Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

You still mis the point of my argument.

So, temperature is not the only thing that affects them.

Get a clue. Have you ignored everything I said, or are you really that daft?

I am pretty sure I do understand you, that is the problem. I understand enough to suspect you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me its raining.

If a species requires two conditions to thrive, one temperature, and the other PH, then if you see that organism in the fossil record, you can assume both ranges were present, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not quibbling over the measurements, but the unknown factors that lead to the measured results. There is no way to account for the unknowns.

"there is no way to account for the unknowns" is simply misleading.

You want a COMPLETE data set that is neither feasible, nor desireable.

This is a pretty direct parallel to the creationists.

After asking for "intermediary species" for decades, using their absence to say "AHA, SEE, evolution is just wrong because they can't produce these things. When they are presented with these things, they now demand as proof absolute 100% genetically sequenced organisms along every step of the evolutionary tree to prove evolution.

We don't need to nail down everything, every POSSIBLE factor to draw reasonable conclusions about the world around us.

[RandomGuy]

From Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water; Figures:

The more I read the data methodology from the study and look at what you are attempting to argue the worse your arguments look to me.

It looks an awefully lot like are attempting to nitpick and think that nitpick invalidates the entire premise of the paper, just like truthers do when they start nitpicking details from the 9-11 commission report or other things.

Let's start breaking down your criticisms, so I can demonstrate how spurious they really are.

The subpolar species e you circle here is directly accompanied by a similar e in polar species. The reason that a lot of scientific papers use rolling averages, is that they smoothe out the outliers that tend to skew data.

In making conclusions about the temperature of the waters you are looking for a contrast between the species, not at absolute es of both.

Do the following to statements correctly apply to the study's premise?:

Warmer waters in general = more subpolar than polar specimens
cooler waters = more polar than subpolar specimens

[MannyIsGod]

He does this all the time, RG. At some point its not even worth dignifying his posts with responses. He might have a point if these were the LONE indicator but the fact that they correspond with many other proxies is a good indicator there is value in the data.

[Wild Cobra]

I am pretty sure I do understand you, that is the problem. I understand enough to suspect you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me its raining.

If a species requires two conditions to thrive, one temperature, and the other PH, then if you see that organism in the fossil record, you can assume both ranges were present, yes or no?

Both ranges yes. You forget salinity, which also changes with glacier melt. Also, don't forget the polar cap melt variability. You now have 3 major variables, before including carbon levels. The difficulty comes in determining solving the problem with so many changing variables. On top of that, being a strait, how many of these organisms settles after death, from living out of the area, but brought in by the ever changing ocean currents.

Too many variables. There easily could have been long term changes that are impossible to account for.

[RandomGuy]

He does this all the time, RG. At some point its not even worth dignifying his posts with responses. He might have a point if these were the LONE indicator but the fact that they correspond with many other proxies is a good indicator there is value in the data.

You have to remember the whole purpose of this thread, and that is not to prove/disprove global warming, although some discussion of that is necessary. Rather, it is to prove that people like Wild Cobra, Darrin, and Yonivore, are being dishonest, illogical, and dogmatic, i.e. pseudoscientific.

That is why I took the first two posts of the thread and have catalogued the logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and irrational emotional arguments presented. I have stopped doing that, but probably should get around to it at some point.

The longer the discussion gets, the more material I can mine out of it, and the better my overall case regarding the nature of the "skeptics" gets, global warming or no.

[DarrinS]

You have to remember the whole purpose of this thread, and that is not to prove/disprove global warming, although some discussion of that is necessary. Rather, it is to prove that people like Wild Cobra, Darrin, and Yonivore, are being dishonest, illogical, and dogmatic, i.e. pseudoscientific.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.

•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)

•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)

•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)

•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high la udes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)

[RandomGuy]

You might find this useful, that is if you understand it:

Supporting Online Material for Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water

I found it very useful, and understood most of it, unfortunately for you.

[DarrinS]

Is it pseudoscientific to post raw data here? Just curious.

[RandomGuy]

Is it pseudoscientific to post raw data here? Just curious.

