# Heap big data science at Northeastern University

From Northeastern University via Eurekalert, and the department of modeling for 10 million dollars, this seems to be all they could come up with. Nature has a way however, of taking the the best laid plans and rendering them moot. I don’t think they’ve noted ‘the pause’ yet. There’s no paper listed, nor data references, nothing, making it one of the worst press releases I’ve seen in awhile. The press release upstream at the University is hardly any better, citing the 97% consensus as if it has anything to do with extremes modeling, but at least they gave a link to the paper where Eurekalert didn’t.

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variability in temperature extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps, said Kodra.

“Just because you have a year that’s colder than the usual over the last decade isn’t a rejection of the global warming hypothesis,” Kodra explained.

With funding from a $10-million multi-university Expeditions in Computing grant, the duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes. The research also opens new areas of interest for future work, both in climate and data science. It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future. For instance, the team speculates that ice melt in hotter years may cause colder subsequent winters, but these hypotheses can only be confirmed in physics-based studies. The study used simulations from the most recent climate models developed by groups around the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “reanalysis data sets,” which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models. The team combined a suite of methods in a relatively new way to characterize extremes and explain how their variability is influenced by things like the seasons, geographical region, and the land-sea interface. The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections. The new results provide important scientific as well as societal implications, Ganguly noted. For one thing, knowing that models project a wider range of extreme temperature behavior will allow sectors like agriculture, public health, and insurance planning to better prepare for the future. For example, Kodra said, “an agriculture insurance company wants to know next year what is the coldest snap we could see and hedge against that. So, if the range gets wider they have a broader array of policies to consider.” ### The paper: http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140730/srep05884/full/srep05884.html Asymmetry of projected increases in extreme temperature distributions A statistical analysis reveals projections of consistently larger increases in the highest percentiles of summer and winter temperature maxima and minima versus the respective lowest percentiles, resulting in a wider range of temperature extremes in the future. These asymmetric changes in tail distributions of temperature appear robust when explored through 14 CMIP5 climate models and three reanalysis datasets. Asymmetry of projected increases in temperature extremes generalizes widely. Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events. An assessment of potential physical mechanisms provides support for asymmetric tail increases and hence wider temperature extremes ranges, especially for northern winter extremes. These results offer statistically grounded perspectives on projected changes in the IPCC-recommended extremes indices relevant for impacts and adaptation studies. Figure S1 The outer panel (a) shows how increases strictly in the location parameters for either tail would impact the distribution of extremes, and similarly panels (b) and (c) show the same for scale and shape parameters. Changes in location parameters correspond to shifts in typical or average extreme events, scale to changes in the width of the distribution of extremes, and shape to the behavior of the uppermost extremes. Baseline GEV distributions are shown in black and shifted distributions are shown in blue and red for simulated seasonal minima and maxima statistics, respectively. The SI gives details on the construction of the 6 side graphs, which are built with randomly simulated data from GEV models. About these ads ## 165 thoughts on “Heap big data science at Northeastern University” 1. Patrick says: “Knowing that the models projecty . . . .” The models project nothing. At least nothing that can be relied upon. 2. Arthur says: Here’s a rule about natural statistics: Once you start keeping track of highs and lows (of anything) on a global scale there will ALWAYS be a new higher and a new lower over any given time period. How is this news? 3. dp says: “Just because you have a year that’s warmer than the usual over the last decade isn’t a validation of the global warming hypothesis,” Kodra explained. There – I fixed it for ya. 4. JimS says: The poor souls are contradicting IPCC predictions from 2007 for a warming world: “There is likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks (i.e., periods of extreme cold lasting from several days to over a week) in NH winter in most areas.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html 5. latecommer2014 says: This falls under CYA protocol . Claim both ends of the spectrum and you can always be right. Psudo-Science at is best. 6. ddpalmer says: “The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections.” Well except when all the models make the same assumptions. Then the use of multiple climate model runs is just GIGO. 7. M Courtney says: For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. So their model diverges from reality and becomes more and more unstable. So the world’s weather will become more and more unstable or they need a better model. 8. Dave says: Would someone from the alarmist camp (surely there are plenty of you that visit this site) please explain what a “climate extreme” is? 9. Dave Wendt says: Somebody needs to pull the feeding tubes and shut off the respirators on these bozos. 10. F. Ross says: “With funding from a$10-million multi-university Expeditions in Computing grant, the duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes.” [+emphasis]

Oh, I get it; they extracted nuanced insights. Isn’t that special.

” It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future.”

What elses would drive weather anomalies? Unnatural processes? Devil worship?
Pure PUFFERY at best.

11. more soylent green! says:

Where are global temperatures increasing? In the models or do they have data they’re not sharing with us? Oh wait, I get it — the temps are increasing in the models. They take the output of the models and then model that. That explains it.

12. oMan says:

“…’reanalysis data sets,’ which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models.” Could somebody explain to me how that works? If you take (a) real-world data and (b) BS generated by your magical box, does that result in knowledge? Or more BS? For some reason I am thinking of pee in a swimming pool.

13. Rob Dawg says:

Surely when they ran cross checks on the input sources they must have discovered some suspicious concurrences. Indeed it would be very suspicious if they didn’t. That’s what big data is good for not validating models.

14. Dave says:

Humanity and critters alike have always been at the mercy of the earths climate.
We now manage our local environments, heat or cool our living spaces to survive comfortably in the face somewhat harsh environments. I think this has reduced our tolerance and understanding of what a harsh place the earth can be.

15. Harold says:

Oh-oh. Shape shifters.

