Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
basically, I posted the temperature increases from the govt weather site ( https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505 since i don't think i linked it earlier). You post temperatures from a clearly biased right-wing blogger source. I wonder.
-
they'd be comparing temperature increase rates at the same CO2 rate that we have today
you can see the CO2 rate of increase in one of the charts on the gov site I already linked. IIRC I dont think they have enough years of measurement to get much of a trend.
-
really, reusing something i already said to you elsewhere?
Oh, did you call me silly or something? Sorry, I don't recall that, other than in principle.
too bad you are getting so thoroughly abused here that you couldn't keep the ad hominems in a side topic so this one could stay at least somewhat relevant to science.
Ah, the second person in a day who doesn't understand ad hominem! Sorry for pointing out how you were wrong. I'll consider being more considerate of your feelings in the future when pointing out some of the ways that you're wrong.
-
a clearly biased right-wing blogger source.
LOL. Yeah, one of the guys responsible for actual observations of temperature. As a warmist, I can see why you'd not want to talk about observations.
-
i was wrong to point out that your "source" on climate news was an economist?
you really are just plain stupidhey look, that's not an ad hominem either because i pointed out why you're stupid.
-
Yeah, one of the guys responsible for actual observations of temperature. As a warmist, I can see why you'd not want to talk about observations.
except it's not. it's a rehash of an ECONOMIST'S already hashed blog post.
again you lie and are flat wrong.let me put it this way. NONE of the shit in his article was observed by the climatologist. He is REUSING someone else's stuff that fits his internal viewpoint.
Yay.
-
Exactly, we don't have enough data to produce an actual prediction, which would require a couple of control scenarios in the past (like warming without CO2 increase), and a couple of CO2 increase scenarios and see how CO2 increases impacts a warming or cooling trend.
Right now, we are just winging it with what data we have.
Which is why the level of certainty is confusing.
-
i was wrong to point out that your "source" on climate news was an economist?
Can you explain why you think that's relevant? His involvement in climate science stuff has been WRT looking at the statistics used by climate scientists. He's published other econometric papers in his field, and I think his statistical bona fides are solid.
hey look, that's not an ad hominem either because i pointed out why you're stupid.
Correct. It's just you being wrong again, either for teh lulz or because you're stupid.
-
Correct. It's just you being wrong again, either for teh lulz or because you're stupid.
and he's back to trolling.
this is actually fun watching you go in circles.
-
i'll wait here while you explain how he (either the economist or the climatologist) magically got his temperature change number to drop a quarter degree Celsius from the easily accessible figure on the noaa site.
INB4 obviously the govt lied and fudged their numbers
-
let me put it this way. NONE of the shit in his article was observed by the climatologist. He is REUSING someone else's stuff that fits his internal viewpoint.
Yeah, we shouldn't ever look at that stuff. And if a climatologist agrees with an outside expert on statistics on something climate related, we should appeal to the authority of our preferred authorities, because they say scary things.
He did link to his analysis of his data in the second paragraph and relate it to the point of the post.
-
Well, you certainly seem to like it when I say I'm confused as to why anyone has such a high level of certainty, because we aren't actually performing a controlled experiment here. I mean, at least with hurricanes we have controlled data and weather data and understand pressure, and still get it wrong, a lot.
But when someone says the models for prediction are not well formed, you disagree vehemently.
I'm really
So how can we have enough data for predictions, but not have enough data to form an experiment showing that the reasons we have our predictions are valid.
-
this is actually fun watching you go in circles
Yeah, whenever you don't have a response: YOUR TROLLING ME! Most convincing.
-
But when someone says the models for prediction are not well formed, you disagree vehemently.
I don't disagree or agree with any assertion on how well-formed they are. I disagree that they've been disproven by a couple years of not-quite-so-high temperature increases. Especially when this year's increase is going to put it back in line (unless mr right-wing-blogger man somehow has magically better #s that override the easily accessible govt figures)
-
they've been disproven by a couple years of not-quite-so-high temperature increases
Did @boomzilla say that? I don't think I did.
And where I did pull stuff like that, I clarified it was satire.
All I've said is that the predictions aren't reliable enough to prove anything, which means they can't really be disproven. They are non-falsifiable. There isn't enough data, and we have no control to justify them.
The predictions could be 100% accurate, and this hiatus could have ended last year.
But I don't have high confidence in either scenario.
Which is why when people say, "Record cold, AGW disproven" or "Record highs, AGW is FACT" I just
-
i'll wait here while you explain how he (either the economist or the climatologist) magically got his temperature change number to drop a quarter degree Celsius from the easily accessible figure on the noaa site.
