate that both of you specifically ignore scientific references

you can keep posting, but you failed to make any point other than the following, which you demonstrate clearly:
1- you're both deniers of science
2- you're both parroting political denier rhetoric already debunked by science
3- you're both pseudoscience idiots for doing 1 & 2

LOL
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
Hi JD

From this below, even you should see that there is a monetary element to this that far out weights any scientific aspect


You now appear to have moved from an Ad-Hominem argument to conspiracy accusations

I could ask you for hard evidence for your claims, but let's keep the argument at the conspiracy level and look at who funded the initial research.

http://berkeleyea...funders/

Surely if there were any fraud these people would be demanding legal action and their money back, unless they were also a part of the conspiracy. So tell me how much does it take to pay off the Koch brothers and Bill Gates?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
Make that a double LOL :D seeing TURDgent (antigoracle sock) talk to himself with his own puppets always crack me up. All his sensless counter arguments and sudden change of course when faced with answering up with evidence when presented with the science is hilarious. How Stumpy comes back to expose all his lies and idiocy is as always priceless. :D
J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
interictal; I had posted what follows to you earlier concerning your recent question.
#1 interictal; After the cartoonist, John Cook, cooked up his fraudulent "97 %" deal, I have little to no faith in this site's credibility and that applies to this bit of nonsense based on what "Tamino, from Open Mind, who plotted the temperature data from the weather stations that were dropped from the GHCN record (labelled 'pre-cutoff'). He then compared this to the temperature data from the weather stations that were kept (labelled 'post-cutoff')."
"Similar to Tamino's results, Clear Climate Code found that the dropped weather stations show a greater warming trend than the kept weather stations."
J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
#2 I will go on what computer expert E. Michael Smith & Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo assessment of the facts are after the fraudulent and dishonest dealings that the CRU and associates lied about. A logical person asks; how and who is providing the temperatures from these "dropped weather stations"? It is clear that honesty and logic are not a part of the framework that guides S.S. If you can answer this question, interictal, about where the data came from after the stations were closed, please do so.

http://www.assass...8124.txt

J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
#2 I will go on what computer expert E. Michael Smith & Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo assessment of the facts are after the fraudulent and dishonest dealings that the CRU and associates lied about. A logical person asks; how and who is providing the temperatures from these "dropped weather stations"? It is clear that honesty and logic are not a part of the framework that guides S.S. If you can answer this question, interictal, about where the data came from after the stations were closed, please do so.

http://www.assass...8124.txt

J Doug
1 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
#3 I place no credibility at all with a site that claims it is "scientific", such as skeptical science, who spends so much time trying to eliminate a proven by historical evidence as well as proxy evidence, the Medieval Warm Period, that was global wide in scope. That is not how science works but how political advocacy does things.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Statement of Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy Climate Change and the Media 

 http://www.epw.se...d=266543

HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
......., I have little to no faith in this site's credibility and that applies to this bit of nonsense based on what "Tamino, from Open Mind, who plotted the temperature data from the weather stations that were dropped from the GHCN record (labelled 'pre-cutoff'). He then compared this to the temperature data from the weather stations that were kept"

YOU don't have any faith in any real science, That has been proven for decades of sensless babble from your side, and what faith YOU have in anything is totally irrelevant to us.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
**** If you can answer this question, interictal, about where the data came from after the stations were closed, please do so......


How about YOU answer against the 1000s of questions posed to YOU over the past 2 decades, THAT without avoiding or trying to change the subject, YOU fail to even try and answer ONE, let alone come up with even amateur proof against Scientific evidence !
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
place no credibility at all with a site that claims it is "scientific", such as skeptical science, who spends so much time trying to eliminate a proven by historical evidence as well as proxy evidence, the Medieval Warm Period, that was glo bla bla blah


Well what do you know antigoracle's sock jdoug trips over his own feet yet ...again, let's not get into how you spend years on end of a sorry life pushing BS on this site with a lot of chest thumping, but no evidence to back it up ;) Skeptic Science is to complicated for you, get someone to help you with understanding those big words :D
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
#4 This piece that some are debating the validity of on this subject, "Human-caused warming likely led to recent streak of record-breaking temperatures: study" has no bases in fact. It does show the desperation that some alarmist have trying to prove that a trace gas, CO₂, that is absolutely the bases for life on earth, that is only 400 ppm of the total atmosphere, somehow, in some magical way causes the earth's clime to be what it is while stupidly discounting that orb in the sky that has provided the warming that is required for life for the last 4.5 billion years, the sun. I know that logic and facts to an alarmist are like sun light on a vampire. A Vampire's skin just sparkles like diamonds when struck by sunlight & the lies begin to come faster than a Michael Mann before Congress can issue them.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
Now we have the situation where someone called HeloMenelo post 3 times and in none of the post is there anything that has to do with the topic of the moment & that obviously is because they have no idea what the topic is. They obviously have given no consideration to what 400 ppm equates to in the real world:
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
At 400 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere so that someone who has the very limited reasoning abilities of one such as HeloMenelo has been cursed with could understand. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
Muller: , there is no urban heating ''

then in same paper, writes ;

'''The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating ''

Where i live in Abbotsford BC the town is noticeably warmer in summer heat because of the parking lots , the official thermometer is at the airport and would be considered rural. I live 7miles from both in the woods and my thermometer i usually 2 degrees less than official in hot weather.
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
Great observation, snoosebaum, and one that SteveS will not be very content with. It is a basic fact the only temperature readings that have not been corrupted are the satellite records. Hansen, when he was with GISS, lied every chance he got to further his agenda after 1999.
"Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record." 
https://stevengod...practor/
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
What Hansen, when he had a better idea of what honesty was and could even manage to tell the truth, said below.
"Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What's happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
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."

http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
J Doug
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
It appears that means that the increase in CO₂ in recent years has caused the earth's T to remain flat for close to 19 years, according to accurate satellite readings of temperature and not the corrupted ones that the NASA puts forth.
All Of Paraguay's Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With
JANUARY 26, 2015

https://notalotof...ed-with/

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
JD , one might almost think the Muller who began as a skeptic , left that line at the end of his paper as a suggestion that he was not allowed to speak the truth. Or one could say that his paper confirms the official version and their way of doing things [ only] .
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2017
Now we have the situation where someone called HeloMenelo post 3 times and in none of the post is there anything that has to do with the topic of the moment & that obviously is because they have no idea what the topic is. They obviously have given no consideration to what 400 ppm equates to in the real

LOL we ? It's only YOU and your socks talking to yourself, My comments are spot on and it shows ;) Can't say much about your ramblings and incompetence to bring any evidence to the scientific community (as usual that is) It Seems like you staying up late for those 1 ratings, all good cause we like giving them to ya, you're in a neverending circle jerk and that's where you're gonna stay ;)
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
Hi Snoose

I live 7miles from both in the woods and my thermometer i usually 2 degrees less than official in hot weather.


