Heat waves could increase substantially in size by mid-century, says new study

heat wave
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Our planet has been baking under the sun this summer as temperatures reached the hottest ever recorded and heat waves spread across the globe. While the climate continues to warm, scientists expect the frequency and intensity of heat waves to increase. However, a commonly overlooked aspect is the spatial size of heat waves, despite its important implications.

For the first time, in a new study, scientists funded in part by the NOAA Climate Program Office's Climate Observations and Monitoring Program examined this aspect under two different scenarios. They found that by mid-century, in a middle greenhouse emissions scenario, the average size of heat waves could increase by 50%. Under high greenhouse gas concentrations, the average size could increase by 80% and the more extreme heat waves could more than double in size.

"As the physical size of these affected regions increases, more people will be exposed to ," said Brad Lyon, Associate Research Professor at the University of Maine and lead author of the new paper published in Environmental Research Letters. "Larger heat waves would also increase electrical loads and peak energy demand on the grid as more people and businesses turn on air conditioning in response."

In addition to heat wave size and exposed population, the authors found that related attributes like duration, magnitude, and cooling degree days (a measure for energy use) could increase substantially. However, Lyon noted that these results were not particularly surprising.

"An increase in attributes like magnitude and duration is consistent with expectations of a warming climate," said Lyon. "What is new in our study is the way we calculated them, which allowed us to consider size as a new heat wave dimension."

Size of heat waves matters to communities

Previous research has generally calculated heat wave statistics at the local level—computing attributes like frequency for each location, or grid point, and then aggregating the results to see spatial patterns. In this study, the authors followed heat waves and quantified their attributes as connected regions that move around and change in size and strength over their lifetime.

"It's sort of like watching what groups of people are doing as they move around together in a park, rather than just counting how many people from all those groups entered the park," said Lyon.

The authors explained that the added stress from a continuous heat wave in a region is very different from scattered conditions that add up to an area of the same size.

"If you have a large contiguous heat wave over a highly populated area, it would be harder for that area to meet peak electric demand than it would be for several areas with smaller heat waves that, when combined, are the same size," said Tony Barnston, Chief Forecaster at Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society and paper co-author.

By looking at heat waves from this perspective, the authors were able to assess how a heat wave's size, in addition to factors like its intensity and frequency, can impact communities.

Consider heat wave size in future planning

The authors note that their new approach could help utilities stress test their energy system's capacity to meet demand requirements during spatially extensive . This information could then inform management decisions and planning for the future.

"Heat wave size is another dimension of extreme heat that people don't necessarily think of," said Lyon. "It's a different vantage point from which to view them and assess their impacts."

And as the study suggests, if greenhouse gases and, consequently, wave sizes continue to increase, so too could the impacts on our nation's energy systems and public health.


Explore further

France says 1,500 died in summer's heat wave

More information: Bradfield Lyon et al, Projected increase in the spatial extent of contiguous U.S. summer heat waves and associated attributes, Environmental Research Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4b41
Journal information: Environmental Research Letters

Provided by NOAA Headquarters
Citation: Heat waves could increase substantially in size by mid-century, says new study (2019, October 8) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-substantially-size-mid-century.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
514 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 08, 2019
"Heat waves could increase substantially in size by mid-century"

-or not. Political acadeemies have proven you cant believe a word they say.

Oct 08, 2019
Under high greenhouse gas concentrations,


Water has the most overwhelming greenhouse effect 90% of any greenhouse gas that exists.

Oct 08, 2019
@Old, but its spectrum doesn't cover the Wien Peak. You keep "forgetting" (i.e. lying and denying) about that.

Oct 08, 2019
This kinda flies in the face that even the US has been reporting lower June-August max temps over many decades now (as cited in an actual NOAA graph with seal), and the number of high temp records are not increasing for many decades (from U of AL-Huntsville graph). And, number of state record high/low temps has been noticeably decreasing (NOAA NCDC data). There's a lot more, but it'll just make me even more get called a deceiver. Still, I do love digging up data from good sources.

Oct 08, 2019
^^^^^^^^
Yes, but, let's not tell that to those dreamt of heatwaves that will never be born for another 30 years. Okay.

Oct 08, 2019
This kinda flies in the face that even the US has been reporting lower June-August max temps
Just love that cherry picking don't you deniers?

Here look - 2 can play that game...

https://www.washi...much-us/

If you look at global temps - you see the bigger picture -

https://www.nytim...oaa.html

Oct 08, 2019
Under high greenhouse gas concentrations,


Water has the most overwhelming greenhouse effect 90% of any greenhouse gas that exists.


You mean water "vapour" not water itself. And I wonder what happens to water vapour levels when the temperature increases due to a rise in other greenhouse gases such CO2 and methane.... hmm... I wonder...

Oct 08, 2019
@anon*674

That NOAA site is pretty cool, went there and found this:
https://www.noaa....d-for-us
It documents the weather anomalies that cost over a billion. I wish more weather would be reported in terms of deviations from average, I'd like to see the maps in terms of what's different from average.

Oct 09, 2019
Under high greenhouse gas concentrations,


Water has the most overwhelming greenhouse effect 90% of any greenhouse gas that exists.


You mean water "vapour" not water itself. And I wonder what happens to water vapour levels when the temperature increases due to a rise in other greenhouse gases such CO2 and methane.... hmm... I wonder...


Would you say that FOG is a GHG? Besides being too eerie to drive in it at nite.

Oct 09, 2019
I still say that the term, "global climate" isn't accurate and is dishonest, and it gives the impression that the same climate, temps, weather is happening everywhere in the world at the same time.
The term, "Climate Change" also begs the question of 'where is this change happening?' and 'whose climate?'. Latitude and longitude of each location where such changes are happening should be provided so that a comparison may be made between locations around the world.
Death Valley is hot and dry; whereas, Vermont in winter is cold and often wet. There are similarities between some locations, but mostly there are big differences. Those differences should be stated.

Oct 09, 2019
@greenonions
From your link to the NYTimes (NOAA) article:

"United States government scientists on Thursday confirmed that July was the hottest month on record, edging out the previous record-holder, July 2016."
-- July is almost always a hot, summer month. If it was hot in January in the US, then I would worry.

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the global average temperature last month was 62.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.7 degrees Celsius). That is 0.05 degree Fahrenheit higher than July 2016, and 1.7 degrees higher than the average for the 20th century."
-- GLOBAL average temp at a cool 62.1*Fahrenheit. This presumably would include the hot temps at Death Valley and the Sahara Desert, as well as the cold temps in the Arctic and Antarctic, averaged out. These folks are not even aware of the sheer idiocy that they are pulling on the people of Earth with such a pretense of a horrid worldwide AVERAGE temperature of 62.1*F in the month of JULY.

Oct 09, 2019
The 1930s had far more & far worse heatwaves than in the 2010s. Trying to predict heatwaves & temperatures 30 years into the future is the stuff of pure speculation. When these scientists are shown to be wrong 30 years later, they'll just carry on and keep making predictions. Being a climate alarmist means never having to admit you were wrong, and never having to apologise for stoking fear.

Oct 09, 2019
The 1930s had far more & far worse heatwaves than in the 2010s. Trying to predict heatwaves & temperatures 30 years into the future is the stuff of pure speculation. When these scientists are shown to be wrong 30 years later, they'll just carry on and keep making predictions. Being a climate alarmist means never having to admit you were wrong, and never having to apologise for stoking fear.
And we have YET another cherry picker spouting thumb sucked hot air... Idiot:
Skeptics often point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Choosing the year 1934 is an obvious example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. In fact they have to cherry pick both a location (the U.S.) and a year (1934) to find data that is far from the global trend. Globally, the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, so far.
https://climate.n...erature/

Oct 09, 2019
NASA has repeatedly adjusted its own temperature data to make it look cooler in the past and warmer closer to the present (to make it look like a warming trend). I simply can't trust NASA because they keep changing their data, and hence their graphs. Go look at older NASA graphs of temperature data, and then compare them with the current graph shown on your link. You can rationalise those adjustments all you like, but it just makes me not trust them.

