New Improved Hockey Stick?

[IlarMeilyr]

That's a fair complaint in your case, SSDD.

I apologize for including you in the lot of the know-nothings who are, let's face it, anti-science.

I applaud your attempt to engage this board in discussing Climatology using science, too.

A gentlemanly reply. Kudos. Some tiny little rep is forthcoming.

But your post still ducks the questions just posed to you by SSDD.

I "duck" the question for the very reason I posted in my initial response.

... I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Basically, unless you are a climatologist, debating this is merely playing the game of dueling experts.

As I acknowledge that I am no expert, I am left choosing between the recognized MAJORITY of "experts", or choosing to believe the MINORITY of "experts".

I am not, and I suspect neither are you, really capable of reading the scientific data and finding its flaws -- either flaws in fact, or flaws in logic.

Does that explain my position regarding this issue clearly enough?

I acknowledge that I am NOT expert enough to debate the merits of scientific debate.

Are you?

Actually, I previously noted that very problem and I make no claim to being an expert.

Nonetheless, I know better than to permit my view to be dictated to by some "consensus" or "majority vote."

Even non scientists can read some scientific reports and get informed as to the claimed deficiencies in the methodology. Some non scientists CAN grasp where "science" falls off the ledge into the realm of "bad science."

When SSDD posed the question to you, it was not that you give a firm answer to the entire issue of "AGW, bullshit or not?" It was a much more focused question. And he laid it out quite well.

It was a question that a non scientist can answer. He asked:

Do you believe that 10,000 years ago when the polar ice cap covered half of canada that the temperatures were really only 0.2 degrees cooler than they were in 1970 as the new hockey stick claims? Do you believe that the holocene maximum which is documented in literally hundreds of studies suddenly never happened?

You either believe the new improved hockey stick is correct or you don't. If you do, then on what basis do you accept its claim that when half of canada was covered with ice that the temperatures were only 0.2 degrees cooler than the temps in the 70's and that the holocene maximum never happened? If you don't believe the new improved graph is accurate, then how do you continue to put your faith in people producing such shoddy work?

Here. Let me show you. To me (yes, a non scientist and non expert) it makes no sense at all, and it is beyond being merely suspect, that 0.2 degree difference between the 1970 temperatures in Canada and the 10,000 year old partially ice-cap covered Canada temperatures accounts for that partial ice-cap distribution. It defies logic (unless, maybe the average temperature in Canada in 1970 was 32.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

 

[SSDD]

That's a fair complaint in your case, SSDD.

I apologize for including you in the lot of the know-nothings who are, let's face it, anti-science.

I applaud your attempt to engage this board in discussing Climatology using science, too.

A gentlemanly reply. Kudos. Some tiny little rep is forthcoming.

But your post still ducks the questions just posed to you by SSDD.

I "duck" the question for the very reason I posted in my initial response.

... I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Basically, unless you are a climatologist, debating this is merely playing the game of dueling experts.

As I acknowledge that I am no expert, I am left choosing between the recognized MAJORITY of "experts", or choosing to believe the MINORITY of "experts".

I am not, and I suspect neither are you, really capable of reading the scientific data and finding its flaws -- either flaws in fact, or flaws in logic.

Does that explain my position regarding this issue clearly enough?

I acknowledge that I am NOT expert enough to debate the merits of scientific debate.

Are you?

Since the flaws in the AGW hypothesis are at the foundational level, one does not need a PhD to detect the errors.

 

[SSDD]

Prove that the trenberth energy budget and resulting model are correct.

Already done - check post #29.

That isn't proof of anything at all. It assumes that the trenberth budget and resulting model are correct. It is clear that you can't actually discuss the science and are, like most warmers, a cut and paste drone.

If you believe anything there constitutes proof that the trenberth energy budget and resulting model are correct, by all means point out where. The assumption that the trenberth budget is correct is the start point for the error cascade that has made climate science the joke that it is.

 

[SSDD]

Right - so once again you prove beyond any possible doubt that you do not understand the basis of what climate scientists are saying.