I think you're getting hung up on absolute temperatures instead of the rate of change of temperatures over time. If you had 50 years data for both your home and airport thermometer they could show 2 degrees difference for any given day but the same warming or cooling trend over the full 50 years.

With this in mind take another look at fig 5 A and B

http://static.ber...-104.pdf
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2017
Whackadoodles,

For the purpose of trying to understand Whackadoodles, I tried to find a M. Mann paper where he articulates the hockey stick. I couldn't find one. Do any of you know of such? If such exists it needs to follow the professional format of his 2007 article "The influence of climate state variables on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone occurrence rates". Although he does not provide the algorithm for his paper his discussion is thorough and professional. In it he predicted 15+/-4 or 26% [error with a 95% confidence interval] for 2007 the same year it was published. Read the conclusion! It includes "However, analysis of residuals also indicates some evidence of bias, implying the need for cautious use of the model." And "This three variable statistical model also comes…" The math is 100% algebra. Notice HE speaks to inherent "bais".

Stumpy you're great at pulling stuff from your arse.

Can any of you intelligently discuss this? No YouTube.
Turgent
1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2017
Maroon Stumpy and Whackadoodles,

What is your critique of what I have just posted?

a) Fallacious

b) Lie

c) Distortion

d) Deceit

e) Idiot

f) Evidence is Science- no evidence

g) Unsupported

h) GW denier

i) Science denier

h) Other

i) No supporting citation

j) Math is too hard to understand

k) Blah Blah

l) Does not fit Whackadoodle mindset

m) Fails to discuss linearity

n) This is a trap for morons

o) All of the above

Morons vote o) all of the above.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2017
Whackadoodles,

Modelling and complex computer algorithms do contribute to social value in the fields of pharmaceuticals and materials. They actually predict things that are verified. Both are non-deterministic in that they are subject to quantum effects. The time variable is of little significance whereas it is in climate science.

Read a science book.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
@ steve, i suspect that inclusive of actual urban heat that consensus late heat spike would disappear. That being said local glaciers are still melting so there is still warming but what is a larger view of that ?

http://www.nrcres.../e07-019
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2017
@turdTROLL
What is your critique of what I have just posted?
sorry, but you don't have the correct answer provided

the answer is not singular, either

you keep distracting from the point with strawman

you will do it again with your very next series of gish-gallop posts

not once have you actually falsified a single study to validate your claims, but you seem to think your points are valid

so the answers are:
1- you have yet to actually address the validated evidence presented to you

just because you can bring up irrelevant tangential strawman arguments doesn't mean you're addressing anything valid

2- repeating yourself does not clarify anything; nor does it validate anything

Turgent
1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2017
WTF are you talking about‼‼!?

I just asked for your help, trying to see your point of view. This is a related but stand-alone topic chosen to avoid your objections, clean slate for scientific discussion. You're actually to stupid and afraid to address your "facts" and supporting rational. It's nuts like you which make others skeptical.

There is absolutely no way to start a baseline discussion with you.

I hope everyone reads this and at least one open mind will result.

You are certifiably nuts. Please permanently "ignore user" me.

Chicken Kaka.
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2017
Hi Snoose

@ steve, i suspect that inclusive of actual urban heat that consensus late heat spike would disappear.


Why?
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017

It is interesting to see just how consistent HeloMenelo is. They never issue anything of importance and therefore there is no need for them to offer up any links to substantiate what amounts to ZERO. This below is an example of that on a different thread:
5 / 5 (6)Aug 13, 2017
Yes but shootist aka antigoracle/waterprophet sockpuppet lives in his own cubicle of space, outside that territory it's the real and big world where there is Real climate change happening due to Human Induced Fossil Fuel Pollution.

https://phys.org/...bal.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
How about this for being not only consistent but also insultingly stupid?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (7)Aug 10, 2017
Can't say the same about your Turd like comments though, Direct blame of drought on Global Climate Change is applenty and backed up by Endless of Real Life Science, not the the pseudoscience you are trying pushing from the basement of you mom's house ;)

https://phys.org/...ght.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
This is one of the only comments that made sense and that is only because it was so ignorant that the moderator removed it. It must have been something to behold considering the quality of HeloMenelo's post that did make it by the very tolerant moderator's scrutiny.
HeloMenelo
Aug 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
https://phys.org/...res.html
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
since we are not told, why not ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
@turdTROLL
WTF are you talking about‼‼!?
since you've come to PO you have attempted to start conversations about science

to date, you have yet to actually address the science presented against your own arguments
you have even stated you refused to check the references or links

this is after you start a conversation and present your own findings which are checked for validity

so, why would anyone take the time to actually discuss the topic when every time the topic heads into the realm of science you ignore the references and go straight to something like
you are splitting angel hairs
I didn't pursue any more of your citations
It isn't a deterministic system and even if it was their is not enough information to model climate
1- you couldn't keep the conversation straight

2- the links and references were explanatory and referenced studies validating the points made

so if you ignore the facts presented - so why should anyone try with you again?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
@turdTROLL cont'd

so when you post something like:
For the purpose of trying to understand Whackadoodles, I tried to find a M. Mann paper where he articulates the hockey stick
this shows not only a fundamental comprehension problem, but also demonstrates your own refusal to actually "intelligently discuss this", though that is your claim

more to the point: not only is the data linked in wiki, but a 2 second search on Google Scholar lead me right to the data source and the Mann papers

so right there i can tell that you're completely unfamiliar with actual science and the factual arguments behind AGW or climate change

it also demonstrates your source material for argument as you parrot denier claims while showing you're completely unfamiliar with even source material they call fake!

THAT means you specifically accept any chosen lie they tell you without checking facts or data

so to reiterate: if you ignore the facts, why attempt discourse with you?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2017
@turdTROLL last
There is absolutely no way to start a baseline discussion with you
there most certainly is
present a factual science based argument that can be verified: not your personal opinion or parroting of denier claims backed by stupidity
I hope everyone reads this
as do i
it's a great example of denier tactics to sow FUD and stupidity in place of facts
You are certifiably nuts. Please permanently "ignore user" me
and you've just been proven to be a loser denier troll, with your own posts

i will not ignore user you, and i will continue to point out your failings as a warning to others who seek facts over delusional stupidity and denial rhetoric

Chicken Kaka right back at ya, trollTurd
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2017
How about this for being not only consistent but also insultingly stupid?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (7)Aug 10, 2017
Can't say the same about your Turd like comments though, Direct blame of drought on Global Climate Change is applenty and backed up by Endless of Real Life Science, not the the pseudoscience you are trying pushing from the basement of you mom's house ;)

https://phys.org/...ght.html

Good on you for reposting what i said there, and adding the link, it takes the viewers to that article to see the baracade of idiocy you preach over there and on every article that shows up on this site :D It's only you that disprove of that reply (but then that's completely understandable.. ;)
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
This is one of the only comments that made sense and that is only because it was so ignorant that the moderator removed it. It must have been something to behold considering the quality of HeloMenelo's post that did make it by the very tolerant moderator's scrutiny.
HeloMenelo
Aug 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
https://phys.org/...res.html

No

since we are not told, why not ?