16. Sweet Old Bob says:

” We mixed 17 gallons of paint from different models and now we have the true color ”
And it is new and improved……buy some now…at your friendly climate science store, near you…
Limited time offer…

17. Gary Pearse says:

“duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes.”

Man, if you need to use $10M computational tools to extract nuanced insights from the very rough, much diddled with temperature record with >50% error bars, you are wasting time and money. There are no nuances in this kind of data. Its like trying to extract the names of respondents from divorce statistics. How about the nuance of 18years and continuing of no warming that was totally unexpected. I hope your nuances account for increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice extents in the future, or will this be another big data surprise to show us after the fact. How come after a couple decades of the this stuff the recognizable names in the heat-up industry have disappeared and they have taken to sacrificing a legion of young lambs like Kodra, Ganguly, and the recent legion of newbies. They must be behind the curtain pulling the strings on these innocent folks. Kids, get your asses out of there, you are at the bottom of the pyramid of the scam. 18. Dougmanxx says: The problem I see: when you look at the min/max data you do NOT see more extremes. You see higher mins. The difference between the min and max has actually gotten SMALLER. In the raw data, the maxs are getting lower, while the mins are getting higher. I would call this the exact opposite of ‘more extreme”. 19. Harold says: It seems like they’re making essentially the same argument that got Charles Murray tarred and feathered for making in a different context. Bell Curve Climate = good. Bell Curve IQ = stone the infidel. 20. Alan Robertson says: Well diggers use thin plywood veneer to reinforce the walls of the hole as they dig deeper, lest they be buried under a collapse. The authors of this “paper” are using a veneer too thin for the task, but that hasn’t stopped them from digging. 21. Brian says: Now they’re doing notional statistical analysis of the model outputs? Am I reading this right? Could anything be more useless? 22. Latitude says: pay no attention to the thermometer….your insurance rates are going up 23. “Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay” – Oh FFS. “Big data” could confirm almost anything – as Boyd and Crawford (2011) point out: “It is the kind of data that encourages the practice of apophenia: seeing patterns where none actually exist, simply because massive quantities of data can offer connections that radiate in all directions. Due to this, it is crucial to begin asking questions about the analytic assumptions, methodological frameworks, and underlying biases embedded in the Big Data phenomenon.” ‘Big Data’ covers a hugely heterogeneous set of methodologies, technologies, assumptions, approaches and so on. What is it with these people? It reminds me of how the definite article is used when referring to “the science” as if it is a static thing self-evident to everyone. Whenever I see such phraseology it indicates to me that I’m dealing with a willful propagandist. 24. John West says: “It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future.” “It” in this case being the product of a 10 million dollar expenditure! “It” suggests that processes that have been around for billions of years will continue into the future. Give me 10 million dollars and I’ll build a fancy smancy climate data cruncher that will strongly suggest that the processes that effect weather today and have been since time immemorial will continue to effect weather in a [payer's choice: warming/cooling/stagnant] world. 25. Chris4692 says: I was looking forward to reading the paper to see their analysis until I read that they analyzed model output rather than real data. Never mind. 26. I wonder if the authors are trying to lay the foundation, or if someone else will take it as one, for the next round of scare mongering. “Well, sure the average temperature isn’t going up but that is not the problem. All that CO2, or something, is leading to higher highs and lower lows, and that will result in catastrophic losses in agriculture and public health. We have to reduce our CO2 emissions, or something, to keep them in a more normal range (whatever that is).” 27. “… There are no nuances in this kind of data. Its like trying to extract the names of respondents from divorce statistics. …” Honky Cat says: It’s like trying to find gold in a silver mine It’s like trying to drink whisky from a bottle of wine 28. Harold says: Latitude says: July 30, 2014 at 9:25 am pay no attention to the thermometer….your insurance rates are going up ————————— Bingo. Stampede your competition into overestimating the risk. Everybody in the industry wins. 29. john robertson says: Predicting the future from the intestines of small avian creatures is cheaper and more accurate. After all a fat bird in the fall indicates the bird was ready for winter.$10 million to produce this garbage?
Climatology has not improved since Roman times.

30. Pamela Gray says:

At first I thought that degrees of freedom, error bars, and tests of significance are so old school. Now I realize this is not post-normal science but pre-normal regression back to the halcyon days of restorative snake oil elixirs and grandpa’s recipe for what ails ya.

No need for unbiased, cold investigation. All you have to do is find yourself a fancy media wagon and start barkin out the back end of it. Crowds will gather and buy all you have to sell. But there is one essential difference. What tickles my funny bone is that the sheeple gathering round the wagon all have diplomas and letters after their names.

31. Resourceguy says:

Did John Kerry commission this in between foreign trips and sail boat escapades?

32. John in L du B says:

Are you kidding me!!!?? Does anyone actually do measurements anymore or work with real data? Everyone agrees that the world is warming so we’d expect asymmetry in the extremes. Do you need to crank “big data” to show this?

Can you get a graduate degree in Civil Engineering at Northwestern for this stuff? I’ve been contemplating a US road trip. Think I’ll avoid Illinois. Not sure about the bridges.

33. Joe Born says:

John in L du B: “Can you get a graduate degree in Civil Engineering at Northwestern for this stuff?”

Northeastern as in Boston, not Northwestern as in Evanston.

34. Dave L says:

This crap is considered ‘science’?

35. bh2 says:

“This crap is considered ‘science’?”

It is “science” if it pays well. It isn’t “science” if it does not.

36. Joel O'Bryan says:

quoting, “the team speculates that ice melt in hotter years may cause colder subsequent winters.”

The old “warming causes cooling” gag for the weak minded.

37. earwig42 says:

Another fine entry for the Climate Agnotology Hall of Infamy. Meh.