Of course not. I'm a bit hurt that you might suggest that.

By all means, please.

[RandomGuy]

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.

•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)

•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)

•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)

•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high la udes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.

[DarrinS]

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.

Seriously?

[Wild Cobra]

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand. Afterall, you don't understand my points either. Sorry I don't have the time to explain it better.

[RandomGuy]

From Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water; Figures:

[Big giant picture omitted, but can be seen at the following URL.-RG]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ldata-edit.jpg

"Looks wamer in 750 BCE than today" seems to be assuming that temperature can only be determined by the presence of subpolar species. That isn't what the study says.

You completely glossed over the e in polar species in the same data point.

For your assertion to be correct, the polar cold loving species would have to thrive in warmer water. Since both cold and warm loving species ed at the same point, it seems reasonable to assume this is simply an outlier, and that is probably one of the reasons it was simply used as a data point in a rolling average. Scientific papers don't normally spend a lot of time addressing outliers, especially if they seem to be far out of line of the vast majority of other data.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?
They ed inside that little circle too.
Yourself admitted that temperature was a condition required for such species to thrive, in addition to other parameters.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand. Afterall, you don't understand my points either. Sorry I don't have the time to explain it better.

You don't understand the study, and haven't read the methodology you posted. You may delude yourself that I dont' understand your points, but I do, rather well.

This "you just haven't done your research" or "you just don't understand" is exactly the same sort of thing that I get from 9-11 Truthers and moon landing hoaxers when I start picking apart their arugments.

They too, cannot believe that someone who disagrees with them is smart enough to fully comprehend their "complex" theories.

By all means, keep thinking/saying that. It makes the case of the OP easier.

[DarrinS]

Strangely enough, the temperature record is SO reliable that a new study is underway to address current denials, er, criticisms.


http://www.berkeleyearth.org/study


The project has the following goals:
1) To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research

2) To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, genization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations

3) To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms

4) To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

5) To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data


=======================


The science has already been settled, so why this?

[RandomGuy]

Both ranges yes. You forget salinity, which also changes with glacier melt. Also, don't forget the polar cap melt variability. You now have 3 major variables, before including carbon levels. The difficulty comes in determining solving the problem with so many changing variables. On top of that, being a strait, how many of these organisms settles after death, from living out of the area, but brought in by the ever changing ocean currents.

Too many variables. There easily could have been long term changes that are impossible to account for.

Unfortunately for your argument, it seems a few people with PhD's in biology would disagree. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is a well-studied organism, and this is one of many studies.

You seem to be asking me to "take your word for it", so in making up my own mind who to believe, your expertise becomes relevant.

Do you hold a degree in biology?

Are you claiming to know more about the biology of florimefera than someone who has actually read all of these studies, and used them as a basis for their own work, in a field they hold an advanced degree in?

[Wild Cobra]

"Looks wamer in 750 BCE than today" seems to be assuming that temperature can only be determined by the presence of subpolar species. That isn't what the study says.

You forget my correlation wo the AW temperature.

You completely glossed over the e in polar species in the same data point.

So...

What unknown variable could have ed both?

For your assertion to be correct, the polar cold loving species would have to thrive in warmer water. Since both cold and warm loving species ed at the same point, it seems reasonable to assume this is simply an outlier, and that is probably one of the reasons it was simply used as a data point in a rolling average. Scientific papers don't normally spend a lot of time addressing outliers, especially if they seem to be far out of line of the vast majority of other data.

Simple outlier is a way to justify the single sigma process. Throw out any data that could actually prove your theory wrong.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?
They ed inside that little circle too.
Yourself admitted that temperature was a condition required for such species to thrive, in addition to other parameters.

No, temperature is one condition. I can hypothesize why that occurred, but have no means myself to test it as a theory. Since the time samples are meaningless for normal lifespans, one of several possibilities is that one species thrived, then a sudden change killed most and then the other thrived, within the same slice of core data. Another possibilities is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

Again, there are too many unknowns to give this paper any more credibility than what you true believers do. It supports your viewpoint, therefore it is valid. However, the true scientists is skeptical until the skepticism is ruled out. Scientifically. That has not even come close to happening.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously?