Oct 09, 2019
Well No Sh$t sherlock data get adjusted when needed there is nothing wrong with it, adjustments are doing what they're supposed to do removing biases in the raw data to reflect the true temperature changes at each measurement station.
Your Hot air attempt at casting doubt amounts to just that, fueling your stupidity AGAIN goracle sockpuppet.



Oct 09, 2019
NASA temperature "adjustments": https://imgur.com/a/rFzVVLO

NASA 1999: https://pubs.giss...200f.pdf
vs
NASA 2018: https://data.giss...raph.png


What an absolute fruitcake you trying to strawman your utterly weak stance so hard you don't even understand the data and why it's been adjusted, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the adjustments... Idiot LMAO

Oct 09, 2019
adjustments are doing what they're supposed to do removing biases in the raw data to reflect the true temperature changes at each measurement station


More like adding biases due to the BIG money and BIG politics that's now involved in climate science. Whole livelihoods, careers and reputations are on the line now. It's a multi-trillion dollar industry that has taken on a life of its own. Do you really think they're just going to roll over and admit that the climate is fine; that everything is OK? Hell no. They'll lie, steal, cheat, defraud, you name it, to keep the gravy train rolling. The whole damn thing is corrupt to the core and it stinks to high heaven. I can't trust NASA & I can't trust any of these damn institutions. DOUBT is the entirely proper & justified stance to take in this matter.

Oct 09, 2019
No thats just conjecture you as a denier Liar spout to try and cast doubt in the science, which amounts to HOT AIR nothing more, You want to compare BIG OIL spending to CLIMATE spending, O man you must be the greatest idiot of all time LMAO ! ! ! YOUR BIG OIL GRAVY TRAIN RUNS FOR MANY DECADES NOW and their filthy spending is DWARFING anything in the Universe in comparison !

Oct 09, 2019
you don't even understand the data and why it's been adjusted


And you do?

Oct 09, 2019
And Dummy goracle strikes again, with a semi fresh sockpuppet to boast his idiocy with.

Oct 09, 2019
you don't even understand the data and why it's been adjusted


And you do?
Anyone understanding Science does, you don't, you have proven that clearly... Idiot

Oct 09, 2019
No thats just conjecture you as a denier Liar spout to try and cast doubt in the science, which amounts to HOT AIR nothing more


Scepticism is the heart & soul of science, my dear fellow. What you are advocating is blind faith; treating science as a religion. Also, you appear to be rather emotional at the moment, so maybe you should go have a nice cup of tea and relax a bit.

Oct 09, 2019
this is so funny

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
Anyone understanding Science does


Go on then, explain to the class exactly WHY the data has been adjusted, with reference to the EXACT data they're using. Give me a complete rundown of EVERY single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all.

Oct 09, 2019
No goracle monkey Scientists continually questions everything, what i am advocating is Science, YOU are advocating BS and thumb sucked opinions
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Not "blind faith" and false opinions.
Go swing those trees it's what you're good at ;)

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
Anyone understanding Science does


Go on then, explain to the class exactly WHY the data has been adjusted, with reference to the EXACT data they're using. Give me a complete rundown of EVERY single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all.


No trolly troll monkey. Teaching a monkey science is like teaching an elephant to fly, your proven inability of learning science have already been proven, no matter how many pages i post here you will still sit there gawking with an awkward emptiness in you eyes, sorry no one can teach you LOL

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
Scientists continually questions everything


If you think that's true, then why berate me for "casting doubt" about the science? I'm questioning their adjustments in line with your "continually question everything" viewpoint. You seem quite the hypocrite, actually. On the one hand you berate me for questioning the adjustments, and then on the other hand you say to continually question everything. Well, which is it?

Oct 09, 2019
You just keep coming up with old beaten stupid denier arguments again, questioning everything continually does not cast doubt whatsoever in the science, once a certain amount of truth is established it becomes norm, what an idiot of an argument LOL NOW show me your Evidence to counter the science exactly, please include 10 000 peer reviewed science case studies to disprove the science, not thumb sucked opinions, i'm waiting....

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
No trolly troll monkey. Teaching a monkey science is like teaching an elephant to fly, your proven inability of learning science have already been proven, no matter how many pages i post here you will still sit there gawking with an awkward emptiness in you eyes, sorry no one can teach you LOL


In other words, you don't know exactly why they adjusted their data. Your blind faith in NASA's honesty & integrity is all you have to go on.

Oct 09, 2019
No not in other words, in YOUR stupid words, that is your misguided conclusion. YOU can go and learn as much as there is (but you are incapable of doing so) there are 100s of pages, if you cannot even find 10 page, i'm not going to feed you the idiot troll, because you don't want to learn the science.

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
questioning everything continually does not cast doubt whatsoever in the science, once a certain amount of truth is established it becomes norm


The very act of questioning the science is inherently the act of doubting the science; the two go hand-in-hand. Are people never to question or doubt science? So what if there are certain "established norms" in science? It doesn't mean they're right. Science doesn't deal in absolute truth, so quit treating it as if it does. Everything is open to refutation. It's like Einstein said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". The same goes for this whole man-made climate change alarmism: No amount of experimentation can ever prove it right. A single experiment can prove it wrong.

I think you're just a massive hypocrite, quite frankly. Climate alarmism has done a frontal lobotomy on your brain.

Oct 09, 2019
An absolutely Ludicrous argument, you cannot counter the science show me your evidence, not an argument that holds nothing but hot air.

Show me the Evidence to counter the science exactly, please include 10 000 peer reviewed science case studies to disprove the science, not thumb sucked opinions. i'm still waiting....

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
idiotic doubt casting conjecture


aka. "Scientists continually question everything" ;)

Show me your Evidence to counter the science exactly


I don't intend to counter it. I merely intended to (rightly) cast doubt on it by mentioning the stark difference in NASA temperature data from different periods in time (1999 to 2018), and then point out that if NASA is repeatedly adjusting their data, then NASA's data can't be trusted. It's not enough just to tell me to "trust" NASA's honesty and integrity, because I don't, and I don't think it's wise to, given the BIG money and BIG politics that are involved. As I said, DOUBT is the proper & justified stance to take. Quite frankly, if you have no doubts about it, then something is wrong with you and you're not acting like a proper scientist.

Oct 09, 2019
I don't care at all what you intended, your big overall intention is all the same to cast doubt in scientific evidence of human induced climate change, don't try and run away now from producing evidence to counter the 10 000 case studies for human induced climate change, if you believe so strongly its false, then you sure as hell better be able to back it up... i'm waiting...

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
your big overall intention is all the same to cast doubt in scientific evidence of human induced climate change ... if you believe so strongly its false, then you sure as hell better be able to back it up


I never claimed it true or false. I simply cast doubt upon it by pointing out the existence of unexplained "adjustments" between the 1999 data and the 2018 data (which I provided links to). Casting doubt is not the same thing as alleging something true or false. I am really just doing what even you yourself have said is the mark of a scientist: "continually questioning everything". Well, here I am, questioning NASA's honesty & integrity wrt their temperature data, given their repeated "adjustments" of the data.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain exactly why the data has been adjusted, with reference to the exact data they're using; to give me a complete rundown of every single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all.

Oct 09, 2019
BS you try with everything you have to cast doubt on climate change, there is valid reasons for the adjustment of the data ALL valid ones. i already said i won't feed the TROLL. YOU can go and find it yourself. If you can't then you are beyond stupid.

You don't care about the little straw argument here, your main goal is to try and disprove science as not ONE of your posts agree with any science. Not just this little dumb straw argument.

YOU doubting the science means absolutely nothing because YOU cannot backup your statements with evidence.

i am still waiting for your evidence, if you feel so strongly about science being a lie, then Man up and back it up, disprove the 10 000 peer reviewed case studies, i am still waiting.

Oct 09, 2019
"Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time. All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a "raw" global temperature record."