38. Neil says:

They would do well to learn from Google and their flu predictions:

The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis

In February 2013, Google Flu Trends (GFT) made headlines but not for a reason that Google executives or the creators of the flu tracking system would have hoped. Nature reported that GFT was predicting more than double the proportion of doctor visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which bases its estimates on surveillance reports from laboratories across the United States. This happened despite the fact that GFT was built to predict CDC reports. Given that GFT is often held up as an exemplary use of big data, what lessons can we draw from this error?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6176/1203.summary

39. Well, speaking as an IT and database professional, I have to make this point: The biggest fiction about big data is that its a new concept. Its actually a new name for an old concept: statistical modelling.

40. Joel O'Bryan says:

quoting, “knowing that models project a wider range of extreme temperature behavior will allow sectors like agriculture, public health, and insurance planning to better prepare for the future. ”

those sectors would be better off with an Ouija Board than using that Big Data garbage generator.

41. Harold says:

“Heap big data”? So now Liz Warren is on the climate bandwagon?

42. It turns out the \$10 million covers a lot more than this analysis. The full grant is described at http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1029711 which says in part:

Data driven methods that have been highly successful in other facets of the computational sciences are now being used in the environmental sciences with success. This Expedition project will significantly advance key challenges in climate change science developing exciting and innovative new data driven approaches that take advantage of the wealth of climate and ecosystem data now available from satellite and ground-based sensors, the observational record for atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial processes, and physics-based climate model simulations.

A primary focus of this Expedition project will be on uncertainty reduction, which can bring the complementary or supplementary skills of physics-based models together with data-guided insights regarding complex climate processes. The systematic evaluation of climate models and their component processes, as well as uncertainty assessments at regional and decadal scales is a fundamental problem that will be addressed.

I don’t know, it sounds like they’re finding greater uncertainty….

The grant lists 32 papers produced under it (it started in 2010). None seem very supportive of AGW, a lot seem rather neutral, e.g. Lack of uniform trends but increasing spatial variability in observed Indian rainfall extremes, NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, v.2, 2012, p. 86-91. [I picked this because it seems to fit the study at hand.]

A graph-based approach to find teleconnections in climate data, Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, v.6, 2013, p. 158.

Intensity, duration, and frequency of precipitation extremes under 21st-century warming scenarios, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, v.116, 2011, p. 14. [There’s some confirmation bias, they should look at cooling conditions too.

Sensitive and Specific Identification of Protein Complexes in “Perturbed” Protein Interaction Networks from Noisy Pull-Down Data, IPDPS, HiCOMB Workshop, 2011. [What!?]

43. Bill Illis says:

The paper is strictly based on model outputs.

No use of any actual climate measurements whatsoever.

There is so much money being wasted in this climate science industry, a complete dead-weight loss to the economy and government coffers,

It needs to end now. We do not need one more single run of any climate model for any purpose whatsoever. It has all be done before umpteen times. We just need to measure what is really happening. Fund somebody else besides climate modellers to carry out this work.

44. Jeff L says:

I love how quickly this blog can deconstruct a paper ! All my critical thoughts have already been posted by others !
Warmists either don’t recognize or choose not to acknowledge the intellect of skeptics & understand how easy it is to tear down almost all of their arguments.

45. Joseph Murphy says:

LOL, is about all I can muster anymore. I am in the wrong line of work (recycling).

46. John Greenfraud says:

The paper is basically a math problem.
Outrageous claims of climate extremes + Dumb people = Political power and wealth

47. BallBounces says:

“Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay”.

Put a coin in the juke box. Cue the 45: scratch, scratch, scratch…

Climate change is here to stay, it will never die
It was meant to be that way, though I don’t know why
I don’t care what people say, climate change is here to stay
We don’t care what people say, climate change is here to stay

Climate change will always be our ticket to the end
It’ll go down in history, just you wait, my friend
Climate change will always be, it’ll go down in history
Climate change will always be, it’ll go down in history

48. D.J. Hawkins says:

Methodology aside, it seem like they may be laying the ground work, wittingly or un, for continuing the CAGW gravy train. I recall that someone here, possibly Willis, had found information that during the Little Ice Age, there were periods when very warm temperatures occured, even though the overall regime was colder. Now they may be trying to flip that and claim even though there may be colder periods that the overall regime will be warmer.

49. One of my favourite posts is where Willis Eschenbach replicates the ‘massively complex’ GISS model E, presumably running on a super computer somewhere, and produces essentially the same output, using Excel.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/15/willis-on-giss-model-e/

Give the 10 million to Willis. He’ll probably do something useful with it. ;-)

50. Alec Rawls says:

I like the way the they conflate local weather distribution (“cold snaps” even as average temperature rises) with colder average temperatures, as if they are the same phenomenon:

This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps, said Kodra.

“Just because you have a year that’s colder than the usual over the last decade isn’t a rejection of the global warming hypothesis,” Kodra explained.

The press release seems to put the equating of these very different phenomena directly into the mouth of Kodra, who is cited for both halves of it. Sorry, excursions FROM average temp and excursions OF average temp are not the same thing. Government funded “science” at work.

51. mpaintet says:

John at L du B :

Not everyone agrees that the world is warming. For example, the temperature record of the last seventeen years does not agree with you.

52. Mike Maguire says:

They forget to check with the real world. Extreme temperature records have become LESS common:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

They also forgot to consult with a meteorology 101 handbook:
When you warm higher latitudes and decrease the meridional temperature gradient, you get less energy for storms/weather systems and less extreme weather.