It's basically talking about how they made some questionable adjustments in Sea Surface Temperature. I've seen similar critiques pointing out why they're questionable. I talked about this before in this topic (or another?...well, recently): when the observations lie, come up with a proxy or a reason to adjust numbers to be more like what you want.
Here's another source:
Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?
by Judith Curry A new blockbuster paper published today by NOAA: These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature. Color me ‘unconvinced…
Her conclusion (there's lots more there):
I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.
I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis.
I look forward to your ad hominem dismissal of her, too.
-
I disagree that they've been disproven by a couple years of not-quite-so-high temperature increases.
NB: I'm not saying they've been disproven. I'm saying there's no good reason to consider them proven, which is the default starting position for something like this. I mean...they don't even do a good job with hindcasts. Why believe them on forecasts?
Especially when this year's increase is going to put it back in line
Not even close.
-
except that's not about 2015. That's about past data...
Not even close.
yep, so now you will just re-write the #s to fit your internal beliefs. It's okay, i'm done fighting with someone that will ignore the easily available public info in favor of right-wing blogger sources. good day.
-
yep, so now you will just re-write the #s to fit your internal beliefs.
Yeah, that's totally what I'm doing.
It's okay, i'm done fighting with someone that will ignore the easily available public info in favor of right-wing blogger sources. good day.
Uh huh. That sounds a lot like what happened.
-
-
Eh...it's hard to know what that guy really thinks about anything. It's pretty clear that this is his first time digging into climate stuff. I don't think he's really thought about it much.
It was refreshing that he didn't mention Fox News all day, however. That's a particularly lazy and obvious troll from him.
-
yep clearly my first time. i guess that makes it all the more sad that somehow you couldnt actually refute anything i posted. typical lazy right-wing ignore the data and wave your hands and post some random anti-global warming blogger's take on it that magically proves the #s arent really what the NOAA said. But it won't matter, at the end of the year they'll post this increase and then we'll have to listen to more conspiracy theory about how they must be fudging the #s.
-
it's doubly funny that digging into all the crap thats been posted here has just served to reaffirm my own conclusion. an endless stream of even worse cherrypicked data and number fudging than the AGW proponents put out.
-
another thing to note, i was actually anti-global warming up until a couple of years ago. i thought it was all just a political/money scheme, but then I researched it and came to the opposite conclusion. i'm a bit rusty on the topic, what with the last few years being relatively flat, so i've been looking into that the past few days and i am just not seeing a smoking gun there.
again, like i have said only a billion fucking times to have boomzilla more or less ignore so that he can continue to troll me, there still needs to be a few* more off years to realy come to a damning conclusion either way.
*even just 1 more off year would spell bad news for current globalwarming theories and predictions
-
there still needs to be a few more off years to realy come to a damning conclusion either way.
ISTM that statement should lead a rational person to conclude that doom-and-gloom forecasts and calls for drastic measures (which might have undesirable economic or other consequences) are, at best, a few years premature.
-
and i have said as much. the media and etc's prediction of immediate dire doom and gloom is overblown.
that said, if the overall trend of the last 100 years continues, there is going to be some interesting times ahead for future generations. It is hard to predict the exact impact that the possible temps would have because we havent seen temps that high in over 100,000 years. Well before any semblance of human civilization as we know it. I don't expect doom and gloom but it WILL cause change if it keeps going.
That's a big IF of course, but, if we think we might be causing even part it, we probably should try to curb our influence.
-
and i have said as much. the media and etc's prediction of immediate dire doom and gloom is overblown
because the media's reaction to EVERYTHING is overblown.
as for scientists on both sides of the equation... the money and fame are in 2 places - dire predictions of doom and gloom, or naysaying truthers. I havent seen much else tbh. The govt NOAA site is as close as i've found, mostly just displaying the data and prediction models without much of the spin on what it might mean for real world consequences. But unfortunately a few people here trust random solobloggers more than govt agencies because clearly the govt is just out to.. control your carbon dioxide emissions?
If anyone can link a prediction model from an anti-global warming expert, thatd be great. I see all these demands for GW predictions, but for some reason the anti crowd is getting a pass on requiring some sort of hypothesis to test.
-
A good PDO article from a relatively neutral source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
-
And some follow up on Dr. Roy Spencer -- he has made a shit load of money in writing anti-global warming books and doing spots for anti-global warming series, yet his own theory is not even actually anti-global warming. He's really only anti-AGW. His cloud feedback model predicts that clouds help cool rather than retain heat, but the summary of his study was that if the predictions used his the cloud feedback model instead of the one they currently use, it would reduce global warming predictions by 75%. Which, uh, is still global warming. So it'll take 200 years instead of 50... that's still global warming. His main thing appears to be that the global warming is natural rather than man-made, which according to his blog is explained away by the PDO, except if you've seen the PDO correlations to our current temperatures, the PDO "cooling" effect merely manages to cause our temperature increase to stall (like now). Once it is no longer in a cooling phase, our temperature has risen dramatically. If PDO were really influencing climate as he states
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!
then the temperature should fluctuate up and down, not in a steadily increasing oscillation.