A desperate man eh ? Using a removed moderator entry to try and dig "something up" on me ? :D i replied in the wrong topic no biggie ;) Trying to discredit me only digs you a bigger hole as can be seen by my relentless support and your lack of any support ;) after your 2 decades of chest thumping getting nowhere, people have graduated people have seen the changes in this world, you're still stuck in grade one, and you'll still be there in 20 years time.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
@turdTROLL last
There is absolutely no way to start a baseline discussion with you
there most certainly is
present a factual science based argument that can be verified: not your personal opinion or parroting of denier claims backed by stupidity
I hope everyone reads this
as do i
it's a great example of denier tactics to sow FUD and stupidity in place of facts
You are certifiably nuts. Please permanently "ignore user" me
and you've just been proven to be a loser denier troll, with your own posts

..to point out your failings as a warning to others who seek facts over delusional stupidity and denial rhetoric

Chicken Kaka right back at ya, trollTurd

Perfectly put Captain
Antigoracle sockpuppet turdgent, snoosebaum, jdoug keeps on thumping that chest and the returning echo of that chest thumping he inteprets as the truth, backed up by his own puppets he feels confident to enter the circle jerk again and be slapped around the circle all over again
SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2017
@ steve, i suspect that inclusive of actual urban heat that consensus late heat spike would disappear.


Take another look at the paper, they separated urban and non urban stations, the trend remained near enough the same.

http://static.ber...-104.pdf
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2017
No , there is no plot of ' very rural ' stations , that's my point
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2017
No , there is no plot of ' very rural ' stations , that's my point


"In Figure 5A we show the comparison of the temperature estimate for all the land sites (in red) with the temperature trend for the very rural land sites (blue). The difference between the two plots is shown in Figure 5B. An urban heat island bias would be expected to show itself as an upward trend in 5B; none is seen."
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
No , there is no plot of ' very rural ' stations , that's my point

...Doh..antigoracle sockpuppet snoozing yet again
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
So far, mostly just comedic relief on parade.
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2017


A desperate man eh ? Using a removed moderator entry to try and dig "something up" on me ? :D i replied in the wrong topic no biggie ;) Trying to discredit me only digs you a bigger hole as can be seen by my relentless support and your lack of any support ;)


HeloMenelo; No one needs to do anything to discredit you; your every inane, fact free comment does that task very well for you. I see that you have one thing that characterizes people who are naive enough to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, is what causes the earth's climate to act as it does & that is the ability to lie about basically everything. "D i replied in the wrong topic no biggie ;)"
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2017
You posted something that was even more egregious than your normal uninformative and off topic drivel that the moderator did not to let it remain & therefore did you an immense service.
Have a nice confused, pointless & nonproductive day that follows so many others in your life full of monsters in the sky, such as CO₂, that ignorant & irrational folks such as yourself imagine is out to get you and the rest of you true believers.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2017
Steve, u r being deliberately obtuse , from Muller ;, again ,

'''The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating ''

don't bother answering , there is no answer, just something to think about
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
Steve, u r being deliberately obtuse , from Muller ;, again ,


An average based solely on very rural station data with good spatial coverage is not going to be influenced by urban heating in any way, that's what is meant by "robust to urban heating" This is the whole point of the study, comparing this to the full data set gives an indication of the influence of urban heating. See figure 5

http://static.ber...-104.pdf

What do you think it means? You will have to explain this, because at the moment you are coming across as quite irrational and I know you're not.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
antigoracle's sockpuppets have to post with all his socks fooling himself into thinking the other socks is not himself. let me go pop some popcorn, this is getting more fun by the post :D
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
definition of robust ; ''having or showing vigor, strength, or firmness ''

https://www.merri...y/robust

the result of zero urban heating effect, that is concluded, is the opposite of 'robust'

ie 'reconstruction robust to no urban heating'

perhaps Muller does not use english very well
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017


A desperate man eh ? Us..." on me ? :D i replied in the wrong topic no biggie ;) Trying to discredit me only digs you a bigger hole as can be seen by my relentless support and your lack of any support ;)


HeloMenelo; No one needs to do anything to discredit you; your every inane, fact free comment does that task very well for you. I see that...one thing that characterizes people who are naive enough to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, is what causes the earth's climate to act as it does & that is the ability to lie about basically everything. "D i replied in the wrong topic no biggie ;)"
Nope i see only high ratings on my posts sensles claims coming from you just emphasises your stupidity i expose the idiocy and that idiocy is You, guess who is your witness as to the "lies" scientists tell... Your sockpuppets ? But they are you remember ;) what a nutcase. the night is still young i want to see more chest thumping from your side, be the Monkey ! :D
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2017
@snoose
perhaps Muller does not use english very well
if you don't mind an interjection on this point - you used merriam webster

you should be looking for a resource that used the term as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), or a similar climate physics definition

or you can start with general physics lexicons as it should be similarly applicable

you can't always assume that the colloquial meaning from webster or oxford will be the specific definition because a study is designed to convey a message to peers educated in the same sciences utilising the same lexicon of very specific meanings
a study is not written for the general public

perhaps this will make a point more clearly: http://www.tandfo....9685639

also note: both C and D apply from your own webster definition, but you ignored them
SteveS
5 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2017
definition of robust ; ''having or showing vigor, strength, or firmness ''


"robust to urban heating"

Strength or firmness to urban heating, as in not affected by it. This is obvious in the context of the paper: -

"The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating "

As only "very rural" data was included how could it be otherwise?

My appologies if english is not your first languange, it can be a bit confusing and I don't mean to be offensive.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
stumpified;

your link makes no sense , i tried to find some other definition in a science context with no luck , so i suppose in jargon terms he meant

'''The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to [my conclusions about ] urban heating ''

jargon is best avoided if one wants to be clear as opposed to maintaining professional mystique
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
"The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to [my conclusions about ] urban heating""The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to [my conclusions about ] urban heating"


The sentence stands on its own, your addition is meaningless, the problem here appears to be your understanding of this one sentence. What do you actually think it means?

