Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
No, you're the pedantic fuckwit in here. My use of theory was perfectly good. "Theory" itself doesn't require a lot of proof or anything, though a "scientific theory" typically has that, which is what you're thinking about. I was asking for that sort of explanation, though either one would have been good and both work for theory.
There was no problem with communication except for your COD kicking in and correcting things that didn't require correction.
-
And this discussion is about climate science.
And why is my correction the one picked up on, when @HardwareGeek made the same correction?
-
He didn't use the giant meme? But here, for you:
@HardwareGeek, you're being overly pedantic if you meant that I'm using the wrong word to communicate.
-
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.
People who are doing sound science don't need to resort to political techniques like the one you mentioned. And what they're doing goes a long way beyond simply overlooking evidence because they are so sure that they're right.
-
they are so sure that they're right
Or they'll derive all sorts of benefits from their side "winning." See: Al Gore, Progressives, Communists, etc.Before some dumbass says "But I'm not a Communist!", I'm not saying that you are. I'm saying that some of the loudest voices in the "climate chaos" crowd have ulterior motives that are, shall we say, negative towards lots of other people on this planet.
-
negative towards lots of other people on this planet.
Well let's see, there's a lot who think many people will die due to AGW.
And they want to be right, so bad. Which is sad.Then there are a few that want to kill off many people to avoid AGW.
These people never volunteer themselves.
-
I agree with @RaceProUK. This is a discussion about scientific ideas (or "scientific" ideas); therefore, it absolutely proper to use the definition of theory that is used within scientific discussions, and that definition of theory does require substantial supporting evidence (which I believe you, @RaceProUK and I all agree these "theories" don't come close to having).
-
-
-
I thought it was pretty clear I wasn't talking about that sort of theory, but I guess I didn't expect the pedantic inquisition. I'm newer here than I thought.
-
His logic is sound, but his grammar is wrong.
-
Impact of AMO/PDO on U.S. regional surface temperatures
by Judith Curry The conclusion is that the oscillatory mode (mostly due to the AMO) is significantly more important than the monotonic mode (mostly due to increasing atmospheric CO2) in explaining …
The conclusion is that the oscillatory mode (mostly due to the AMO) is significantly more important than the monotonic mode (mostly due to increasing atmospheric CO2) in explaining the 1980–2000 U.S. temperature increase. – Bruce Kurtz (author)
Amongh Judith Curry's reflections:
You may have spotted this graphic from NASA, promoted by Bloomberg linkthat purports to demonstrate that the warming was caused by CO2 (and not the sun or volcanoes). Well, I have a number of problems with that diagram, but the Kurtz paper reinforces yet again that you can’t properly do late 20th century warming attribution without considering the multidecadal (and longer) ocean oscillations.
...
So how unusual is the U.S. in having multidecadal ocean oscillations being a dominant factor in climate change? We don’t know, because climate scientists have been mostly focusing on the anthropogenic effects.
-
climate scientists have been mostly focusing on the anthropogenic effects.
To their own benefit.
The money to do research comes from somewhere.
I think we're seeing consensus due to "survival of the fittest".
-
To their own benefit.
The money to do research comes from somewhere.
I think there are at least two additional factors:
- This is another case of looking for lost car keys under a streetlamp because the lighting is better.
- We (in theory) can do something about CO2 levels, and would prefer not to know if climate change is something we can't do anything about.
I think we're seeing consensus due to "survival of the fittest".
Exactly. Disagreeing with AGW is a career-limiting move if you're working in climate science.
-
Exactly. Disagreeing with AGW is a career-limiting move if you're working in climate science.
Really? They sure seem to be making big bucks selling books and interviews claiming that all the other scientists are lying to us.
The conclusion is that the oscillatory mode (mostly due to the AMO) is significantly more important than the monotonic mode (mostly due to increasing atmospheric CO2) in explaining the 1980–2000 U.S. temperature increase. – Bruce Kurtz
The calculated global atmospheric temperature-time curve (orange solid line) is obtained by combining the monotonic mode (black dashed line) and the oscillatory mode (orange dashed line).
Note that monotonic mode = increase in temperature mostly due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and that the black dashed line = Monotonic mode:
I notice something interesting about that black dashed line.
Is it... that it's trending steadily up over the last 80 years in that chart?So... his paper actually proves an underlying global warming despite his misleading summary*? No wonder they pulled that chart out of the paper before submitting the final version, it makes his conclusion look absolutely retarded. Too bad the blogger was apparently not clever enough to notice that before they decided to post it as proof that AMO/PDO is clearly the cause of everything.
Removing because I jumped to conclusions about the blog's purpose due to the source of the link... Judith actually more or less supports AGW, just also thinks that other things have bigger short term impacts on temperatures and that it's possible temperatures would go up anyway even without human assistance.AMO/PDO looks like the cause of some inner oscillations of the temperature - or how we end up with several years of no temperatures increase in a row. So if the prediction models are not counting the AMO/PDO as a source of temperature change, then yeah they're going to be off, especially if used to describe short term predictions... but there is nothing here disproving AGW at all, if anything it's supporting AGW along with this other sub-variation of temperatures that would effect the short-term 5-10 year predictions.