-
i guess that makes it all the more sad that somehow you couldnt actually refute anything i posted.
Are you trying to speak for me now? This is making less and less sense. Too obvious. Not up to your usual standard.
-
again, like i have said only a billion fucking times to have boomzilla more or less ignore so that he can continue to troll me, there still needs to be a few* more off years to realy come to a damning conclusion either way.
Everything points to the models being crap. But keep whistling past the graveyard.
-
that said, if the overall trend of the last 100 years continues,
Woo! There's some science for you!
-
I see all these demands for GW predictions, but for some reason the anti crowd is getting a pass on requiring some sort of hypothesis to test.
This is a display of your lack of understanding of science. The burden of proof is on the people putting forth a theory. Right now that burden is clearly crushing them when you take a close look.
-
yet his own theory is not even actually anti-global warming.
Yes, this kind blows away your theory about truthers or whatever, eh?
it would reduce global warming predictions by 75%. Which, uh, is still global warming.
Yes, but nothing that's catastrophic. Oops.
then the temperature should fluctuate up and down, not in a steadily increasing oscillation.
Which...it does. Look at the records of the last century.
-
The burden of proof is on the people putting forth a theory. Right now that burden is clearly crushing them when you take a close look.
and saying that the global warming trend is not going to continue is somehow not a theory? Interesting. I see that whatever you think is simply canon.
-
Which...it does. Look at the records of the last century
in a steadily increasing oscillation.
i see you still can't read full sentences and comprehend
-
and saying that the global warming trend is not going to continue is somehow not a theory?
It is a theory. Why do you think it will continue? Because it was a trend in the past? Because the models say so? What's behind that theory?
-
It is a theory. Why do you think it will continue? Because it was a trend in the past? Because the models say so? What's behind that theory?
it's your theory, why are you asking me?
-
oh my bad, apparently you completely blew the comprehension on the point i made, that saying a trend will stop is as much a theory as saying it will continue.
-
anyway, i'm muting this, because it's just an endless series of terrible boomzilla trolling and insanely bad right-wing blog linking.
maybe i'll revisit to laugh in a couple of years, it will be hilarious to re-read.
-
i see you still can't read full sentences and comprehend
You're right, I was going too fast.
it's your theory, why are you asking me?
My theory is that you don't know. I know what the modelers' theory is. Is yours the same?
oh my bad, apparently you completely blew the comprehension on the point i made, that saying a trend will stop is as much a theory as saying it will continue.
You're the one with the theory. I don't know what the temperature will do.
-
anyway, i'm muting this, because it's just an endless series of terrible boomzilla trolling and insanely bad right-wing blog linking.
Heh. You're amusing when you're trolling with the ad hominem. Not even pretending any more.
maybe i'll revisit to laugh in a couple of years, it will be hilarious to re-read.
Yes, it's important that we know how to laugh at ourselves.
-
My theory is that you don't know. I know what the modelers' theory is.
Nothing that's been mentioned here is anything close to a theory; it's somewhere between hypothesis and conjecture.
-
-
anti-global warming. He's really only anti-AGW.
Because that's an absurd stance. I mean, could you imagine a climate skeptic saying,
"It's been warmer than this before. But I do not believe it can get warmer than this."But that's what anti-skeptics do, is hand-wave off the skeptic with a giant strawman that's not even congruent with the skepticism. But that's how you "win", by painting the other side as lunatics.
And that's my whole point.
I'm skeptic of the science, because they made it an heresy to be a skeptic.
Doesn't mean I think they are wrong. It just means I'm not convinced they are right.
I still believe there is room for the scientists to be so sure of being right, that they overlook a lot of evidence that contradicts them. It may not be enough to
really come to a damning conclusion either way.
But if you're just hand-waving even a small fraction of the evidence, I have to question your judgement. The attitude of
"I don't have to explain this, because the warming trend continues" just shows to me that this is a non-falsifiable science. And this is the stance that the IPCC takes publicly, and very loudly.How am I supposed to treat IPCC. Are they scientific, or political. That would help to know, and help clear up some of my confusion.
-
it's somewhere between hypothesis and conjecture.
because it can't be tested or shown to be repeatable.
-
The word you want it hypothesis
Hmm...
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.Nope. I'm good.
-
A theory also requires a body of supporting proof, which the above doesn't have
-
I understand that you believe this to be so.
-
Oh great. I've got a pedantic fuckwit in one thread still intent on making me out to be a moron, and another in this thread who refuses to use words properly.