Add water vapor to the air and guess what happens to diurnal temperature fluctuations?
They decrease. Dry air has less heat capacity.

Modest, beneficial global warming over the last century has done the complete opposite of what they are claiming.

Just another example of an expensive work of junk science designed to support the agenda that makes anybody that believes it even dumber about climate science and weather.

53. John in L du B says:

Are you kidding me!!!?? Does anyone actually do measurements anymore or work with real data? Everyone agrees that the world is warming…

John, I am part of the set ‘everyone’. So if I may falsify your conjecture:

See, not ‘everyone agrees’ that the world is warming. ^That link^ to satellite data shows pretty conclusively that the world is no longer warming. It shows us that the world stopped warming almost twenty years ago.

54. Gamecock says:

The Left has to hate Big Data, just like they hate Big Oil.

55. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:43 pm

“^That link^ to satellite data shows pretty conclusively that the world is no longer warming.
….
Wait a minute.
….
Look at this.

That satellite data of yours clearly shows “warming”

I think my “cherry” is sweeter than your cherry.

56. rogerknights says:

“^That link^ to satellite data shows pretty conclusively that the world is no longer warming.
….
Wait a minute.
….
Look at this.

That satellite data of yours clearly shows “warming”

It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
I.e., does “is” cover a 33-year trend, or only the most recent trend? If “is” means the present, as it normally does, then the most recent trend (flat) is the winner.

57. chuck says:

Wait a minute.

Ah. Cherry-picking again, I see.

Skeptics use Warmist Phil Jones’ definition of ‘no warming for 15 years’ after his beginning base year of 1997. Skeptics didn’t pick 1997, alarmists did.

Now you want to cherry-pick 1980. If you get to pick the starting year, you can show anything. But that is moving the goal posts — the hallmark of the alarmist crowd.

Since 1997 is the year designated bu über-Warmist Phil Jones, let’s use his starting year, OK? Alarmists made the rules, and for many years after 1997 that was the consensus. Now they’re howling because their feet are being held to the fire.

Live by the consensus, die by the consensus.

58. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 30, 2014 at 7:11 pm

” If you get to pick the starting year, you can show anything.” </b.

Yup, so I guess your pick of 17 years falls into that category, You must be an "alarmist.

59. Yo, dummy!

1997 was Phil Jones’ pick, not mine. He thought he was on safe ground in 1999 when he made that pick. Jones believed that global warming just had to resume before too long.

Well, Jones was wrong. Global warming has stopped.

If it had started up again, you would have been crowing about it, and 1997 would have been a great year for you. But Planet Earth is debunking the runaway global warming scare. Now your climate alarmist crowd doesn’t like it.

Suck it up. ☺

60. chuck says:

Mr dbstealey.

You are a fine example of someone committing the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. You have separated the world into “skeptics” and “alarmists.” Unfortunately, reality does not work that way, as you have excluded the person that does not adhere to either line of thinking. There is a third category of people (such as me) that do not accept the “alarmist” thinking, and does not accept your way of thinking.

It is very unfortunate that you take the stand, “If you are not with me, you are against me” You are alienating a very large group of people.

Brian says:
July 30, 2014 at 9:24 am

Could anything be more useless?
———————————————-
Senseless!!!

62. chuckles,

As long as you have a problem admitting that global warming has stopped — and clearly you do — then you are no skeptic.

Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. All good scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. Give that some thought.

63. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm

“As long as you have a problem admitting that global warming has stopped”

I don’t know if it has stopped. It may have. It may not have. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it continues. The jury is still out.

64. Mervyn says:

Let me say this about models. If models were able to get anything right, be it about the economy or the weather, I would be making an absolute fortune placing bets with my local bookmaker.

But the reality is that none of these models will ever be able to tell us what is going to happen in 100 years time let alone in one years time, one months time or even one weeks time.

The day these supercomputers can tell us, with a degree of certainty, that it is indeed going to rain or snow next Wednesday at such a place, and come next Wednesday it actually happens, that will be the day I take notice of these computers … and then only with regard to their forecasts for a few days ahead.

65. Sun Spot says:

@Brian says:July 30, 2014 at 9:24 am

+100 , I got giant guffaw out of that one.

66. noaaprogrammer says:

When ebola spreads beyond Africa, then they’ll have some big data to model – oh, wait, global warming causes ebola:

“Jun 26, 2014 – @voxdotcom my #science teacher taught me global warming causes ebola. Details Expand Collapse. Reply; Retweet Retweeted; Delete “

67. Sun Spot says:

I don’t understand why Mosher hasn’t done a pro climate model driveby smarmy comment on this topic

68. I haven’t read this article, but generally you find in nature larger numbers give a larger standard deviation. So one would expect a larger temperature variation with CAGW models.
For instance high tide standard deviations are higher than low tide standard deviations. But when you divide each by its mean, the coefficient of variance is the same.

69. “I don’t know if it has stopped. It may have. It may not have. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it continues. The jury is still out.”

It warmed from about 1980 to about 1998. (18 years.) And it didn’t warm from about 1999 to 2014. (15 years). No jury required.

70. lee says:

‘when explored through 14 CMIP5 climate models and three reanalysis datasets. ‘

How to build a better hockey stick Mk…?

71. Mike M says:

Hey NU, if you ever wanted to know why I never send you money …

72. chuck says:

I don’t know if [global warming] has stopped. It may have. It may not have. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it continues.

By that criteria, we know nothing, and we can never know. It’s all a mystery.

Well, that is nonsense. Per satellite measurements, global warming has stopped.

But the alarmist crowd cannot admit that they were wrong. They cannot admit that all their predictions were wrong. They cannot admit that Planet Earth is contradicting their CO2=cAGW Belief.