*to be fair, Kurtz's paper is about merely temperature change in the US from 1980 - 2000, which he is correct about. It's judith bloggerperson extrapolating it as some sort of anti-gw conclusion that is incredibly wrong. Or maybe she isn't either and it's just being mis-read and mis-cited as some sort of proof against AGW.
-
They sure seem to be making big bucks selling books and interviews claiming that all the other scientists are lying to us.
[citation needed] (about the big bucks part)
-
@darkmatter said:
They sure seem to be making big bucks selling books and interviews claiming that all the other scientists are lying to us.
[citation needed] (about the big bucks part)
seriously? LMGTFY
-
I clicked through on the first result.
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #585,761 in Books
My verdict: inconclusive at best. (Hint: Anyone can get a book published. Making serious money on it is a different matter altogether.)
-
Now, i'll grant you that it probably is a very career-limiting move for their actual SCIENTIFIC job prospects if they're parroting some of the BS seen here.
-
The failure of global climate models to simulate regional climate variability on decadal time scales suggests that the multidecadal ocean oscillations such as the AMO and PDO might play a dominant role in determining climate variability on these scales.
I think you misread the entire article.
So how unusual is the U.S. in having multidecadal ocean oscillations
being a dominant factor in climate change? We don’t know, because
climate scientists have been mostly focusing on the anthropogenic
effects.His point is that there are other factors that affect climate to a greater degree, within the span that we have accurate temperature measurements.
As you shrink the time scale, the AMO has more impact.
He's saying, "Look, I found out why you're not accurate in your predictions".
-
You're very close to getting my point. Let's take the next step: what if not everything the AGW dissenters have to say is BS?
-
My verdict: inconclusive at best. (Hint: Anyone can get a book published. Making serious money on it is a different matter altogether.)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #587,077 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#486 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Environmental Policy
#538 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Rivers
#589 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > ClimatologyBiography
Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was formerly a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming and authored the 2008 New York Times bestseller, Climate Confusion.
-
So how much in royalties did he make on the book?
-
His point is that there are other factors that affect climate to a greater degree, within the span that we have accurate temperature measurements.
actually no, his point is that it effects temps to a greater degree within decadal subsets.
That is, AMO can make the temp go down temporarily. NOT that AMO is what is making it get hotter since 1935.Jesus christ. No wonder they have it so easy selling BS to you people.
-
Ok, you failed to read again.
Within the smaller subset of data we have accurate measurements for, AMO has a greater impact, and can cause variations that impact the prediction model that make it hard to account for variations in the rising temperature.
AMO makes the current global warming prediction inaccurate, and accounts for the hiatus.
-
So you mean you failed to read again? Because I already said exactly what I said there and what you're saying you said.
So why are you arguing me? Because that the conclusion is not that AGW is a lie?
-
AMO makes the current global warming prediction inaccurate, and accounts for the hiatus.
THAT IS WHAT I FUCKING SAID JESUS CHRIST
-
You're the ONLY ONE SAYING AGW is a lie.
Stop polarizing the discussion.
-
AMO/PDO looks like the cause of some inner oscillations of the temperature - or how we end up with several years of no temperatures increase in a row. So if the prediction models are not counting the AMO/PDO as a source of temperature change, then yeah they're going to be off, especially if used to describe short term predictions..
See. Can you read it if i subquote the part that you apparently skipped or can't comprehend?
-
So what was the point of your comment? I already said exactly what you said, except then you told me I didn't say it. I assumed you were bringing some sort of actual argument to my point since you said I had it wrong, but who the hell knows what you're going on about.
-
So... his paper actually proves an underlying global warming despite his misleading summary*? No wonder they pulled that chart out of the paper before submitting the final version, it makes his conclusion look absolutely retarded. Too bad the blogger was apparently not clever enough to notice that before they decided to post it as proof that AMO/PDO is clearly the cause of everything.
I do not find this in the article.
You
-
I do not find this in the article.
You
can you not read... still?
*to be fair, Kurtz's paper is about merely temperature change in the US from 1980 - 2000, which he is correct about. It's judith bloggerperson extrapolating it as some sort of anti-gw conclusion that is incredibly wrong. Or maybe she isn't either and it's just being mis-read and mis-cited as some sort of proof against AGW.
-
I am only taking it as supposedly some AGW post because boomzilla decided to post it here.
Now if boomzilla is actually posting it as support for AGW + AMO/PDO, then... yay? But somehow I doubt that's what he was going for.
-
Or maybe she isn't either and it's just being mis-read and mis-cited as some sort of proof against AGW
This seems to be the case.
-
if boomzilla is actually posting it as support for AGW + AMO/PDO
I find overwhelming support that his stance has been, global warming isn't the end of the world.