I understand the science and therefore can understand that the basis of what climate scientists are saying is bullshit. You on the other hand simply post what you read without the first iota of understanding as you have already acknowledged. Your position is the result of your politics, not even the most fundamental understanding of the science.

Your bullshit meter doesn't go off when you hear climate science say that AGW will result in more and less snow, more and less rain, more and less floods, warmer and colder winters, warmer and colder summers and on and on.

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

btw. More up-to-date measurements show warming is consistent within observational uncertainties. Heat is continuing to build up in the subsurface ocean. Go and check. We both know you won't.

Based on what? A graph posted at the slimiest blog on the web, based on a MODEL...not observation as you claimed.

Here is a graph from ARGO demonstrating the difference between model projections...your graph and the red line vs actual observation.

Your first problem is that you regularly go to the most dishonest climate site on the web and therefore don't get much exposure to actual science. What you get are cherries picked by some real scum buckets.

Here is a paper recently published in the International Journal of Geosciences that demonstrates that the ocean heat content is not building as is projected by the models that you place so much trust in.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Please listen carefully, because this is important.

You asked for proof.

I presented it.

No you didn't. You know so little that you don't even know what you are posting. You posted model projections. I posted actual observed data and you can see the difference between observation and model projections.

You guys just don't have a clue. You accept model output as if it were actual data. It isn't especially considering how far off the model projections are from the real world. That is why climate science relies so heavily on model output these days. The model out put is scary while observation is business as ususal.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

You posted model projections

And here you are lying again. I am surprised. My link took you to the research introduction, from where you could pay to see the entire document. I would have posted a media article about the research, but we know you refuse to look at anything but the basic research - which apparetly now you also refuse to look at.

The funny thing is, you know - I know when I post research that you won't look at it. So why don't you know that?!! Why pretend you want proof and evidence?

 

[Saigon]

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have to laugh, don't you?

 

[RollingThunder]

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Indeed! Unbelievable. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

[Saigon]

Indeed! Unbelievable. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

Not bad. Not bad at all. I do like this bit:

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved "mockumentaries" such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais' Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain's got Talent so discomfortingly entertaining...

This is very much how I feel about the climate change threads. It's not that people don't know the facts, because there is no real reason why people should, but it is the fact that people insist that they are interested, demand to see proof - and then refuse to look at it.

And not once, but on thread after thread after thread.

SSDD will be back next week, demanding proof again. You can be sure of it.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

You posted model projections

And here you are lying again. I am surprised. My link took you to the research introduction, from where you could pay to see the entire document. I would have posted a media article about the research, but we know you refuse to look at anything but the basic research - which apparetly now you also refuse to look at.

The funny thing is, you know - I know when I post research that you won't look at it. So why don't you know that?!! Why pretend you want proof and evidence?

You posted a link to a picture on a blog. I had to track down the paper myself and found that it was stating model projections...not observational data. You are so clueless that you don't even know what you are posting. Of course you guys have decended to the point that you (and your "scientists") are calling model output observational data. What I posted was actual, in the field observational data and your model predictions don't even come close.

 

[SSDD]

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have to laugh, don't you?

At your abject stupiditiy and ignorance....yes.

 

[SSDD]

Not bad. Not bad at all. I do like this bit:

Interesting...the severely emotionally disturbed talking to a pathalogical liar about mental problems. You guys are a hoot. Hope you enjoyed your little circle jerk.

 

[bripat9643]

Indeed! Unbelievable. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

Not bad. Not bad at all. I do like this bit:

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved "mockumentaries" such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais' Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain's got Talent so discomfortingly entertaining...

This is very much how I feel about the climate change threads. It's not that people don't know the facts, because there is no real reason why people should, but it is the fact that people insist that they are interested, demand to see proof - and then refuse to look at it.

And not once, but on thread after thread after thread.

SSDD will be back next week, demanding proof again. You can be sure of it.

You aren't fooling anyone. SSD is killing you. He sliced, diced and pureed your idiotic arguments. You can't win on the facts, so now you're engaging in personal attacks.