Once again, that is the difference between skeptics and alarmists: skeptics accept reality, whatever it is and wherever it leads. But alarmists only accept what confirms their bias.

That said, there is just a tiny bit of schadenfreude being enjoyed by skeptics. The alarmist clique was so very certain that they were right and skeptics were wrong. But the alarmists were wrong, and there is a little bit of enjoyment in seeing them get taken down a peg. Maybe next time they will be a little bit more humble.

Now if we can just get chuck to acknowledge that global warming has stopped…

73. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:12 am

” global warming has stopped. ”

Skeptics do not practice dogmatism. They keep an open mind. You continue to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy

74. John in L du B says:

Ok. My mistake. Should read more closely. I admit, I confused Northwestern and Northeastern and I have to apologize to Northwestern and the State of Illinois.

I also agree that the earth isn’t warming right now. However, over the whole historical record such a shift in extremes would be expected and you don’t have to crank a lot of computer time to prove it.

I still say that this is trivial and just shows that where climate science is concerned you can get anything published that fits the politics.

75. DrTorch says:

This drivel was painful to read. But what it seemed to me was an excuse for Gov’t to keep fear-mongering, and to claim that AGW, climate change, or whatever, will be even MORE expensive than was first estimated.

It’s an excuse to “act now” so that we save money in the “long run.” And those on the dole can keep raking in their coerced taxpayer dollars.

76. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

In response to the empirically accurate statement at July 31, 2014 at 4:12 am by dbstealey which said:

” global warming has stopped. ”

at July 31, 2014 at 5:39 am you have replied by saying in total

Skeptics do not practice dogmatism. They keep an open mind. You continue to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy

Let me correct that for you.
Skeptics do not practice dogmatism. They keep an open mind but not so open that their brains fall out. However, members of the Cult Of Global Warming often pretend reality does not exist when confronted with facts such as global warming having stopped.

Richard

77. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 7:24 am
..

” when confronted with facts such as global warming having stopped.”

Neither the “skeptics” nor the “warmists” in this line of study can conclusively show what it has doing. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it is continuing. You also are being “dogmatic” which is a sure sign of an unscientific take on things.

You need to stop confusing “facts” with your “beliefs.” Try saying this instead….”The evidence seems to indicate……..” instead of “…facts such as…..”

78. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

At July 31, 2014 at 10:10 am in response to my attempt to correct your idiocy you write

You need to stop confusing “facts” with your “beliefs.” Try saying this instead….”The evidence seems to indicate……..” instead of “…facts such as…..”

OK. I will practice.

The evidence seems to indicate Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of England in 1993.
The evidence seems to indicate that gravity acts as a force.
The evidence seems to indicate that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
The evidence overwhelming indicates that ‘chuck’ is a troll.

I think I’m getting the hang of it. Do you think I need more practice?

Oh, and by the way, it is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
I don’t need to practice that because it is science and I understand that.

Richard

79. chuck,

Richard is right, and you should pay attention. What you are doing is cherry-picking, which feeds your confirmation bias. That sounds more like religion than science.

Depending on the start date, you can show warming or cooling. There is no doubt that the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age. But that is not the debate. The argument here is about whether global warming has occurred since 1997 — Phil Jones’ designated base year.

There is ample empirical evidence showing that global warming has been stopped for many years now. There has been no recent global warming, which contradicts the endless alarmist predictions of runaway global warming, leading to a climate catastrophe. That just did not happen. The climate alarmists’ predictions were wrong. All of them.

In fact, every alarmist prediction, from accelerating sea level rise, to disappearing polar ice, to methane hydrate burps, to decimated Polar bear populations, to coral bleaching, to frog extinctions, to runaway global warming itself, have all been proven wrong.

When every one of a particular group’s predictions are shown to be wrong, reasonable people will begin to look at their continued assertions with a jaundiced eye. Skeptics, especially, look at alarmist predictions with great doubt, because they have all been wrong.

So, two questions:

First: why should we believe anything the alarmist crowd tells us now? They have never been right. Why should we think they are suddenly right? What has changed?

And second: what would it take to convince you that the runaway global warming narrative has been falsified? Would anything convince you? If so, what would it be?

Take your time, I have all day…

80. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:34 am

” it is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.”
.
Well, that is a matter of opinion and not of “fact”

Even Monckton disagrees with you on that.

So do several other data source.

Sorry, the jury is still out, and your “belief” is not fact. You are no different than a warmist.

81. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:08 pm

” which feeds your confirmation bias.”

..
Please explain how someone with an indeterminate position can even have bias? I will repeat, “the jury is still out.” I’m finding your US vs THEM attitude fascinating

82. chuck says:

Be a good sport and answer the 2 questions in my last post. Then I can continue, and give you your explanation.

83. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm

answer the 2 questions in my last post”

1a) It’s not a matter of “belief”
1b) If “they” have been right JUST ONCE, you cannot say “They have never been right” You have opened yourself up to being shown wrong with a single example of an alarmist being correct.
1c) You don’t have to accept them as being “right” Just as you are not allowed to think of yourself as being “right” I will repeat….the jury is still out, the science is NOT settled.
….
2) I don’t accept “runaway” so …..why should bother with this question?

84. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

I am flabbergasted by your post at July 31, 2014 at 12:44 pm.

Are you really claiming that you do not know the difference between “an empirical fact” and “a matter of opinion”?

It is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago: it is not merely a matter of opinion.

Anybody can dispute an empirical fact but that does not make the empirical fact mere opinion. For example, a fact that I stated to you earlier was that HM Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, but there are some people who claim to be the rightful monarch: those claims do not alter the fact that QE2 is the monarch.