"The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950. Here, past temperatures are adjusted up – significantly reducing the warming over the past century. Over the full 1880-2016 period, the adjusted data actually warms more than 20% slower than the raw data. The large adjustments before 1950 are due almost entirely to changes in the way ships measured temperatures (more on that later)."

https://www.carbo...-records

Oct 09, 2019
lets hope greeny gets his ass frozen by global warming right here

https://www.thewe...nditions

Oct 09, 2019
No thats just conjecture you as a denier Liar spout to try and cast doubt in the science, which amounts to HOT AIR nothing more


Scepticism is the heart & soul of science, my dear fellow. What you are advocating is blind faith; treating science as a religion. Also, you appear to be rather emotional at the moment, so maybe you should go have a nice cup of tea and relax a bit.


True scientific skepticism is. That means actually doing science. Not just yelling "Not it's not, you're LYING, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU" at all the data.

Oct 09, 2019
Heres to a future without road salt-

Oct 09, 2019
@greengnome
there is valid reasons for the adjustment of the data ALL valid ones


Prove it.

your main goal is to try and disprove science


On the contrary, I don't care about proving or disproving the science. I simply care about having objectivity & scepticism/doubt about it, like any good scientist should have, because to do otherwise would be to treat science as religion.

YOU doubting the science means absolutely nothing because YOU cannot backup your statements with evidence


I already provided links showing that NASA adjusted temperature data from the past. I don't have to do anything more than that to justify doubting NASA's data, graphs, honesty & integrity.

if you feel so strongly about science being a lie


I don't have to say whether it's true or false, nor do I have to prove anything. I just have to sit here and express doubts about it. That's all. Don't conflate doubt with denial; they're two entirely different things.

Oct 09, 2019
Kordane

There have been adjustments to past temperatures over the full 1880-2016 period. It turned out the warming was actually 20 percent slower after the adjustment.

"The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950. Here, past temperatures are adjusted up – significantly reducing the warming over the past century. Over the full 1880-2016 period, the adjusted data actually warms more than 20% slower than the raw data. The large adjustments before 1950 are due almost entirely to changes in the way ships measured temperatures (more on that later)."
https://www.carbo...-records


Oct 09, 2019
@leetennant
True scientific skepticism is. That means actually doing science. Not just yelling "Not it's not, you're LYING, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU" at all the data


It's quite absurd to argue that you can only be sceptical about science, so long as you're "actually doing science" (ie. a scientist).

I would argue that people not doing science should be even more sceptical about science, because they don't possess the means & knowledge to judge whether a scientist is telling them the truth or not.

It's entirely plausible for scientists to lie & defraud people, and there have been cases of that; scientists are not angels.

I don't say: "You're lying. I don't believe you.
I say: "You've adjusted your data multiple times. No clear reasoning has been given for those adjustments. Therefore, I have doubts about the data."

I've asked for that reasoning, but have not been given it by anyone. I am just told to have faith in NASA; to trust them. Sorry, but that's not good enough!

Oct 09, 2019
That's just using more words to say "I choose not to believe you for no clear reason other than I just don't wanna" and calling yourself a "skeptic" because of it.

Oct 10, 2019
@leetennant
That's just using more words to say "I choose not to believe you for no clear reason other than I just don't wanna" and calling yourself a "skeptic" because of it


Whenever anyone expresses doubt/scepticism, alarmists inevitably smear them as "deniers" (a connotation with holocaust denial) and "choosing not to believe" (a connotation with religious faith). That tells me a lot about the alarmist mentality.

Oct 10, 2019
@leetennant
That's just using more words to say "I choose not to believe you for no clear reason other than I just don't wanna" and calling yourself a "skeptic" because of it


Whenever anyone expresses doubt/scepticism, alarmists inevitably smear them as "deniers" (a connotation with holocaust denial) and "choosing not to believe" (a connotation with religious faith). That tells me a lot about the alarmist mentality.


BS YOU do not agree with any Science, you are ONLY here to try everything you possibly can to discredit science, which never works btw. But you have a very sorry sad job and your team leader tells you to stretch the straw as thinly as possible, anything except to look at the overwhelming evidence at hand.

Oct 10, 2019
I don't have to say whether it's true or false, nor do I have to prove anything. I just have to sit here and express doubts about it. That's all. Don't conflate doubt with denial; they're two entirely different things.

And that is exactly why each and every dumb straw argument you create is an utter JOKE. because YOU cannot provide evidence against 10 000 peer reviewed scientific studies for human induced climate change.

Oct 11, 2019
@greengnome
YOU do not agree with any Science, you are ONLY here to try everything you possibly can to discredit science


If the science is likely fraudulent, then it deserves to be doubted - not accepted on blind faith, as you advocate.

YOU cannot provide evidence against 10 000 peer reviewed scientific studies for human induced climate change


The veracity of the peer review system should be doubted, particularly wrt climate change, because BIG money & BIG politics are heavily involved in it.

I know that CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere & CO2 only absorbs radiation in three tiny bands in the infrared part of the spectrum - two of which are already fully saturated by water vapour. All that's left for CO2 to absorb radiation is one tiny little band in the infrared part of the spectrum, and yet I'm told by climate alarmists that CO2 "traps heat" and that CO2 is the "main" driver of climate change.

Oct 11, 2019
As for the original article title: "Heat waves could increase substantially in size by mid-century"

I post the following graph of US heat wave data >90C: https://imgur.com/a/Fk099yg

One has to wonder, given the graph, where these climate alarmists are getting this idea of large future heating from (20 yrs from now), given that the trend in heatwaves (particularly since the 1930s) is one of a clearly decreasing frequency in heatwaves.

Oct 11, 2019
Again, here's a gif of adjustments made in NASA temperature data: https://imgur.com/a/rFzVVLO (1999 to 2017).

I repeatedly asked for an explanation for why each adjustment was made, with reference to the exact data being used. Each time I asked, I was denied an explanation. No climate alarmist is willing to explain these adjustments, because no climate alarmist knows exactly why/how the adjustments were made - But they know they can't admit that, because then they would have to start doubting the adjustments as well, rather than treating them as unquestionable gospel truth.

Oct 12, 2019
I repeatedly asked for an explanation for why each adjustment was made
Did you contact NASA - and ask them for this explanation? If you are really interested in understanding the reasoning behind issues like temperature adjustments - you should of course go to the source. A good starting point would be reading this article - and then contacting the authors of the study - and that could lead you back to the scientists who are responsible for making the adjustments.

https://www.thegu...pristine

Oct 12, 2019
@Kordane
I'm told by climate alarmists...
no. you're told by the science (such as Lacis et al), which you've repeatedly refused to read - https://phys.org/...sea.html

No climate alarmist is willing to explain these adjustments
1- we're not alarmist because we read the science rather than the political bullsh*t

2- start here: https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

3- Hausfather,Cowtan et al; Rhoades, Salinger; The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project;
'Debate' is a contest of orators: science is a contest of evidence. Watts ignores how scientists handle the data: using strong statistical techniques to remove bias. A study using Watts' own data - Menne 2010 - found that station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends, the same conclusion reached by a team including Watts in a later paper, Fall et al 2011.
- ss/logicman

Oct 12, 2019
@kordane cont'd
I repeatedly asked for an explanation for why each adjustment was made, with reference to the exact data being used
and yet, as Green notes: you didn't ask NOAA or bother to type in the requisite search parameters in google scholar because the studies and explanations are all there and listed - and there are about 43,700 results demonstrating your abject failure to read the literature rather than the pseudoscience from your political sites
because no climate alarmist knows exactly why/how the adjustments were made
links and references already provided

moreover, you're trolling for a battle of the wits while being totally unarmed and uninformed as demonstrated by "about 43,700 results" in the scholarly literature *as well as* studies from that idiot Watts to boot

LMFAO

Oct 13, 2019
Stumpy, you can't just tell me to go search on google scholar for an answer (that may or may not exist), because the onus isn't on me to prove that the adjustments were made honestly & with integrity, since I am neither saying they were or weren't; I am simply casting DOUBT upon their veracity & asking for a detailed explanation for the adjustments.