Sad.

 

[editec]

A gentlemanly reply. Kudos. Some tiny little rep is forthcoming.

But your post still ducks the questions just posed to you by SSDD.

I "duck" the question for the very reason I posted in my initial response.

... I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Basically, unless you are a climatologist, debating this is merely playing the game of dueling experts.

As I acknowledge that I am no expert, I am left choosing between the recognized MAJORITY of "experts", or choosing to believe the MINORITY of "experts".

I am not, and I suspect neither are you, really capable of reading the scientific data and finding its flaws -- either flaws in fact, or flaws in logic.

Does that explain my position regarding this issue clearly enough?

I acknowledge that I am NOT expert enough to debate the merits of scientific debate.

Are you?

Since the flaws in the AGW hypothesis are at the foundational level, one does not need a PhD to detect the errors.

One does need expertise to establish whose data are correct, though, true?

And the AGW hypothesis is founded on that data.

So unless you are prepared to tell me that you have that expertise to establish that there are errors in the data, you are no more qualified than I to determine who (if anyone) knows what is going on.

 

[SSDD]

One does need expertise to establish whose data are correct, though, true?

Again, no. One need only be willing to look at the hard facts and accept the fact that the data has been being tampered with for a couple of decades now. There are valid reasons for some of the adjustments, but no rational reason for most of them...specifically a widespread artificial cooling of pre 1960 temperature data and an artificial widespread warming of post 1959 temperatures.

And the AGW hypothesis is founded on that data.

First, the AGW hypotesis is founded on an interpretation of radiational physics. The data either support of deny the hypothesis and the data are being tampered with at an ever increasing rate in order to force them to jibe with the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not founded on data and believing that to be so demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

So unless you are prepared to tell me that you have that expertise to establish that there are errors in the data, you are no more qualified than I to determine who (if anyone) knows what is going on.

You don't need any expertise beyond that required to look at the database as it has existed at different times. It isn't difficult to find hard evidence that the pre1960 temperature record has been systematically cooled while the post 1959 temperature database has been systematically warmed.

There is no rational, scientifically sound reason for these adjustments...the only reason for this sort of change is to make the present appear warmer when contrasted with the past.

 

[editec]

Quote: Originally Posted by editec

One does need expertise to establish whose data are correct, though, true?

Again, no. One need only be willing to look at the hard facts and accept the fact that the data has been being tampered with for a couple of decades now.

.

Ah, I see.

You ACCEPT the fact that the data has been tampered.

You do this, I presume based on the word of experts that YOU trust, yes?

And you trust the word of that minority of experts, why exactly?

I can tell you why I trust the majority of expects.

Because they ARE the majority of EXPERTS.

I do not discount the possibility they are wrong.

I definitely DO discount the claim that they are entered into a vast conspiracy to lie to us, though.

Perhaps you know something I do not?

Perhaps your ability to fathom that complex science is vastly superior to mine?

I really don't know what you know.

I can only know what you say.

Thus far, what you have shown me is that you are counting on the words of experts you believe, without really having any explanation for why you believe them (a tiny minority) rather than the majority.

Nobody has ever proven to me that the data is fixed.

You seem convinced that it was.

Why?

 

[Saigon]

You posted a link to a picture on a blog.

Liar.

Here it is again for you.

Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Norman G. Loeb,
John M. Lyman,
Gregory C. Johnson,
Richard P. Allan,
David R. Doelling,
Takmeng Wong,
Brian J. Soden
& Graeme L. Stephens

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

 

[Saigon]

A warmer world will be wetter because more water vapor will be in the air. Drought is not the result of more water vapor in the air. Drought is associated with less water vapor and the colder it is, the less water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have to laugh, don't you?

At your abject stupiditiy and ignorance....yes.

And yet you are the one making the statement everyone else reading this thread is cringing at.

I just can't for the life of me imagine why you can not understand the importance of droughts in climate change science.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fuck it.

It's settled:

AGW is real.

I'm sold now.