Richard

85. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:07 pm

It is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago”

It is also an empirical fact that global warming did not stop nearly 18 years ago. So, should one believe your fact or should someone believe the opposing fact?

86. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

At July 31, 2014 at 2:15 pm you say

“It is also an empirical fact that global warming did not stop nearly 18 years ago. So, should one believe your fact or should someone believe the opposing fact?”

Bollocks!

To stop is a change of condition.
Global warming has stopped is an empirical fact.
Global warming has not stopped is not an empirical fact: it is a lie.

It can be disputed as to WHEN global warming stopped because different analytical methods indicate different dates. But that does NOT convert the lie that ‘global warming has not stopped’ into a fact.

Global warming has stopped. It either stopped or not, and it cannot be a bit stopped. The empirical data all shows it stopped but the various estimates differ about when it stopped.

Similarly, there can be a discussion about how long a woman has been pregnant, but that does not mean she is not pregnant. Either she is pregnant or not, and she cannot be a bit pregnant. The empirical data may show she is pregnant but the various estimates may differ about when she became pregnant.

And I still await your explanation of your claim that empirical evidence is merely opinion.

Richard

87. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm

Global warming has stopped.”

There is empirical evidence that global warming has not stopped, and in fact continues as we type.
..
I learned in logic, that A and ~A is false.

Since you assert A, and there is evidence that A is not true, there is no way to “empirically” determine if global warming has in fact stopped. You are no different than a warmist in BELIEVING that your “fact” is true, especially when counterfactual empirical evidence exists that says you are wrong. The end result is that the truth or falsity of these statements becomes a matter of opinion, since the empirical evidence renders verification indeterminate. The sign of a good scientist is one that questions the evidence, not someone like you that ignores evidence that is contrary to your confirmation bias. I see no difference between you and a warmist in your approach to this matter.

88. chuck says:

there is no way to “empirically” determine if global warming has in fact stopped.

Wrong. Of course, you would say that. There is ample empirical evidence showing that global warming has stopped.

But thanx for trying. However, you didn’t answer my question: why should we believe anyone whose predictions always fail? They were all wrong. That was my point. Why should anyone assume that from this point on, alarmist assertions are correct?

1b) No. To be worthwhile, a conjecture must be able to make accurate, repeated predictions. Making one right guess is no more than the broken clock analogy. It means nothing.

1c) That is my point: I do not accept baseless assertions, which is all that the alarmist crowd has. And I don’t think of myself as being ‘right’, I look at it as gaining knowledge. And the jury has returned its verdict.

In case I haven’t made it clear enough: global warming stopped around 1997, and no one has seen it since, despite all the predictions that it would continue, and accelerate.

2) You misrepresent what I asked, regarding the empiurical fact that global warming has stopped: Would anything convince you? If so, what would it be?

Tell us, what would convince you that global warming has stopped? Would glaciers have to descend once again over Chicago, a mile deep? Or would that not be enough to convince you? For rational folks, satellite data showing no global warming for 17+ years is sufficient. But that assumes your belief isn’t religious. If it is, all bets are off, because then nothing can ever convince you.

89. chuck says:

It is also an empirical fact that global warming did not stop nearly 18 years ago.

No, that is not an “empirical fact”. Where do you get that nonsense from??

Post your “empirical” fact showing that global warming did not stop, chuck. Keep in mind that scientific evidence consists of verifiable observations and raw data. It does not consist of pal reviewed papers, or computer models. Those are not empirical evidence.

Also keep in mind that observations that are restricted to land measurments only are not sufficient; nor are observations that have been constantly “adjusted”, like GISS and NOAA routinely do.

Real world data encompasses the real world, not 29% of it, and unless those “adjustments” are posted chapter and verse along with the original raw data, they are worthless. The methodology used to arrive at the final numbers must be posted for falsification by other scientists. Otherwise, it’s just witch doctor juju.

90. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:02 pm

In case I haven’t made it clear enough: global warming stopped around 1997″
….
That is not what the UAH data says

91. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:13 pm
.
“Post your “empirical” fact showing that global warming did not stop ”
..
In the past 17 years, there has been about 50 mm of sea level rise. It hasn’t stopped rising in the 17 years. Part of that is due to melting ice, part of it is due to thermal expansion.

92. chuck says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:07 pm (challenging dbstealey says:)

..
In the past 17 years, there has been about 50 mm of sea level rise. It hasn’t stopped rising in the 17 years. Part of that is due to melting ice, part of it is due to thermal expansion.

Hmmmn. What is your supposed “source” for that supposed “evidence”?

Are you sure you’re quoting millimeters per year, and not millimeters per decade? Centimeters per century? You sure of that “melting ice” volume? Give us the numbers for that too, since the deep ocean is cooling, according to the actual measurements.

93. Matthew R Marler says:

On the plus side, I am glad to see increased use of the generalized extreme value distribution. With large computational facilities and budgets, I would like to see quantile regression used (to model the low and high quantiles approximately independently.)

On the minus side, the results are based on analysis of cmip model output and reanalysis data sets, so all they do really is elaborate on model outputs; here focusing on changes in variability rather than changes in means.

On the whole, the paper reads more like a statistical modeling exercise for the purpose of building a facility for modeling that might in future be informative when applied to actual climate data instead of model output.

Arthur wrote: Once you start keeping track of highs and lows (of anything) on a global scale there will ALWAYS be a new higher and a new lower over any given time period. How is this news?

The goal is to improve materially on the accuracy with which such statements can be made. clearly the authors can not claim much material improvement so far, but the use of extreme value distributions on real data sets should be informative.