The thing to take away from this paper is that the difference between global average temperature based on all stations, and the global average temperature based on just rural stations is minimal.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
now u r being obtuse, robust to urban heating vs robust to no urban heating ??

and @ stumpified there was a distinction between 'very rural ' and 'rural '
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
antigoracle's sock snoosebaum snoozes and loses again...clocking 1's out of fives like there's no tomorrow...:D can't complain more references for us to make examples of... I wonder if he even knows this is a science site given his kindergarden knowledge on the subject :D
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
@snooze-brainTROLL
your link makes no sense
in context it does: words in studies do not necessarily have the same meaning as colloquial use as there is a specific lexicon that may call out [x] definition explained in historical studies and precedent which you're ignoring
jargon is best avoided if one wants to be clear as opposed to maintaining professional mystique
right
so then you use a literal mouse to access your computer? how do you keep it from biting you when you push it's face into the mouse pad?

see the point yet?

studies aren't written for everyone: they're written for peers
peers would have access to historical studies that define words, or that set precedents for a words use (you know, like "mouse" for the hand controlled pointing device that detects two-dimensional motion relative to a surface)

cherrypicking a single word out of context for an argument while refusing to research historical climate/physics data for precedent is kinda stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
@snooze-brainedTROLL
and @ stumpified there was a distinction between 'very rural ' and 'rural '
so?
your point specifically centers around your personal hatred of the utilised word "robust" which you cherrypicked for the reason of your confusion

note that if you read the study in context, while reading the other studies referenced by and in said study, then the meaning of the word is quite clear

hence my additional link

it also indicates you're intentionally introducing FUD and being obtuse because you want to make a semantic argument

where is the data supporting your semantic argument?

you can't use colloquial definitions to argue a definition in a technical paper

- that would be like purchasing a live rodent for your kid to plug into the computer as the primary interface because your technical manual says to plug in a mouse at port [x]

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2017
and oddly, Muller seems rather alone in not finding any urban heating , too many to list

https://www.googl...LXg3ztio
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
now u r being obtuse, robust to urban heating vs robust to no urban heating ?


Merriam Webster
2a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: insensitive, stupid
2b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

I'll be charitable and take it you intended 2b, well let me retort, my statements have been easy to comprehend, clear, and precise in thought.
The thing to take away from this paper is that the difference between global average temperature based on all stations, and the global average temperature based on just rural stations is minimal.

Whilst you have still to explain precisely what you understand by: -
"The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating"

Please explain exactly what you feel I am not understanding here.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
and oddly, Muller seems rather alone in not finding any urban heating


The issue here is not wether the urban heat island effect exists (it does) it is the effect on the global average temperature anomoly datesets (minimal - http://static.ber...104.pdf)

Strawman 101
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
stumpified ur off ur nut mate , mouse ain't jargon , time for monty python again !
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
steve , muller differentiates between ' rural' and 'very rural ', then doesn't
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
steve , muller differentiates between ' rural' and 'very rural ', then doesn't


Sorry, what do you mean by this, you're being obtuse (2b)

You still have to explain precisely what you understand by: -
The stations we identified as "very rural" provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating

and
The thing to take away from this paper is that the difference between global average temperature based on all stations, and the global average temperature based on just rural stations is minimal.


Please take you time and write it in your first language, I'm happy to get it translated.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2017
whats missing from from muller study is the effect of seasonality on UHI
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
whats missing from from muller study is the effect of seasonality on UHI


In what way?

Obtuse 2b
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
@snooze-brain
mouse ain't jargon
yes, it is

unless you are specifically talking about technology and computers, then the first thing that comes to mind is: https://en.wikipe...ki/Mouse

that is not the same thing as a computer mouse (note that typically computer is added to differentiate between the rodent and the pointing device - it also didn't become common use until far later than it's origin and due to the widespread cheap computers available)
https://en.wikipe...er_mouse

http://www.comput...r-Mouse/

so, you fail WRT that particular argument

also note: you're still cherrypicking for FUD
building a strawman argument because you don't want to actually read the references doesn't mean you have a legit argument
snoosebaum
Aug 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2017
the sky is blue


Your version of covfefe?

Sad

Bad

Mad

HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2017
and oddly, Muller seems rather alone in not finding any urban heating , too many to list

https://www.googl...LXg3ztio

Not so Oddly You Antogoracle sockpuppet yet again as always can't get any understanding of science through that thick skull, There's no vitamans in that bannanas you're feeding on to enlighten whats inside that skull.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2017
the sky is blue


whats missing from from muller study is the effect of seasonality on UHI


In what way?

Obtuse 2b

Antigoracle sockpuppet picked up a science book and adding his own intepretation of it the end result is something he posts but cannot explain (as usual that is)
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2017
the sky is blue

And the Monkey is YOU
J Doug
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2017
Could HeloMenelo actually be so dense & isolated from the truth and facts due to being brainwashed into imagining that the trace gas, carbon dioxide, somehow is a "pollutant" that causes the earth to warm when it never did so in the past proven history of the earth's past when the levels of this essential for life benign gas were much higher than they're now? This kind of mindless thinking would account for the beyond stupid & inane comments that the poor person keeps posting. I will never waste my time reading another one of these insane outburst presented by HM.
HeloMenelo
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2017
Why you've left out your spree off puppetry to talk to, no boosting of your own morale talking to yourself with your own puppets ? Don't blame ya, those sockpuppets get used overtime everyday ,they must be quite foul by now eh... ;) I see you are confusing yourself again, trying to grasp at little bits digging deep and pick on bits that does not disprove climate change (as you do so ever often) But then again you never being able to provide proof of your lies leads to you using desperate strawman measures all exposed right here for everyone to see :D
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2017
@jd aka swallows-multi-sock TROLL
carbon dioxide, somehow is a "pollutant"
listen you illiterate idiot- a pollutant is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose"
http://www.dictio...ollutant

it is no different than iodine in humans
it may well be vital to life, but it is also deadly

nice to see you still don't know what the word "pollutant" actually means, even though i sent you the links from EPA to NIH more than a few times

maybe the words were too big?
hopefully this dictionary definition helps

if not, go here: http://www.readingbear.org/
Benni
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2017
Could HeloMenelo actually be so dense & isolated from the truth and facts due to being brainwashed into imagining that the trace gas, carbon dioxide, somehow is a "pollutant" that causes the earth to warm when it never did so in the past


JD, of course that is his problem, he doesn't know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of atmospheric gases & if it were formed into a blanket covering the entirety of Earth's surface the blanket that it would form will only be 1/10" thick. Clowns like him have never had a course in Thermodynamics so how could you expect him to understand why a 1/10" CO2 blanket could never hold the quantity of heat that is required for what he believes will happen.