Seriously. I can guess what you are shooting at, and if I am right about that guess, it is yet another strawman.

My guess:

"because of the recent snow/cold event in the US, that one event disproves the quotes I gave."

The reason this is another strawman is that one event, or even one particular cold spell or snowfall, does not make for enough data to make for a TREND. It is even quite probable that predictions about specific localized effects can be wrong, and "AGW caused by CO2" to still be correct.

You keep making this same logical fallacy over and over and over. It has been shown to be dishonest, and logically flawed, yet you persist in thread after thread after thread after post after post after post in repeating it.

It wasn't logical the first time you tried it, and it isn't logical now. Why do you keep trying this dishonest tactic?

[DarrinS]

From http://www.berkeleyearth.org/methodology

Duplicate filter: We first separately searched each archive for multiple copies of the same record and eliminated the duplicates.

Bad values filter: We flagged and excluded from further study values that had pre-existing indicators of data quality problems associated with instrumental error, in-filling of missing data, and/or post-hoc manipulations. We further removed values that exceeded global climate extremes (e.g. +5000 F).

[DarrinS]

Seriously. I can guess what you are shooting at, and if I am right about that guess, it is yet another strawman.

My guess:



The reason this is another strawman is that one event, or even one particular cold spell or snowfall, does not make for enough data to make for a TREND. It is even quite probable that predictions about specific localized effects can be wrong, and "AGW caused by CO2" to still be correct.

You keep making this same logical fallacy over and over and over. It has been shown to be dishonest, and logically flawed, yet you persist in thread after thread after thread after post after post after post in repeating it.

It wasn't logical the first time you tried it, and it isn't logical now. Why do you keep trying this dishonest tactic?

Wrong. Warmists have been saying that global warming causes both more snow and less snow. Which is it?

By the way, it's not ONE event -- it's three hardcore winters in a row.

[RandomGuy]

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?

You forget my correlation wo the AW temperature.

So...

What unknown variable could have ed both?

Simple outlier is a way to justify the single sigma process. Throw out any data that could actually prove your theory wrong.

No, temperature is one condition. I can hypothesize why that occurred, but have no means myself to test it as a theory. Since the time samples are meaningless for normal lifespans, one of several possibilities is that one species thrived, then a sudden change killed most and then the other thrived, within the same slice of core data. Another possibilities is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

Again, there are too many unknowns to give this paper any more credibility than what you true believers do. It supports your viewpoint, therefore it is valid. However, the true scientists is skeptical until the skepticism is ruled out. Scientifically. That has not even come close to happening.

That didn't answer my question.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Strangely enough, the temperature record is SO reliable that a new study is underway to address current denials, er, criticisms.


http://www.berkeleyearth.org/study


The project has the following goals:
1) To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research

2) To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, genization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations

3) To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms

4) To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

5) To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data


=======================


The science has already been settled, so why this?

I wonder how they plan to account for terrain changes like concrete, asphalt, etc. Then there is the problem with air conditioning vents, and even buildings or trees adding shade.

Intersting though:

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Analysis

[DarrinS]

I wonder how they plan to account for terrain changes like concrete, asphalt, etc. Then there is the problem with air conditioning vents, and even buildings or trees adding shade.

Intersting though:

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Analysis

I think that's one of the criticisms they are trying to address. It's is freakin Berkeley, but it seems like they are being very transparent about what they are doing. I'm going add that site to my favorites and keep a close eye on their progress.



EDIT> From that summary doc:

Avoid gridding.

All three major research groups currently rely on spatial gridding in their averaging algorithms. As a result, the effective averages may dependant on the choice of grid pattern and may be sensitive to effects such as the change in grid cell area with la ude. Our algorithms seek to eliminate
explicit gridding entirely.

I'd like to see how they are going to do that.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that's one of the criticisms they are trying to address. It's is freakin Berkeley, but it seems like they are being very transparent about what they are doing. I'm going add that site to my favorites and keep a close eye on their progress.

Yes, have to appreciate that transparency at least.