94. Matthew R Marler says:

RACookPE1978: Are you sure you’re quoting millimeters per year, and not millimeters per decade?

Isn’t that 50 mm in 17years, ca 3mm/year, or around average?

95. chuck says:

RACookPE1978 says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:58 pm

” What is your supposed “source” for that supposed “evidence”?”

CU Sea Level Research Group.

96. John in L du B says:

I also agree that the earth isn’t warming right now.

Thank you.

I think we all agree that the planet has warmed in fits and starts since the LIA. It may begin warming again at some point. But since the late ’90’s there has been no global warming, which throws the claim that CO2 causes global warming into great doubt.

I think we could also agree that instead of global warming resuming, the climate could tip over into global cooling, or it could remain in its current stasis. We just don’t know — which makes all predictions nothing more than assertions based on a political narrative.

Scientific skeptics don’t have to be right. But we want answers. If we are shown to be wrong that’s OK, because it increases our understanding. We want knowledge, wherever it leads. That makes the skeptical mindset completely different from the alarmist mindset. One is based on science; the other is based on religious belief. And despite chuck’s hair splitting, there is no third way. Either one accepts the Scientific Method, or one doesn’t.

97. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 7:11 pm

there is no third way ”
..
Thank you for confirming your false dichotomy

98. chuck,

There are scientific skeptics, and then there is everyone else. You are part of the subset ‘everyone else’. You can fabricate a zillion different classifications, but they are nonsense. Either you are a skeptic, or you’re not. You are not. That makes you an alarmist.

Global warming has stopped. You can argue incessantly, but you sound more deluded the more you protest reality. Even the Washington Post has printed a chart contradicting your True Belief.

You are amusing, chuck. Despite mountains of evidence debunking your religious belief, you still insist that global warming’s gonna getcha. You are a case study in cognitive dissonance: despite statellite data — the most accurate there is — your response is no different from a Jehovah’s Witness being told his beliefs are crazy.

Finally, just to deconstruct your claim that rising [?] sea levels are proof of continuing global warming, let me explain something to you. There is a lag time due to the oceans’ heat capacity. There is no lag time to satelite data; it is in real time, and it shows conclusively that global warming has stopped. You write that the sea level rise is due to melting ice, and thermal expansion. The fact is that thermal expansion, melting ice, and sea level rise is all due to the same basic cause: the planet’s recovery from the LIA.

Uber-Warmist Phil Jones confirms that. His chart shows that the planet has warmed exactly the same in the 1800’s as it has recently. That leaves no room for human-emitted CO2 to have any measurable effect.

Can you understand that chart? The planet has warmed, in fits and starts, since the LIA. The recent warming is exactly the same as past warming. Each step change is the same. But despite all the evidence, your religious belief will not allow you to accept reality. You only cherry-pick the factoids that support your confirmation bias.

You’re the kind of lemming that has made Michael Mann rich and famous, chuckles. At least you have that!

99. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:09 pm

You are part of the subset ‘everyone else’”

You continue to commit a logical fallacy. It is called “false dichotomy” You cannot continue to say, “if you are not with me, you are against me”.
..

There is no “lag time” in ocean warming. The energy goes in, the water expands” You’d best be ready to explain to me which law of physics you have misconstrued to explain how heated water waits a period of time before it expands. If any one is “skeptical” it is me, in that your “theory of lagging thermal expansion” can be explained with physics. I can’t wait to hear it, as it will provide be with comical fodder for my students.

100. chuckles,

You are a lunatic. Skepticism and religion are polar opposites. Religion is faith-based, just like your belief in continuing global warming. Scientific skeptics say, “Show me.” That means the onus is on you to prove global warming is continuing. You failed at that. You are disputing satellite data. Who would believe you?

See, chuck, the onus is on you. And just because you baselessly assert that others you disagree with are not logical, that is only your weak fallback argument, because you are unable to contradict all the empirical evidence presented.

Go argue with the Washington Post if you don’t believe them. Like me, they will just laugh at you.

Also, I doubt you have ‘students’, unless you teach astrology. To say there is no lag time in the ocean makes you sound like a blithering idiot. If there were no lag time, the oceans would all be the same temperature year-round.

You say:

If any one is “skeptical” it is me

Heh. As if. Everything you write brands you as a religious True Believer in the globaloney scare. Your arguments are at the level of a special ed student. So please, don’t pretend you are what you are not. I was on to you way back, when you tried to pretend you were impartial. But I easily smoked you out. Now, everyone can tell you are a swivel-eyed alarmist. You’re not fooling anyone here.

You’re dealing with adults, “chuck”, and the folks here have a lot of education in the hard sciences — something that it is obvious you are sadly lacking.

101. As I said above: the “carbon” scare is witch doctor juju.

Professor ‘dr. chuck’ says:

“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.” [source]

102. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:30 pm

Show me”
..
Your theory of lagging thermal expansion.

Try to avoid name calling, and banal insults in your response.

103. lee,

Sea level rise will continue for centuries to thousands of years after greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans…

It is also good to know that others are reading along. Sometimes I’m just having fun with folks like chuck because he’s so easy to refute, as you have demonstrated.

Observe his tactic. When someone like chuck can’t prevail in a debate, he will still argue incessantly over every nitpicking point, even though his arguments are easy to refute. It is the argument that is chuck’s goal, not the conclusion. He certainly doesn’t want to learn anything.

The rest of us here know the facts. Since about 1997 global warming has stopped. We don’t really know why, because we don’t have all the answers: what causes warming, what caused the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warming Period; what brings about the great stadials, or exactly how the planet maintains it’s temperature within a narrow band. We can make educated guesses, but we don’t know. If we did, the debate would be settled.