Maybe his problem is that he doesn't like O, 21% of atmospheric gases? Maybe he thinks there is too much of that & it's just somehow not fair.
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2017
Could HeloMenelo actually be so dense & isolated from the truth and facts due to being brainwashed into imagining that the trace gas, carbon dioxide, somehow is a "pollutant" that causes the earth to warm when it never did so in the past


JD, of course that is his problem, he doesn't know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of atmospheric gases & if it were formed into a blanket covering the entirety of Earth's surface the blanket that it would form will only be 1/10" thick. Clowns like him have never had a course in Thermodynamics so how could you expect him to understand why a 1/10" CO2 blanket could never hold the quantity of heat that is required for what he believes will happen.

Maybe his problem is that he doesn't like O, 21% of atmospheric gases? Maybe he thinks there is too much of that & it's just somehow not fair.

Talking to your own sockpuppet won't make understanding the science any easier, nor help with getting any of your bs recocnized ;)
J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2017
listen you illiterate idiot- a pollutant is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose"
http://www.dictio...ollutant
Captain Stumpy; You must refine your definition of what a "pollutant" actually is if you are attempting to apply it to CO₂.
There is nothing about the absolutely essential for life on earth, CO₂, that renders any natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.
"Definition of carbon dioxide"
A heavy colorless gas CO2 that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages"
https://www.merri...0dioxide



J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2017
The above is not a definition of what your "pollutant" is and how the EPA can show how it is a pollutant is pure fiction for a political purpose.
There is only once that I'm aware of where, because it is 1.5 times heavier that the atmosphere that it is contained in, that it became a harmful substance and that is because it caused why it is used in fire extinguishers to occur and that was that it displaced the O₂ & caused all O₂ breathing animals to suffocate.
This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake
http://www.neator...century/


J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2017
Benni; You well point out for a rational & logical individual why this essential trace gas, CO₂, that Captain Stumpy is attempting to equate with iodine in the body, just how such an amazing small amount of this gas can be the source of all life on earth other than perhaps around the deep sea volcanic vents that also, like all volcanic activity, emit CO₂.
As you mentioned, the 400 ppm of carbon dioxide now in our Earth's atmosphere is 0.04 percent –the equivalent of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars; or 1.4 inches on a football field or if we deal in ppm, it is like 400 inches spread out over the distance of one million inches or 16 miles of inches. It is 400 minutes in 2 years' worth of minutes. That's an incredibly small amount. The atmosphere's oxygen concentration is equivalent to 21 yards of a football field. The 120 ppm increase between 1800 and 2014 is equivalent to 12 cents out of $ 1,000, or a half-inch on a football field.
J Doug
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2017
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere so that those who have very limited reasoning abilities could hopefully understand. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere, then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2017
There is nothing about the absolutely essential for life on earth, CO₂, that renders any natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose
@multi-jd sockTROLL
apparently you didn't understand the example of iodine - a pollutant that is also absolutely necessary for life

no one but you idiot trolls are saying that CO2 isn't beneficial in moderation or small doses, but it is deadly to humans in large doses as well as being a GHG

of course, you already know this because when you were the idiot sock jdswallows (and other socks) you had this information presented to you multiple times, which you ignored, until you were banhammered, hence your new troll-sock
https://phys.org/...ent.html

moreover: you never once addressed the refutation presented in your original argument

& all those studies are validated making your argument from ignorance blatantly false
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2017
@the idiot swallows cont'd
You must refine your definition of what a "pollutant" actually is
no, i don't
for starters, the iodine point is clearly analogous despite your lack of comprehension
i could use any number of other elements similarly (like salt) - but you can only lead one to knowledge, you can't make them think

and surely this is true because despite the overwhelming evidence refuting your claims, you still cling to the same idiotic political rhetoric of "beneficial CO2"

so, because you will ignore the evidence anyway, this blog clears the air for those who wish to read factual data over stupendously stupid troll FUD: https://skeptical...nced.htm

feel free to refute the linked studies in that blog
but since i know you've already been sent this link, i doubt the information will make any impact as you're determined not to comprehend the data therein
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
Hi JD

If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere, then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)


If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the average person, then how much more at the top would be the amount of Botulinum toxin necessary to kill them?

Small amounts can have disproportionate effects.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2017
Jdoug TURDgent antigoracle sockpuppets keeps getting slapped in the circle jerk, and then some....
Another knockout round from Stumpy exposing this Goon's stupidity and his puppetry at it's most hilarious state. I think i will need to start handing out those bannanas again :D Let's see some more chest thumping from him and his goons, remember the more hilarious your comments, the bigger the bannas you're gettin...
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2017
a pollutant is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose"


dissolves in water to form carbonic acid


Hi JD

https://www.pmel....ation%3F

"Many marine organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells or skeletons are negatively impacted by increasing CO2 levels and decreasing pH in seawater."

"When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans."
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
Talking to your own sockpuppet won't make understanding the science any easier, nor help with getting any of your bs recocnized
........and as expected, you still don't know how to make a scientific observation of the data that I have posted above & immediately below:

"JD, of course that is his problem, he doesn't know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of atmospheric gases & if it were formed into a blanket covering the entirety of Earth's surface the blanket that it would form will only be 1/10" thick. Clowns like him have never had a course in Thermodynamics so how could you expect him to understand why a 1/10" CO2 blanket could never hold the quantity of heat that is required for what he believes will happen."

Hey, I'll ask you again: When was the first time you heard that CO2 comprises only 0.04% of atmospheric gases & if spread evenly across the face of the planet would form a blanket no more than 1/10"? Deny you first heard it from me.....!!!!

J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
Small amounts can have disproportionate effects.