The onus of proof is on those who claim that the adjustments were done honestly & with integrity. The onus of proof is on those who claim to know exactly why/how the adjustments were made.

Thus far, NOBODY has explained the adjustments with reference to the exact data & reasoning used.

I don't think you or anyone else on here can do it. It's not a valid comeback just to tell me to go google it. It's patronising, actually.

Oct 13, 2019
@kordane
because the onus isn't on me to prove that the adjustments were made honestly & with integrity
actually, it is on you - that is how science works
you've made a claim about [x] so it's upon you to actually prove that [x] is wrong or that the adjustments are dishonest

the claim you made is also directly falsified by considerable evidence (referenced above)
I am simply casting DOUBT upon their veracity
without actually checking facts, mind
& asking for a detailed explanation for the adjustments
answered above, with references that have considerable detail
The onus of proof is on those who claim that the adjustments were done honestly
done
in studies
with free access to their material (see above references)

If that is not enough for you I can link several skepticalscience.com links which I already know you won't read with sauce

2Bctd

Oct 13, 2019
@kordane ctd
Thus far, NOBODY has explained the adjustments with reference to the exact data & reasoning used
1- you don't want to read facts (demonstrated above)

2- I've given you the references and a link

3- if you're presented with information that is contrary to your specific ideological belief you dismiss it or say something like
you can't just tell me to go search on google scholar for an answer
or
The onus of proof is on those who claim that the adjustments were done honestly & with integrity
while dismissing the proven, validated studies that *literally* "were done honestly & with integrity" simply because your political site doesn't provide the information

ignorance is no excuse to challenge the science - get your facts before making a claim so that you don't look like an idiot

It's not a valid come-back just to tell me "NOBODY has explained" while not checking your facts. It's patronising, actually.

Oct 13, 2019
@kordane (last)
Thus far, NOBODY has explained the adjustments with reference to the exact data & reasoning used
where the best explanations are found, in detail:
www.ncdc.noaa.go
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
GHCN data
Menne 2010
Fall et al 2011
Compo et al. 2013
Anderson et al. 2012

GISTEMP
CRUTEM
NCDC global temperature series
RSS
UAH
Results from individual reconstructions, compiled by Zeke Hausfather

skepticalscience.com

all of the above information has been posted repeatedly here on phys.org in various climate threads by multiple people, including myself (searchable)

ignorance of facts doesn't make you a sceptic, especially when your source material you accept is directly from an intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological website

Oct 13, 2019
Kordane - once again - if you truly want an explanation for why the adjustments were made - and you are not interested in doing a little reading - referenced by Captain multiple times - then why not contact the scientists who are responsible for the adjustments - and ask them? Surely the best people to give you that information - is the people most familiar with it. I gave you a link to a study regarding the adjustments - should be a perfect lead for you to follow up.

Oct 13, 2019
all of the above information has been posted repeatedly here on phys.org in various climate threads by multiple people, including myself (searchable)

--Cap'nStumPid
Yep, and all of which, it has been proven beyond doubt, you cannot read, far less comprehend.
Here is proof of that -
Explain the huge discrepancies between temperature measurements and why they are constantly being adjusted upward from a cooling trend [red] to warming?
LMAO

Oct 13, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
actually, it is on you - that is how science works ... you've made a claim about [x] so it's upon you to actually prove that [x] is wrong or that the adjustments are dishonest


I provided evidence showing that NASA has adjusted the data. I then expressed doubt about those adjustments; questioning whether NASA has been honest or not. I did not "claim" that it had been dishonest, and so I don't have to "prove" anything. I merely expressed DOUBT, and then asked for you condescending bunch of elitist know-it-alls to explain each adjustment with reference to the exact data used and the exact reasoning used. In response, I was told I was stupid and that I'm just a "troll" who doesn't deserve the time/effort of an answer. Then you came along and told me to go google the information myself and then to go to look up the full body of work of various authors and entire websites. That's not good enough, sorry. I want an explanation, NOT be told to go on a SAFARI HUNT for it!

Oct 13, 2019
@greenonions1
if you truly want an explanation for why the adjustments were made - and you are not interested in doing a little reading - referenced by Captain multiple times - then why not contact the scientists who are responsible for the adjustments - and ask them? Surely the best people to give you that information - is the people most familiar with it


1. I highly doubt that NASA scientists are going to drop everything and just give me the information I want.
2. I was told by greengnome that "there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the adjustments", thus implying that he possessed privileged knowledge guaranteeing their veracity.
3. I repeatedly asked greengnome to give me that information.
4. I shouldn't have to go on a bloody safari hunt to track down an explanation to something that climate alarmists should already know - unless they want to admit that they don't know it - in which case I have to ask why they have no doubts about it & accept it on face value.

Oct 13, 2019
remember that sun thing ?

https://www.natur...msALW0ck

Oct 13, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
ignorance of facts doesn't make you a sceptic, especially when your source material you accept is directly from an intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological website


What website? I've only linked to imgur and NASA's own website. The imgur picture is just a gif animation of NASA's own graphs flicking back & forth.

NASA temperature "adjustments": https://imgur.com/a/rFzVVLO

NASA 1999: https://pubs.giss...200f.pdf
vs
NASA 2018: https://data.giss...raph.png


So what "intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological website" are you talking about??

Oct 13, 2019
My link for post above - http://woodfortre.../to:2019

Oct 13, 2019
Kordane
I highly doubt that NASA scientists are going to drop everything and just give me the information I want
You have not tried - have you? My understanding is that scientists are often surprisingly interested in having a discourse - if they feel the interest in their work is genuine. I gave you a reference to a study that looked at the adjustments - and found them defensible. Why don't you read that for a start? A quick google turns up masses of links regarding the issue of temperature adjustments. Why don't you read this one - and maybe follow the links to other papers on the subject?

https://slate.com...nts.html

Oct 13, 2019
Goracle posts a link. All three of the data sets referenced are very similar. All three show a very clear warming trend. And of course no support for the false assertion that temperatures are being adjusted upwards.

Oct 13, 2019
Of course, my bad, those wavy plots are too much for the Chicken Little's lone neuron to handle. So, how about we take the linear trends.
http://woodfortre...19/trend
And, just for the ignorant, the datasets are as follows -
HADCRUT3 UNADJUSTED global mean
HADCRUT4 [ADJUSTED] global mean
GISTEMP LOTI [ADJUSTED] global mean

Oct 13, 2019
And, here's one that truly shows the deceit of the AGW Cult's ADJUSTMENTS
http://woodfortre...19/trend

Oct 13, 2019
more heat waves , like french wine ?

https://www.indep...711.html

Oct 13, 2019
@kordane
I did not "claim" that it had been dishonest
erm... from your posts above:
More like adding biases due to the BIG money and BIG politics that's now involved in climate science ...They'll lie, steal, cheat, defraud, you name it, to keep the gravy train rolling
that is a claim of dishonesty, so I guess that makes you "just a massive hypocrite, quite frankly". Science denial "has done a frontal lobotomy on your brain"
That's not good enough, sorry. I want an explanation, NOT be told to go on a SAFARI HUNT for it!
so... it's ok for you to dismiss facts from within studies and disparage entire classes of scientists because you intentionally ignore the science and refuse to actually learn about what you want to argue against, but it's not OK to point out that you're an idiot that intentionally ignores the science?

how is that logical?
especially as you have a track record of refusing to actually read the references anyway?