You made up some implications that aren't there, strawmanned that, and started arguing against it.
If you look at the chart, it implies that the predictions end up being massively off
Which is the point that he's made all this time.
The predictive abilities of the models are weak.
-
Now you're only trying to distract from the scientific part of what I posted, which is not a strawman, it's the actual facts.
-
The strawman here would be that someone thinks that paper disproves AGW, which it doesn't - if anything it bolsters an AGW argument.
Whether the initial premise that someone thinks that paper disproves AGW is a strawman or not is kind of irrelevant.... the paper still supports AGW, even if not on the scales predicted.....
-
That's where you started to
-
Which is the point that he's made all this time.
The predictive abilities of the models are weak.
now you're conflating GLOBAL atmospheric, land, and water temperature charts and US atmospheric temperature charts - specifically combining global temp predictions to a US temp chart.
-
That's where you started to
uh, hate to tell you, the goal posts never moved.... I very specifically stated the exact same thing in every post. strawmanning boomzilla's opinion has nothing to do with the goal posts of my conclusion about the paper he linked.
-
Ok, then you need to draw better lines between your points.
Becuase is looked like you were saying.
- Boomzilla is saying AGW is a lie again.
- JC is either crazy or is being misrepresented.
- The article is correct.
It seems like that's all supposed to go together.
-
Interesting result from this:
-
Interesting result from this:
again, you can't read can you?
GLOBAL
vs
US
seriously
the AMO HAS MUCH LESS SWAY OVER GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
-
Becuase is looked like you were saying.
- Boomzilla is saying AGW is a lie again.
- JC is either crazy or is being misrepresented.
- The article is correct.
- yes
- uh? more terrible comprehension i see. either JC is misrepresenting the work, or boomzilla is misrepresenting her.
- is correct if JC is being misrepresented by boomzilla. otherwise, no, she's not correct.
In her final line she posits that AGW is getting too much attention - that is where I base my opinion. Maybe she thinks AGW is some of it, but based on that article alone you can draw no solid conclusion.
-
- If Russia gets hotter, good for them.
- America does a lot of agriculture, FUD is that agriculture in America is DOOOOMMMMMEEEDDD.
- It's still producing a hiatus globally.
- The final global temperature will only get weirder.
- The actual rise of average temperature over a longer course of time is probably lower than they predict.
Again, AGW is real, Doom and Gloom is not.
1. yes
2. uh? more terrible comprehension i see. either JC is misrepresenting the work, or boomzilla is misrepresenting her.
3. is correct if JC is being misrepresented by boomzilla. otherwise, no, she's not correct.In her final line she posits that AGW is getting too much attention - that is where I base my opinion. Maybe she thinks AGW is some of it, but based on that article alone you can draw no solid conclusion.- You're wrong
- Falls apart because 1 is wrong. If anyone is assuming that JC says AGW is a lie, they are misrepresenting her in their own mind.
- Both of the previous points are wrong, so this one is weak.
- "based on that article alone you can draw no solid conclusion". YOU can't. I can. It's clear she thinks that the oscillation is more responsible for the drastic temperature fluctuations and that it should be accounted for if the decade range wants to be more accurate. She's also saying that climate scientists are too focused on AGW as if every climate change is AGW based. She's right about that. No where can you posit that she says AGW is a lie, unless you are under this conspiracy theory that every article about things other than AGW is there to disprove AGW.
Blogger: Accounting for oscillation makes short range predictions more correct.
Darkmatter: You're wrong, AGW is real.
-
uh? more terrible comprehension i see. either JC is misrepresenting the work, or boomzilla is misrepresenting her.
is correct if JC is being misrepresented by boomzilla. otherwise, no, she's not correct.In her final line she posits that AGW is getting too much attention - that is where I base my opinion. Maybe she thinks AGW is some of it, but based on that article alone you can draw no solid conclusion.There we go:
"If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet," she told the committee.
So she's being misrepresented by media/conservatives as an anti-AGW scientist due to her congressional interview where she said that scientists just don't know yet how much effect warming will have.Also funny:
Curry says her 2005 hurricanes paper "generated a lot of media attention which we were ill-prepared to deal with," she says. "We were being attacked by the anti-global-warming crowd as well as a large number of people in the hurricane community who thought this was natural variability."
-
Blogger: Accounting for oscillation makes short range predictions more correct.Darkmatter: You're wrong, AGW is real.
except i'm only arguing with her in your mind.
i'm apparently arguing the "global warming won't have consequences" BS.
-
Again, AGW is real, Doom and Gloom is not.
Quick, get the marshall islands on the phone. I'll let them know their island isn't really disappearing into the ocean, xaade said so.
-
humorously all the terribly shitty arguments here are just swaying me more and more towards agreeing that global temperature increases are not going to work out very well.
-
actually this is the best one:
Her message that day on Capitol Hill was, in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions.
That played well to Republican committee members including Dana Rohrabacher of California, who sees climate change as a liberal plot.
ha
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594033455