SteveS; If you consider your question about the height of the Eiffel Tower, the total size of the average person & the amount of Botulinum toxin necessary to kill the average person to have relevance in this discussion, then you are the one that needs to answer your question. I see no relevance between a deadly poison within the defined confines of the human body and an essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO₂, that exist in the immense expanse of the earth's atmosphere.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2017
I'm sure that you know that the Mesosphere extends from around 31 miles above the Earth's surface to 53 miles. The gases, including the O₂ molecules, continue to become more dense as one descends & temperatures increase as one descends rising to about 5°F near the bottom of this layer which is the Stratosphere, which as mentioned above, that extends around 31 miles down to anywhere from 4 to 12 miles above the Earth's surface. This layer holds 19% of the atmosphere's gases but very little CO₂ because this trace gas is 1.5 X heavier that the rest of the atmosphere.
This coincides with the above fact about CO₂:
"ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"
http://greenparty...-practic
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2017
This is to the link that the Canadian Greens do not think serves their purpose.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
By Richard Belshaw on 3 January 2009 - 8:57pm
Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry......
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg
http://www.greenp...-practic
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
It appears SteveS that different US government agencies can't even get their act together enough to tell the tax paying public what levels of CO₂ are allowable in a work place.
What are the Allowable Limits of CO2 EXPOSURE - Carbon dioxide exposure limits PEL and TLV set by OSHA and NIOSH
Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance. The table below summarizes
"The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."
It is only natural that the agency that Captain Stumpy believes without question, the EPA, would have totally unreasonable levels for this condition. Below are realistic conditions that NIOSH & OSHA knows because they have done test about this subject while the U.S. EPA only uses conjecture to set its limits based on no facts.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
• "NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material."
• "OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6% (1.4 absolute percentage points divided by 20.9% starting point = 0.06), the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm."
https://inspectap...mits.php
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
It would be too much to ask for to have John Cook at skeptical science & Captain Stumpy to quit concentrating on coming up with names to call people who do not agree with his take on "science" to read actual scientific reports that are contributed by actual scientist to maybe learn something about this topic.
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Karl Popper
"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper

"For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
"Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient." http://www.omafra...-077.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@jd multi-sock lying troll
It would be too much to ask ...to read actual scientific reports that are contributed by actual scientist to maybe learn something about this topic
funny you should mention this: the links that i provided to Skeptical science are clear, concise arguments supported by factual studies that directly refute your claims

whereas none of those links provide any "name calling" with the exception of the blatant stupidity presented in the comments section by people like you who refuse to accept proven validated science over their political rhetoric

this is repeatedly demonstrated by you in every sock you've presented to PO as well
like here: https://phys.org/...ent.html

so we can establish that you repeatedly refused to accept validated studies
but now you want to make the exact same lie argument again?

WTF?

are you brain damaged?
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2017
If you consider your question about the height of the Eiffel Tower, the total size of the average person & the amount of Botulinum toxin necessary to kill the average person to have relevance in this discussion,then you are the one that needs to answer your question


Hi JD

Just for the fun of it I will.

Average American male 88.9 kg

https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8

LD50 Botulinum toxin 2.1 ng/kg intravenously or intramuscularly

https://en.wikipe...um_toxin

So for a 324m Eiffel Tower the additional amount of represented by Botulinum toxin would be about 6.804 x 10^-7mm (can somebody check my math please)

Within the defined confines of the human body, or the Earth atmosphere, small amounts can have disproportionate effects.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@jd multi-sock lying troll

i will present the evidence you ignored yet again, which you will ignore (yet again)

given it's argument already presented and ignored - please provide the direct refute of the following:
Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011, Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005, Cure and Acock 1986, Leaky et al. 2006, Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001, Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zhu 2005, Högy et al. 2009, Zavala et al. 2008, Eastburn et al. 2010, Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999, Ziska et al. 2005, Stiling and Cornelissen 2007, Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b, Navas et al. 1999, Poorter and Navas 2003

this is just half of the studies i already presented proving you wrong
start by invalidating these with studies only so we can move to part two
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
Steve S
Read citation. If my understanding is correct increasing CO2 yields increased carbonic acid. H2CO3 will lessen alkalinity toward acid. Solubility of CO2 increases with lower temperatures.

Beach scavenging in S. Latitudes yields lots of shells. In the colder waters of Nova Scotia there are few. Higher CO2 --> higher H2CO3 concentration, however higher temp lower CO2 --> lower H2CO3. Point being, does higher temp act as an equilibrium mechanism for the H ion (+H)?

Citation contains "Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity." True however this is misleading. Using 8 for pH the +H is .00000001 moles per liter. A 30% increase means m/l is .000000013. A 150% increase changes m/l to .000000025. Following this math a change for pH 8 to 7.9 requires a 1000% increase. It would seem more appropriate to discuss the how such change might increase the reactivity of +H with H2CO3.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
Cont.

I think the more appropriate question would be does the 30% (.000000003 m/l) change in alkalinity induce a higher reaction rate with Calcium Carbonate.

I would really like to see a comparison of the dissolving shell with 2100 alkali level compared with today. I might not show much of a difference.

Wonder what pH was used for 2100?
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
SteveS,

Interesting. The citation "In a recent paper, coral biologists reported that ocean acidification could compromise the successful fertilization, larval settlement and survivorship of Elkhorn coral, an endangered species." Of course the operative word is "could". I read the "recent paper". I take no issue with it, other than what it doesn't say.

Per Dr. Ian Malcolm's (Jurassic Park) "Nature will find a way." Fundamental rule, I think, is the smaller an organism the greater and faster its adaptability to a changing environment. Per the paper "juvenile mortality of many marine invertebrates often exceeds 99%". I didn't see fertilized egg count per any unit of measure. Plugging in 100,000,000,000 eggs for a Pacific atoll and 1% survival that is 1,000,000,000. Assuming 1% may have some random genetic advantage that is 10,000,000 experiments in adaption or attempts at Darwinian survival of the fittest, annually.

Thanks for the citation
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
funny you should mention this: the links that i provided to Skeptical science are clear, concise arguments supported by factual studies that directly refute your claims


It does not appear that during all of his study of the pages that skeptical science puts together that Captain Stumpy ever saw them mention these thoughts that emanated from actual thinking & knowledgeable people.

"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" — Karl Popper

"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

As Bertrand Russell said: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth" Albert Einstein

Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017

Thinking about it further it is really disturbing that NOAA is using "this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity". That is a change 3 ppb. Seeing some of the dialogue here it seems plausible that few understand the significance of "Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic...".
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
"Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism." ---- David Suzuki

and created group think of the herd.

"Opinions are like anal pores, every one has one." ---Turgent
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
If you consider your question about the height of the Eiffel Tower, the total size of the average person & the amount of Botulinum toxin necessary to kill the average person to have relevance in this discussion,then you are the one that needs to answer your question


Hi JD

Just for the fun of it I will.

Average American male 88.9 kg

https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8

So for a 324m Eiffel Tower the additional amount of represented by Botulinum toxin would be about 6.804 x 10^-7mm (can somebody check my math please)

Within the defined confines of the human body, or the Earth atmosphere, small amounts can have disproportionate effects.