Oct 13, 2019
@Kordane
re: your post to GreenO
I highly doubt that NASA scientists are going to drop everything and just give me the information I want
they answered me - they'll answer you
I was told...thus implying that he possessed privileged knowledge guaranteeing their veracity
Or, he read the studies that validated the adjustments I referenced above
I repeatedly asked greengnome to give me that information
ignorance of facts around your own argument points because you refuse to read the science and prefer to get your data from political sites is not an excuse - it is also not scientific, nor scepticism: it's ideology
I shouldn't have to go on a bloody safari hunt
see the last answer - you're making the claims, you provide the evidence

Oct 13, 2019
goracle says
And, here's one that truly shows the deceit of the AGW Cult's ADJUSTMENTS
But then of course does not show any evidence of deceit. Goracle first claimed that the graphs themselves were evidence of huge discrepancies. When busted for actually showing no significant discrepancies - goracle sounds like Rudy Guiliani - "No don't look over there - look over here - no look at the bird - no look over here...."
Deniers will keep cherrypicking - to desperately try to make a point.

Oct 13, 2019
@Kordane ctd
What website? I've only linked to imgur and NASA's own website
your "adjustment" argument comes straight from Watts and other denier sites and has been repeatedly posted to various climate threads here on PO for years
it's one reason you're being told to actually look up the data before you post and look like an idiot by making false claims and displaying ignorance of the topic

there are considerable intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological websites that make the "adjustment" claims, so it is apparent that your own search engine tailors your results to give you what you want, which is anti-climate change articles, otherwise you would have seen the factual data without needing a journal-specific scholar search


Oct 14, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 14, 2019
@greenonions1
I gave you a reference to a study that looked at the adjustments - and found them defensible


The actual link is here: http://www-users....ised.pdf

This paper doesn't actually appear to meet my criteria of explaining exactly why the data has been adjusted, with reference to the exact data NASA used, with a complete rundown of every single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all.

The fundamental problem of the adjustments is the homogenisation of low quality stations with high quality stations. This paper doesn't do anything to solve that problem. They just try a different homogenised series, arrive at a similar result, and conclude that everything is OK. I've seen some examples of the kind of low quality data being added. Don't we want accurate measurements? If so, we should ONLY use high quality data; no homogenisation with low quality data at all. Quality > Quantity.

Oct 14, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
your "adjustment" argument comes straight from Watts and other denier sites and has been repeatedly posted to various climate threads here on PO for years ... there are considerable intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological websites that make the "adjustment" claims ... it is apparent that your own search engine tailors your results to give you what you want, which is anti-climate change articles


That's one hell of a smear job you've written there. You smear entire websites, as if they get nothing right at all, have nothing of value to say & make no valid points at all, and then you smear me by assuming a tenuous guilt by association, because you assume that I get all my information from them via whatever search engine I use.

Wow, just wow.

I bet you think that climate sceptic websites are 100% false and that climate alarmist websites are 100% true. It kind of reminds me of Left vs Right political websites and the partisanship thereof.

Oct 14, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
erm... from your posts above:
More like adding biases due to the BIG money and BIG politics that's now involved in climate science ...They'll lie, steal, cheat, defraud, you name it, to keep the gravy train rolling
that is a claim of dishonesty


You need to learn to distinguish between doubting and claiming. I expressed doubt about the honesty of those involved in climate alarmism, because of the "big money" & "big politics" that are now indisputably involved in perpetuating and promoting it. That is DIFFERENT than making a "claim" of knowledge about the dishonesty about anyone in particular. Take NASA for instance - I never said NASA is being dishonest, as if stating a "fact". I have ONLY said that NASA 'may' be being dishonest, given the inherent involvement of big money/politics. I then cited NASA's own adjustment of their data (in a way that blatantly suits climate alarmism), and I said I wanted a full & reasoned explanation for those adjustments.

Oct 14, 2019
I'll make it super simple for all the climate alarmists on this website:

Explain the adjustments made in these two NASA graphs of US temperature - https://imgur.com/a/rFzVVLO - with reference to the exact data NASA used, with a complete rundown of every single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all. Also, just to ensure you don't just link a bunch of papers that you and/or I may not understand, you must therefore meet the qualifier of writing the explanation in your OWN words, in a clear/concise manner.

If you're so certain that you know exactly why/how NASA made the adjustments, then this should be a cakewalk for you.

Alternatively, if you don't know exactly why/how they made the adjustments, then I invite you to be honest & admit that, and then join me in doubting the adjustments.

You DO know, don't you?? ¬_¬

Oct 14, 2019
your "adjustment" argument comes straight from Watts and other denier sites and has been repeatedly posted to various climate threads here on PO for years
it's one reason you're being told to actually look up the data before you post and look like an idiot by making false claims and displaying ignorance of the topic

Well, here you go Cap'nStumps, from your favourite, Wood for trees. Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
http://woodfortre...14/trend

Oct 14, 2019
@snoose -- hey did they give you a reason why they removed a link to paper on oscillations of the baseline of the solar magnetic field? Seems quite on-topic...

Oct 14, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 14, 2019
in any case the paper describes an inner and outer magnetic field system for the sun which is in turn influenced by planetary motion. The resulting overlapping cycles perfectly match the climate record and predict a major new temp min in the near future

Oct 14, 2019
Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale
V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 9197 (2019

Oct 14, 2019
@kordane
You smear entire websites, as if they get nothing right at all, have nothing of value to say & make no valid points at all
the denier sites demonstrably cherry-pick data, ignore relevant studies (and subsequent validation) and then promote a blatantly false claim based upon their denial and ideological beliefs - that isn't how science works

not one of those sites has managed to debunk climate change (or adjustment studies) in the years they've been arguing the point using the same methods, principles and peer-review process that science uses

by definition they're promoting psuedoscience
then you smear me by assuming a tenuous guilt by association
1- I'm not smearing you as all claims are supported by evidence

2- I'm directly stating your "scepticism" is due to your (intentional?) ignorance and failure to get your scientific arguments from the scientific evidence - and that is supported by the evidence above in this link (and elsewhere)

Oct 14, 2019
@kordane
I bet you think that climate sceptic websites are 100% false and that climate alarmist websites are 100% true
nope
I don't care about *any* website and I don't get my information from them

they're useless because of intentional biases usually, *unless* they present an evidentiary argument that is more readable to the laymen

I don't usually link them, either, unless the argument is checked against their references and I think it covers the bases well enough for people like you to follow
You need to learn to distinguish between doubting and claiming
you need to learn WTF a direct quote is and read this: https://dictionar...cted=458

considering the overwhelming evidence contrary to your quoted statements it can be reasoned that you're intent is malicious and not sceptical in nature, especially given the lack of evidentiary support for your statements

repeating a known lie makes you ... what, exactly?

Oct 14, 2019
@kordane last
and I said I wanted a full & reasoned explanation for those adjustments
you want the explanation but you're not willing to actually do any research to check your facts or read the research, which is demonstrably proven above in my linked reference to you as well as in this thread

like many other topics, it may not be a matter of a single link and can take several studies to demonstrate why [x] is factual despite your statements to the contrary
Explain the adjustments
first start by reading the already referenced material

Alternatively, if you don't bother to read the studies and ignore the presented materials so we can't actually continue because they explain the why/how they made the adjustments, then I invite you to be honest & admit that and then join me in discussing something that is more your speed

Oct 14, 2019
@anti the troll
Well, here you go Cap'nStumps, from your favourite, Wood for trees. Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend

enjoy

PS - if that is too hard for you to understand, go here: http://www.readingbear.org/

Oct 14, 2019
fudge the data fudge the result , no peer review without fake data . club of rome , rockyfellers , create the narrative , sing kumbaya. stupids follow or smarts play along

Oct 14, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
denier sites demonstrably cherry-pick data, ignore relevant studies (and subsequent validation) and then promote a blatantly false claim based upon their denial and ideological beliefs ... not one of those sites has managed to debunk climate change (or adjustment studies) in the years they've been arguing the point using the same methods, principles and peer-review process that science uses


All I can do is take your word for that. I don't know whether it's true or not.

I say, stop telling people what to think about certain websites & persons. Instead, just refute their arguments and let people judge for themselves; let them form their own conclusions.

I don't need to know whether you think a certain website or source cherry-picks, ignores studies, promotes false claims, etc. All I need to know is what the argument is, and what the refutation is. That's it. I can think for myself, thanks.