Without doing the math it looks right as the molecular size is in the range of near ultraviolet light which is the approximate wavelength 6.804 x 10^-7mm
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
Zhao and Running 2010, this is just half of the studies i already presented proving you wrong
start by invalidating these with studies only so we can move to part two


Captain Stumpy is so proud of his main source of "scientific" information when he referenced "Zhao and Running 2010"

"Zhao and Running's plant productivity claim rebuked in Science: modeling errors, use of corrupted satellite data and statistically insignificant trends cited
UPDATE: Here's the press release from  Boston University:
From Boston University
NASA study refutes claims of drought-driven declines in plant productivity, global food security
BU researchers find that modeling errors produced exaggerated claims"
https://wattsupwi...science/
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
Since Running has been feeding off of the people of Montana for years, I know something about him and his kind of "science"
This is the education that Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then they criticize someone like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed their contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a "B.S. in  Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {whatever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
"Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations."
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2017
@Turgent
Without doing the math it looks right as the molecular size is in the range of near ultraviolet light which is the approximate wavelength 6.804 x 10^-7mm


not sure what near-UV wavelength is 0.68nm. Last I knew, that would be an X-ray.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
"Many marine organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells or skeletons are negatively impacted by increasing CO2 levels and decreasing pH in seawater."


You should know SteveS that it is not possible to have it both ways like you and NOAA are wanting to do with this other fraudulent problem that dishonest people are attempting to lay off on CO₂, ocean acidification.
"When CO2 is added to seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3); hence acid is being added to seawater, thereby acidifying it."
https://www.pmel....er+on+pH
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
#2 One would have hoped that what is a taxpayer funded organization, NOAA, could be honest and recognize scientific facts instead of just making up stuff as they go along to satisfy a political agenda. It is a fact that as sea temperatures rise they give off CO₂ & that is part of the reason why there is such a lag between rising global levels in temperatures and the level of atmospheric CO₂. The alarmist are so full of themselves over the oceans warming and now they want to lie and say that the oceans are turning acidic.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
How can the oceans be 30% more acidic than before we started burning fossil fuels? They are not acidic now because the oceans are naturally alkaline, with an average pH of around 8.2, although this can vary up to 0.3 units depending on location and season.
What are these "scientist" using for a base line that enables them to say: "….ocean is 30% more acidic than before we started burning fossil fuels."?
"The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[3] and revised to the modern pH in 1924 to accommodate definitions and measurements in terms of electrochemical cells. In the first papers, the notation had the "H" as a subscript to the lowercase "p", as so: pH."
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
Ocean Acidification can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate. Our oceans are solidly basic with a pH of about 8.0 that varies a little depending mostly on ocean temperature. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will only decrease alkalinity (pH) a tiny amount, far less than natural variations.
"Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years."
https://www.pmel....ation%3F
Where is NOAA dreaming this garbage up at?
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@691Boat

6.804 x 10^-7mm is denoted in millimeters NOT METERS therefore wavelength is 6.804 x 10^-7 x 10^-3 = 6.804 x 10^-10

That is an X-ray

No BSing you. That is an impressive catch.

Thanks
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
JD

Ocean Acidification can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate.


https://www.pmel....ation%3F

Where is NOAA dreaming this garbage up at?


From the evidence

http://www.annual...8.163834
http://onlinelibr...179/full
https://www.natur...095.html
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
You should know SteveS that it is not possible to have it both ways like you and NOAA are wanting to do with this other fraudulent problem that dishonest people are attempting to lay off on CO₂, ocean acidification.

Look how big your conspiracy needs to be
https://www.natur...095.html

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, France
Laboratoire d'Océanographie et du Climat: France
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Japan
University of Bern, Switzerland
Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Germany
CSIRO Marine Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems, Australia
University of Liege, Belgium
Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany
National Oceanography Centre Southampton, UK

and let us not forget from earlier in this thread

The Koch brothers, for funding Berkeley Earth
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
https://www.natur...095.html

Sorry almost forgot all the American institutions involved in this conspiracy of yours

California State University, USA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration USA
Pennsylvania State University, USA
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Princeton, USA
The University of California, Los Angeles,USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA

it is not possible to have it both ways like you and NOAA are wanting


Oh yeh, apparently me as well
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
I thank you SteveS for, I'd hoped, trying to find honest and reliable sources for your assertion that soon we will be able to use sea water in our car's batteries. All the sources that I opened seemed to have their own agenda that had no room for the truth.
"Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry."
http://www.annual...8.163834
"Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously."
https://www.natur...095.html
"Just as we describe an increase in temperature from -40°F to -20°F as warming.... the term "acidification" describes a direction of change "
https://www.pmel....er+on+pH
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
Look how big your conspiracy needs to be
@SteveS
i know, right?
the funniest thing is - if you look at the various cultures where this conspiracy needs to happen, you note that none of them can agree on anything much (like the tastiness of bacon, say)... but they all agree on the evidence supporting AGW!
LOL
http://journals.p....0075637

and let us not forget from earlier in this thread

The Koch brothers, for funding Berkeley Earth
and this: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
It is no mystery, SteveS, why your sources never gave mention to Henry's law that is all important to understanding oceans, CO₂, and the nonexistent acidification when the ocean pH has decreased from approximately 8.2 pH units to 8.1 pH units in the last 150 years. You do know that a pH of 7 is neutral.
Henry's law is one of the gas laws and was formulated by the British chemist, William Henry, in 1803. It states that: At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.
https://chemengin...%27s+Law
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
"An everyday example of Henry's law is given by carbonated soft drinks. Before the bottle or can is opened, the gas above the drink is almost pure carbon dioxide at a pressure slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. The drink itself contains dissolved carbon dioxide. When the bottle or can is opened, some of this gas escapes, giving the characteristic hiss (or pop in the case of a sparkling wine bottle). Because the pressure above the liquid is now lower, some of the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution as bubbles. If a glass of the drink is left in the open, the concentration of carbon dioxide in solution will come into equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the air, and the drink will go flat."
https://www.bound...032-977/
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
"Because the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide is set by Henry's Law, we can use this to determine the concentration of protons and bicarbonate ion in water. Temperature Dependence As with other gases, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water decreases as the temperature increases. You can see this for yourself by observing what happens when you heat a can of soda. As the temperature of the oceans increases with increasing global temperature, […] carbon dioxide will tend to outgas from the oceans. This will increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2, causing further increases in temperature of the atmosphere, etc." (that is true only if you naively believe that CO₂ and not the sun determines what the earth's climate is)
http://butane.che...-L23.pdf
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
It needs to be noted that this discussion is taking place on this site where the lead into it is "Human-caused warming likely led to recent streak of record-breaking temperatures: study "and if that were true, then the seas would be warming and giving off CO₂ & becoming LESS likely to get to neutral pH.
The records that may have been broken sure do not include this one.
Death Valley, CA.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
"On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA."
http://journals.a...f=R&
This is a record that still holds.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
Temperatures in US States
Those who say global temperature continues to increase cannot answer why these records still hold. 25 states have record highs temperatures from the period 1930-1937. I will even list them; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.

These 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source:
http://www.ncdc.n.../records

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia.
"Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. […]Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade."
http://www.srh.no...es_today

"Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn't come anywhere close to that this summer."
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
"It really was very cold in 1940's…. The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West."
http://www.ldeo.c...ms.shtml
I thank you SteveS for carrying on a civil conversation that, as we see, educated and logical people can do even if they do not agree with each other. Nothing is accomplished with the gutter talking, name calling trash other than to point out that the ones doings so have nothing of value to offer up for any kind of conversation.
Liebnitz434
not rated yet Aug 19, 2017
Regarding US State highs. I have asked to see if there is any correlation of this with pre 2000 data to any temp data set (including global) and …………wait……….

Was there anything like high solar radiation or other factor to account for this? .................
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
All the sources that I opened seemed to have their own agenda that had no room for the truth.


There really is no point in discussing this with anybody who shouts conspiracy when presented with any evidence they don't agree with, even to the point of having to include the Koch brothers as part of it.

Ignored user

http://www.thesle...on_0.jpg
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
I know that SteveS' comment, that is directed at me, can be thrown right back at him. If I see the evidence that he seems to place so much value in as being flawed because his sources leave out the extremely important factor that warming ocean waters give off CO₂, then I'm under no obligation to believe their findings.
Calling this phenomenon "ocean acidification" when surface seawater will remain "basic" under future emissions scenarios is alarmist
"Just as we describe an increase in temperature from -40°F to -20°F as warming, even though neither the starting nor the ending temperature is "warm," the term "acidification" describes a direction of change (i.e. increase) in the level of acidity in the global oceans, not an absolute end point."
https://www.pmel....er+on+pH
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
"Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years."
https://www.pmel....ation%3F

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
With every utterance, the alarmist tries to make the uninformed believe that earth is going to be incinerated due to the trace gas, CO₂; but, now in the case of ocean acidity & because the warming doesn't serve their purposes, it has no mention regarding the ocean's temperature. They would rather go with stupid, unprovable conjectures such as: "Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years." than to risk telling the truth & destroying the fabricated tale they are trying to spin for the uninformed to write conspiracy nonsense about.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts." Mark Twain
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
From what follows it appears that NOAA for sure knew about the possible rise in sea temps but sure didn't want to mention in the preceding reports. Could that be due to a sad conspiracy by an agency that uses my tax $ to lie to me about this issue?
"Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming. The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. Quantifying how much heat is accumulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future."
http://research.n...des.aspx
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
Liebnitz434; if there is a correlation you will have to point it out. "Was there anything like high solar radiation or other factor to account for this?"
One would have to be stupid to not wonder if the "extremes" of today are really all that extreme.
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94°F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn't that in the 30s

The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.
The highest temperature recorded during the record spell was 47.5°C on 18 January 1924. There have been higher temperatures at Marble Bar, with the highest recorded being 49.2°C, on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
@jd the lying POS multi-scok TROLL
Since Running has been feeding off of the people of Montana for years,
ah, the life of a delusional idiot illiterate troll is fascinating
just like your ignoring relevant data, which i prove above (and here: https://phys.org/...ent.html ) you make a gish-gallop of irrelevant points to refute

to be very clear what you just did:
out of 30+ referenced studies that i provide which directly refute your claims that CO2 is plant food and good, you take issue with one single study (2 posts)

but this required 21 total posts where the last 19 have absolutely nothing to do with the argument, let alone refutation of my initial 30+ studies

point being: if CO2 is so beneficial, and since you don't understand the concept of "dose", why don't you live with a plastic bad tied around your head?

i suggest you experiment with that at home

you're a troll pushing FUD
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
SteveS,

The more I think about https://www.pmel....ation%3F the more disturbing it is. The ocean is a soup of chemicals/elements with very complex chemistry.

1. There is a tremendous omission of other factors and the article does clearly state this. Hence, with such skimpy supporting material and further research needed why is this speculation even being reported? It is largely conjecture.

2. Pteropods

Shows shell dissolving in 45 days. Climate Porn Alert! All calcified animal remains dissolve. At what rate? Even if this is a significant rate change the same amount of dissolved seashells would remain constant. Limestone dissolves. So what is the point of this picture? I tried very hard to find the chemistry specifics of the dissolving shell and could find nothing. Government issued Climate Change Disaster Porn.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
A. Cont.

3. The amount of crap we have dumped into our rivers has been so enormous as to create dead zones. How may this have contributed to this if at all?

4. Algae and plankton will increase due to additional CO2 thereby keeping CO2 within some equilibrium mechanisms moderating "business as usual"?

5. The change in acidification is 3 ppb and saturation is a near linear function of temperature. The equilibrium of H2CO3/CO2 in sea water is H2CO3/CO2=1.2^10-3. That's like 1 to 1000. This is playing with extremely small numbers.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
B. Cont.

6. It identifies a 0.1 decline of pH units since the advent of the Industrial Revolution beginning roughly 1790. This is 220 years. The Industrial Revolution is largely defined by the burning of coal. Coal combustion without suppression produces gaseous sulfur dioxide SO2. Different amounts of SO2 depending on origin. The reaction in water produces sulfurous acid (H2S3) which is 10,000 stronger than carbonic acid (H2CO3). Into the 70s US production of acid rain was destroying forests. SO2 still pores into the atmosphere from other sources and is identified as a significant OA agent. In the 220 years which has contributed more to OA SO2 or CO2 or what is the ratio of contribution?
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
C. Cont.

7. In the first paragraph the water goes from supersaturated to undersaturated. This doesn't mean much without context. As cold ocean water rises and warms it becomes supersaturated. To reach equilibrium in warm water CO2 must either precipitate out or out gas. There is neither. Therefore, a process is taking CO2 out of the water.

8. The pH of seawater is on average is 8.1. At least in the Baltic Sea and most particularly the Bay of Bothia seawater can range up to 7 pH or neutral. There is no collapse of the food chain. From the north tip of Bothia the water goes from fresh to seawater. This is the perfect laboratory for studying the effects of increasing acidity or lessening alkalinity. There is a healthy fishing industry from top to bottom of the Baltic. Clams and snails live in fresh water with pH 7 and little or no calcium carbonate.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2017
D. Cont.

9. Article subliminally links CO2 ""could" compromise the successful fertilization, larval settlement and survivorship of Elkhorn coral, an endangered species." to Elkorn coral. Elkorn coral is disappearing because it has been all smashed by drag nets and pouching.

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.