Oct 14, 2019
@anti the troll
Well, here you go Cap'nStumps, from your favourite, Wood for trees. Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend

LMAO
Cap'nStumPid, confirming once again that he cannot read, far less comprehend.
Look again, StumPid, at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

Oct 14, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
considering the overwhelming evidence contrary to your quoted statements it can be reasoned that you're intent is malicious and not sceptical in nature, especially given the lack of evidentiary support for your statements


Your problem is that you keep wanting to make this personal. You keep assuming malicious intent in me & others, because you're not really interested in refuting arguments & ideas; you're only interested in character assassination; in pouring buckets of slime over people. I mean, look at how you smear entire websites and persons, casting them as intellectually irredeemable, as if literally Hitler. I can't recall a single conversation with you that has not revolved around you trying to attack my character.

All I wanted was an explanation for NASA's US temperature adjustments. I'm not a scientist, so quit demanding that I read scientific papers. If you can't explain those adjustments to a layman, then you don't understand them yourself.

Oct 15, 2019
@Kordane
All I need to know is what the argument is, and what the refutation is
and yet, when provided with the evidence, you choose to ignore it?
and that is demonstrated in more than a few threads here, mind
You keep assuming malicious intent in me & others
it's not an assumption
you're only interested in character assassination
not really - I'm interested in how you justify your beliefs and denial of science
I mean, look at how you smear
it's not a smear if it's factually correct or corroborated by evidence
I'm not a scientist
then why do you attempt to *literally* smear scientists by making claims that aren't backed by evidence?

more to the point - you came to a Science site to tell people interested in and educated in science how they're wrong for understanding things because you don't want to accept facts and are too lazy to educate yourself in some of the basics (demonstrated above, linked)

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
so quit demanding that I read scientific papers
no
you said
All I need to know is what the argument is, and what the refutation is ...I can think for myself
in order to know what the argument is, you need the evidence
to understand the evidence, you need to read the studies

it's logically inconsistent to claim that you don't want to read the studies when you're asking for the evidence for something
If you can't explain those adjustments to a layman, then you don't understand them yourself
if I didn't understand it I wouldn't be able to link the studies that explain it

your arguments are examples of the typical denier arguments that are oft-repeated on this site

it doesn't matter what you or I think - only the evidence matters, and therefore you need to read studies

the reason you're defensive is that you know you have no refutation for the evidence referenced above (and in the links)

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Oct 15, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
I'm interested in how you justify your beliefs and denial of science


Who said I deny or accept anything about science (as in like a religion involving absolute truth or falsehood)? I have only ever said that I "doubt" it. You climate alarmists conflate scepticism/doubt with denial, even though they're totally different things.

why do you attempt to *literally* smear scientists by making claims that aren't backed by evidence?


Here, you attempt to conflate scepticism/doubt with smearing, even though they're totally different things.

If I say I doubt a scientist's theory, you say I'm smearing the scientist. O_o what??

you came to a Science site to tell people interested in and educated in science how they're wrong


False. I never did that. I have only ever expressed doubts about the science and tried to get people to think more objectively & sceptically about it, rather than religiously.

Oct 15, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
in order to know what the argument is, you need the evidence. to understand the evidence, you need to read the studies


Or you could explain & defend the science yourself (if you even understand the papers you cite yourself - which I'm beginning to doubt you do).

it's logically inconsistent to claim that you don't want to read the studies when you're asking for the evidence for something


I'm happy to look at data (within reason) and graphs, but I do expect YOU to be able to explain and defend the information you cite. Right now, it just appears that you cite scientific papers without demonstrating that you understand them yourself. Are you even a scientist?

I am going to now insist that you explain & defend them.

the reason you're defensive is that you know you have no refutation for the evidence referenced above


My intention is not to refute/deny or accept.
My intention is to be sceptical/doubtful about it, like any honest scientist would.

Oct 15, 2019
Just to recap:

This phys org article claims that "heat waves could increase substantially in size by mid-century". Yet if we look at a graph of US heatwaves above 90.0F - https://imgur.com/a/Fk099yg - we can see that the 1930s had many more heatwaves than the present, and thus I don't see how, given the trend since the 1930s, these scientists are getting the idea that heatwaves will "increase substantially" by 2050. So clearly there are certain assumptions that are being made. It's at this point that climate alarmists, on here, started citing NASA's most recent temperature data, showing a warming trend. So I pointed out how NASA has been "adjusting" its temperature data - https://imgur.com/a/rFzVVLO - Thus, I sought a thorough explanation as to why/how it was being done. However, rather than give me that explanation in layman's terms (demonstrating that they understand the science themselves), climate alarmists have used every trick in the book to avoid doing so. Hence, I have doubts.

Oct 15, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 15, 2019
@anti the troll
Well, here you go Cap'nStumps, from your favourite, Wood for trees. Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend


StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

https://www.youtu...Tzj9exB4

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
Who said I deny or accept anything about science
actions speak louder than words
when you can deny validated science and stick to denial arguments ...
You climate alarmists conflate scepticism/doubt with denial
I'm not alarmist
scepticism is the foundation of science - but when you *literally* ignore evidence and cling to your belief, it ceases to be scepticism and is demonstrably denial
this is the second thread with me where you've denied facts and clung to your belief - just like a religion would, mind you
you attempt to conflate scepticism/doubt with smearing
it's not scepticism when you cling to the denial regardless of the *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary of your belief
False. I never did that
LMFAO - your words
A theory doesn't become a fact just because there's "heaps" of evidence supporting it
there is much more, including you directly linking to Cornwall Alliance, a known religious science-denial site...

ctd

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
So what "intentionally misleading and demonstrably false ideological website" are you talking about
...as in like a religion involving absolute truth or falsehood...
I have only ever expressed doubts about the science and tried to get people to think more objectively & sceptically about it, rather than religiously
funny you should use these phrases when you've linked directly to a religious anti-climate science site, which is one of the hallmarks of deniers, mind
the Cornwall Alliance, which you've used (here: https://phys.org/...sea.html ) "is a conservative Christian public policy group" that " rejects claims of global warming" ( http://www.cornwa...g/about/ ) - Critics have called it a "front group for fossil fuel special interests." - wiki

when you complain about going on a safari hunt of facts when you've blindly accepted information from a denier site and used it here, you get no sympathy

Oct 15, 2019
Well, here you go Cap'nStumps, from your favourite, Wood for trees. Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend

StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

Hey CAP'N STUMPID when you're done with your exercises from that reading bear website, could you GET BACK TO THE SCIENCE and please answer the above. Thanks.

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane last
Or you could explain & defend the science yourself
so... because you don't want to actually learn the basics
and you don't want to take the time to read the facts
and you're willing to accept data from a known religious denier site as factual without checking
then it's my onus to explain it to you so that you can deny it?

how is that logical?

you won't even accept explained data (proven in the link above) when I do take you through it, but now you're willing to let me explain it?

here is the problem with that: you've already demonstrated you're a religious denier of science

so... I will explain them in the following manner: the top nine links in the below-linked search page take you through it and explain it (multiple levels on some links)
https://skeptical...amp;y=10

links and references provided in each explanation

let me know when you're finished

Oct 15, 2019
@Anti
Hey CAP'N
I thought I was on ignore? LFMAO
didn't you tell me
... can't handle the truth and so is now off to IGNORE land
so why are ya now stalking me? LMFAO
could you GET BACK TO THE SCIENCE and please answer the above
sure: read the links that I just left for kordane
Thanks.
you're welcome

Oct 15, 2019
LMAO.
So, Cap'n StumPid, dodging again. Unless you need more time with the READING BEAR and those LINKS that I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Let's get back to the SCIENCE.

Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend

StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

Oct 15, 2019
@antig the stalking troll who can't read
dodging again
what part of https://skeptical...amp;y=10 did you misunderstand? LOL
I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND
this is called a false claim, especially since you, specifically, demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend here: https://phys.org/...ive.html

I gave you just enough rope and you walked right into it, grabbed the sucker with gusto and tied your own noose - LOL
Let's get back to the SCIENCE
linked once to kordane, and now again to you - I know you're a poor reader so I'm typing this slowly for you: read the link above

I can't help you read it though. you'll need to hire someone locally. I recommend the primary school nearest you - they usually have teachers willing to help people like you

enjoy and (again), you're welcome

Oct 15, 2019
so i did that , read skept sci , re Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

''Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything: sufficient data was available to replicate CRU's results, and any competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU's homogenisation adjustments make no significant difference to the global average. ''

so their way of unverifying fake data was to apply the same methodologies , and of course came up with the same result . Their goal , the problem / construct an imaginary 'earths temp' instead of just observing the actual observations.

Oct 15, 2019
@snoose
so their way of unverifying fake data
did you not read it?
1- "CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or tamper with it."
2- On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias
what about this
Despite being heralded as "the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming", Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
as for the "fake data" bullsh*t - https://skeptical...nced.htm

https://crudata.u...erature/

https://static.be...memo.pdf

normally I would link just studies, but you're obviously not reading the referenced materials at all, in any source, so I didn't waste time

Oct 15, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
scepticism is the foundation of science - but when you *literally* ignore evidence and cling to your belief, it ceases to be scepticism and is demonstrably denial... this is the second thread with me where you've denied facts and clung to your belief


Scepticism is indeed the foundation of science. It's sad that you know that, but don't actually put it into practice. As to my alleged "ignoring of evidence" and alleged "belief", I don't know what you're on about. I don't ignore evidence; I doubt & question it. Moreover, I don't believe things; I exercise reason. So I consider both allegations just more smears.

it's not scepticism when you cling to the denial regardless of the *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary of your belief


Still pushing the "denier" smear, eh? I don't know how many times I have to say that I merely engage in scepticism/doubt about the science, and that scepticism/doubt isn't the same thing as denial.

Are smears all you've got??

Oct 15, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
funny you should use these phrases when you've linked directly to a religious anti-climate science site, which is one of the hallmarks of deniers, mind the Cornwall Alliance


LOL, these smears are getting absurd. Me quickly grabbing a graph off Google images and posting the link to it in a different thread is NOT the same thing as endorsing an entire website, its editors and all its other content.

when you complain about going on a safari hunt of facts when you've blindly accepted information from a denier site and used it here, you get no sympathy


Me posting a quick link to a graph I got off Google images is not the same thing as me accepting it. I post links to lots of stuff, it doesn't mean I ever accept any of them as the absolute & unquestionable "truth". I question & doubt everything, including stuff I link to. You are just assuming I accept it because I link to it. What if I linked to Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? Would you allege I "accept" it too? ¬_¬

Oct 15, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
I will explain them in the following manner: the top nine links in the below-linked search page take you through it and explain it (multiple levels on some links)
https://skeptical...amp;y=10


No, I'm not going to let you get away with punting me off to some other website that I can't question & retort. I said to explain it yourself, in YOUR OWN WORDS, with reference to NASA's data (within reason) & NASA's reasoning thereof. You don't get to punt me off to some website, pal.

Hell, I'm not convinced you even know what you're talking about. You cite scientific papers, authors and websites, but you don't ever explain & defend anything yourself. That tells me you're just as much of a layperson as I am, but you're just not honest enough to admit it. Again, I ask, are you even a scientist? All I've seen is smears, so a journalist, perhaps??

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
... but don't actually put it into practice
I put it into practice regularly, I'm just not stupid and I don't ignore evidence, and more importantly, I can change my mind when evidence points a different way, unlike you
I don't ignore evidence; I doubt & question it
two threads demonstrating otherwise
both allegations...
"denier" smear
it's not an allegation or a smear if it's supported by evidence
Me quickly grabbing a graph off Google...is NOT the same thing as endorsing...
you refusing to look at studies and evidence refuting your claims demosntrates the problem
regular google is a poor source for scientific knowledge - if you want answers with evidence, read the science, not the biased articles
Me posting a quick link ...is not the same thing as me accepting it
you using it as evidence to support your scepticism makes it supporting evidence, and all without checking facts or the science

PS - it's not a smear when it's factual

Oct 15, 2019
''but you're obviously not reading the referenced materials ''

thats your problem , its ALL you can do

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
You are just assuming I accept it because I link to it
why link to it without checking the source and checking for validation?
this is how pseudoscience and fake news spreads and it's the primary point of the youtube video I linked to you about why it's important to debunk pseudoscience
Again, I ask, are you even a scientist?
1- I never claimed to be a climate scientist. I do, however, know a hell of a lot more about it than you do
2- I am a scientist, just in a different field than climate (double baccalaureate in fields relating to my work) which is why I know how to research
3- irrelevant anyway as it's appealing to authority
I'm not going to let you get away with punting me off to some other website that I can't question & retort
1- site has references to studies and explains it
2- site is open to discourse (See comments thread)
3- the link answers all your questions
journalist...
degrees in physical science, forensics and Business

Oct 15, 2019
LMAO.
So, Cap'n StumPid, dodging again. What's the matter READING BEAR too difficult for you. Keep plastering the site with LINKS that I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Let's get back to the SCIENCE.

Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend

StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

Oct 15, 2019
''Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results ''

depends who you are asking , https://www.youtu...7tTY0Vek
@ 13:50 i'm sure many agree
http://www.capoli...ergency/

and some have degrees in physical science, forensics and Business

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane and denier tactics

first, you state
explain to the class exactly WHY the data has been adjusted, with reference to the EXACT data they're using. Give me a complete rundown of EVERY single adjustment, year by year, specific reasoning and all
you don't like what is said
so you move the goalpost to
No climate alarmist is willing to explain these adjustments
which is where I come in - and the evidence is provided, and its fully explained within

you don't like it so you reiterate your question
... which is answered in links which sent you to a site that explains the details of the studies so even a denier like you can understand it, so now you move the goalpost to
I said to explain it yourself, in YOUR OWN WORDS, with reference to NASA's data (within reason) & NASA's reasoning thereof
this is called a demonstration proving you don't actually want answers and you want to promote your ideological belief (denial of the science)

Oct 15, 2019
why link to it without checking the source and checking for validation?


And how do you propose I do that? I'm just a layman, remember. You're the self-professed "scientist, just in a different field than climate", so if you have a problem with any particular citation, then go ahead and refute it. I welcome scepticism/doubt, remember? It's literally what I spend all my time on phys org encouraging people to engage in, because as you yourself acknowledged, "scepticism is the foundation of science".

1- site has references to studies and explains it ... 2- site is open to discourse (See comments thread) ... 3- the link answers all your questions


Quit trying to get out of it.

Explain NASA's US temperature adjustments, in your own words, with reference to NASA's data (within reason) & reasoning thereof.

I didn't sit through hours of these bloody comments just to get punted off to some other website.

Oct 15, 2019
@kordane
And how do you propose I do that?
exactly how I did it - I checked the source of the link (Cornwall Alliance)
then I looked up Cornwall Alliance and found them to be a religious site that denies climate change - red flag and worth looking into

so is their graph wrong?
there is only one source to check that: Journals
what do the journals say (the evidence from the source, not a biased site)? well, that leads me to your other statement
so if you have a problem with any particular citation, then go ahead and refute it
they demonstrably state you're wrong and referenced them to you

so what do you do?
Hmm... let me see
That's not good enough, sorry. I want an explanation, NOT be told to go on a SAFARI HUNT for it!
Quit trying to get out of it.
so, you're given the evidence. you're refuted and shown to be wrong in your scepticism. you're given facts that have been validated and their source. so then you move the goalpost?

LOL
pull the other one

Oct 15, 2019
LMAO.
So, Cap'n StumPid, dodging again. What's the matter READING BEAR too difficult for you. Keep plastering the site with LINKS that I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Let's get back to the SCIENCE.

Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend
--Cap'n StumPid
StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

So, Cap'n StumPid, when you are done struggling with READING BEAR. Could you please answer the question above concerning the graphs that YOU POSTED. Thanks.

Oct 15, 2019
@antig the stalker who lies about ignoring people to get attention
So, Cap'n StumPid
yes, illiterate dumb*ss?
when you are done struggling with READING BEAR
you're struggling again? did you hire the translator (tutor?) as I suggested?
Obviously not
Could you please answer the question above concerning the graphs that YOU POSTED
already linked it above!
Thanks
you're welcome
enjoy it
I hope your translator (tutor?) can help you with the words

Oct 15, 2019
LMAO.
So, Cap'n StumPid, dodging again. What's the matter READING BEAR too difficult for you. Keep plastering the site with LINKS that I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Let's get back to the SCIENCE.

Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend
--Cap'n StumPid
StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

PROVEN once again, Cap'n StumPid keeps soiling the forum with links that he CANNOT READ FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Stumps, my question above concerns SCIENCE, so quit DODGING or admit you are the IGNORANT BUFFOON.

Oct 15, 2019
@antig
you lied to everyone. you promised I was on ignore! LMFAO
Stumps, my question above concerns SCIENCE, so quit DODGING
ok. I admit that "you are the IGNORANT BUFFOON"

do ya feel better now that everyone knows about you?

enjoy!

Oct 15, 2019
LMAO.
So, Cap'n StumPid, dodging again. What's the matter READING BEAR too difficult for you. Keep plastering the site with LINKS that I have conclusively proven you CANNOT READ, FAR LESS COMPREHEND. Let's get back to the SCIENCE.

Take a gander at the "adjustments" between Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4, not to mention Gistemp
here is a better graph that isn't cherry-picked that shows the long term trends
http://woodfortre...19/trend
--Cap'n StumPid
StumPid, look at your non-cherry-picked graphs and explain why the ADJUSTED HadCrut4 temperatures are hotter than the UNADJUSTED HadCrut3, for the SAME PERIOD.

PROVEN once again, Cap'n StumPid keeps soiling the forum with links that he CANNOT READ FAR LESS COMPREHEND. PLEASE IGNORE THE IGNORANT TROLL

Oct 15, 2019
@antig
PLEASE IGNORE THE IGNORANT TROLL
you want people to ignore you?

okee dokee !

Oct 15, 2019
Years on this site and all Cap'n StumPid has to show is his trolling and posting of links that, as proven above, he cannot read, far less comprehend. He's still searching a post of his that has ANY scientific relevance to the article.

Oct 16, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
so, you're given the evidence. you're refuted and shown to be wrong in your scepticism. you're given facts that have been validated and their source. so then you move the goalpost?


One cannot be "wrong" in one's scepticism/doubt. One can only be "wrong" if one has accepted or denied something, and then it turns out the opposite is true. Doubt is neither acceptance nor denial (contrary to your attempt at conflation). I have neither accepted nor denied anything, and so I cannot be "wrong". How can one be wrong to doubt something? Doubt is always the right approach. Scepticism is, after all, the "foundation of science" (your words). If it's wrong to be sceptical / have doubts, then the "foundation of science" is wrong. Your own version should perhaps read that "the foundation of science is unquestioning faith, obedience & confidence in the prevailing scientific narrative". When was the last time you doubted anything in climate alarmism?

Oct 16, 2019
@CaptainStumpy
I checked the source of the link (Cornwall Alliance) ... then I looked up Cornwall Alliance and found them to be a religious site that denies climate change - red flag and worth looking into ... so is their graph wrong? ... there is only one source to check that: Journals ... what do the journals say (the evidence from the source, not a biased site)?


If the means of validating every source requires reading through heaps of scientific journals, then forget it. That's almost as bad as trying to parse through scientific papers. It might be fine for you with your physical science degree, but it's not really suitable for the layman.

Incidentally, this is why I come to places like this and ask people, such as yourself, who claim to know & understand the science, about various things in science. Unfortunately, I'm met with hostility, insults, character assassination, intolerance, smears & intimidation. That's more likely to put me off than do anything to persuade me.

Oct 16, 2019
@Kordane
That's more likely to put me off than do anything to persuade me
I also am a lay person. I come to physorg - as it is a goldmine of science information. Like you - I don't have the time to read masses of papers on topics - so physorg is an aggregation site - and very efficient for me. My friend is a microbiologist. He reads and also writes detailed papers on bacteria. He specializes in one specific bacteria (Staphylococcus). He attends conferences all over the world - and shares research. If I really wanted to understand Staph - I could seek out folks like Mike. Better still - I could get a phd in microbiology. The comments section of physorg - is a cess pool of ignorance. Look at antigoracles posts above
PLEASE IGNORE THE IGNORANT TROLL
Just one example. Every time there is an article mentioning climate - the same group of trolls - immediately post childish responses - asserting that the article is rubbish - and part of a grand conspiracy cont.

Oct 16, 2019
So I am not sure why anyone would turn to the comments section of an aggregation site - if one really wanted to gain and understanding of a subject. We can all cherry pick data. You picked a graph from the U.S. - that represents 5% of the Earth's surface. Here is a global graph - https://www.clima...1000.png
So do you understand how one might think that rather than being an sincere seeker of truth, you are more a denier - trying to push a particular view? I look to the articles on physorg for my very basic understanding of the issues. People like my friend Mike - give me confidence in the process of science (it is not perfect - but very sound). Therefore I am interested in the substance of the articles - and generally jump in the comments - cuz the level of crazy seems bizarre - and there is no doubt in my mind that we have a climate crisis - and I come down on the side of science.


Oct 16, 2019
@kordane
...One can only be "wrong" if one has accepted or denied something, and then it turns out the opposite is true
your scepticism/doubt is based on your acceptance of information that has been repeatedly proven to be false, that has been shown to you, and that has been freely available to all for years

continuing to be sceptical/doubtful in light of the information means you're either ignorant of the data or you're choosing to get your facts from sources that intentionally mislead you, therefore, given the wealth of information already shared with you and your refusal to read or accept it then it's demonstrably the latter

the fact that you cannot accept validated information that is freely available (above & linked) substantiates this, making it denial, not scepticism
When was the last time you doubted anything...
1- I ignore all "alarmism"

2- I doubt every single study in science until validation

3- the heirarchy of evidence is important

Oct 16, 2019
@Kodane
It might be fine for you with your physical science degree, but it's not really suitable for the layman
I have a problem with this: there are some things that require more information than just a 1K word blurb, such as the reasoning behind temperature adjustments or the background information in MHD to understand why the electric universe claims are irrational or directly in opposition to experimentation and validated knowledge

Science is hard sometimes, especially when you want answers to why [x] happened
Unfortunately, I'm met with...
sorry, but you're met with this behaviour because of your own actions

When you presume to teach science/terminology/scepticism ( https://phys.org/...sea.html and above) while ignoring data, then try to deny facts when presented, then it "pokes the bear" and you get mauled

https://en.wikipe..._playing

Oct 16, 2019
@kordane
Incidentally, this is why I come to places like this and ask...
but you're not asking
your words
The scientists don't stop to consider the possibility...
Their minds, it seems, were already made up...
NO consideration is given to the possibility that other factors may be to blame
People who are objective and sceptical in science should be praised, not condemned and insulted...Shame on you for not learning this
The science isn't even "pretty clear"; it's a THEORY...
That's a big fat lie. Causation hasn't been proven at all
just from a single thread https://phys.org/...sea.html

you didn't ask - you told
I can't trust NASA
you didn't care about explanations and you sure as hell didn't read references presented to you

That's more likely to put educated folk off than do anything to persuade them you're seeking answers. You were given a chance and you've tarred and labelled yourself

Oct 16, 2019
Cap'n StumPid, again with the links, which he has categorically proven are beyond his capacity to read, far less comprehend. Can't blame him, READING BEAR is his nemesis.
Hey StumPid, why don't you give us a link to a single post of yours on physorg, that shows any scientific relevance to any article?

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