What we do know is that the current global climate and temperature are within a completely normal range historically, and that current global T is indistinguishable from natural variability. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree. Any effect from human activity is so minuscule that it is not even measurable.

Maybe the scales will fall from chuck’s eyes. But I’m not holding my breath. We are in a fight against ignorance. That battle will take time and effort to win.

104. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

Your post at July 31, 2014 at 3:17 pm purports to be a reply to my post immediately above it at July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm which is here.

There is empirical evidence that global warming has not stopped, and in fact continues as we type.

Then you follow that nonsense by talking about “logic” (a subject which you clearly do not understand).

Your argument by assertion is twaddle. What “empirical evidence” do you claim exists which indicates “that global warming has not stopped, and in fact continues as we type”? You do not say. Is it this “evidence” merely that the Easter Bunny told you?

All the measurements of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped. It has.

And I yet again repeat my request for you to explain your assertion that “empirical evidence” is the same as “opinion”.

Richard

105. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm

Thank you lee

observed thermal ocean expansion due to warming (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year);”

It shows that in the past 17 years, and right up until today, the WARMING CONTINUES
..
Thermal expansion is not “lagging”

106. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 1:50 am

All the measurements of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped. It has.”

Except the measurement of sea level rise indicates the warming HAS NOT STOPPED.

107. chuck says:

Mr dbstealy

You still have not explained the physics behind the “lagging thermal expansion”
..
It would be interesting to know, how if you heated a volume of water 10 degrees C, if you have to wait one hour, two days or a year and a half for the resulting expansion to occur.

Please tell us all how this works.

108. chuck says:

August 1, 2014 at 6:29 am

dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm

Thank you lee

“Sea level rise is caused by two processes: thermal expansion (ocean water expanding as it heats up) and additional water flows into the oceans from ice that melts on land. Both these processes are currently being observed.”

Really? No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?

109. chuck says:

JohnWho says:
August 1, 2014 at 6:55 am

“No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?”

Could be others, however, 1.1 (0.8 to 1.4) mm per year is due to thermal expansion.
So, in the past 17 years there has been 18.7 mm of thermal expansion.

Only thing I know that causes thermal expansion is heat.

110. chuck says:
August 1, 2014 at 6:29 am (replying to dbstealey and lee) says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:41 pm

Thank you lee

observed thermal ocean expansion due to warming (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year);”

It shows that in the past 17 years, and right up until today, the WARMING CONTINUES
..
Thermal expansion is not “lagging”

Funny, this global warming “math” these days.

Ole Chuck above claims a 50 mm rise in sea level proves global warming is occurring – even though no changes in measured air temperatures have been found, but provides no dates or time interval.
Another writer assumes this is over a 17 year period (probably using the longest period of observed, measured “no change in temperature” values.
Which becomes 50 mm/17 years, or 3 mm/year.
which becomes “proves my point” by Chuck, because obviously 3 mm per year (guessed values) = 1.1 mm/year (measured values from all possible influences)

111. chuck says:

RACookPE1978 says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:19 am

but provides no dates or time interval.”
..
Follow the thread, this whole discussion is about the fact that in the past 17 years the oceans have been warming, as evidenced by thermal expansion of the water in them.

Also, re-read the post above where I wrote.

” In the past 17 years, there has been about 50 mm of sea level rise. It hasn’t stopped rising in the 17 years. Part of that is due to melting ice, part of it is due to thermal expansion.

Pay real close attention to “part of it is due to thermal expansion.”

112. chuck says:

RACookPE1978 says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:19 am

“(guessed values)”

Please feel free to visit CU Sea Level Research Group if you need more precise values for measured sea level rise (3.2 +;/- 0.4 mm/yr)

113. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

Your post at August 1, 2014 at 6:31 am says in total

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 1:50 am

All the measurements of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped. It has.”

Except the measurement of sea level rise indicates the warming HAS NOT STOPPED.

chuck, you warmunists really, really like ‘The Dead Parrot Sketch’!

Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
Global warming is an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.
There has been no increase in the surface temperature of the Earth for more than a decade.
So, GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.

Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.

Richard

114. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 7:43 am

Warming consists of an increase in temperature.”
..
Richard, please explain to me how water can thermally expand without an increase in temperature.

Don’t forget the fact that the oceans play a critical role in absorbing heat.

115. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

I see that at August 1, 2014 at 7:47 am you persist in claiming the parrot is not dead when you ask me

Richard, please explain to me how water can thermally expand without an increase in temperature.

Don’t forget the fact that the oceans play a critical role in absorbing heat.

No need because it is not relevant.

I wrote – and you have not disputed

Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
Global warming is an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.
There has been no increase in the surface temperature of the Earth for more than a decade.
So, GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.

So, if one adopts the dubious assertion that the claimed rise in see level results from warming of deep ocean then it is not relevant to SURFACE warming which contributes to global warming.

As I said

Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.

Just admit the reality that global warming has stopped and the pain of your cognitive dissonance will ease.

Part of your cognitive dissonance is your assertion that empirical evidence is merely “opinion”, and you have still not explained why you made that assertion.

Richard

116. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 8:08 am

So, if one adopts the dubious assertion that the claimed rise in see level results from warming of deep ocean then it is not relevant to SURFACE warming which contributes to global warming.”

I have made no statement as regards to where the warming of the oceans is occurring. It doesn’t matter if the warming is at the surface or the warming is deep. The warming will cause thermal expansion. The effect of this thermal expansion is the rise in the sea level. Since the sea level has continued to rise for the past 17 years, it shows that the oceans AS A WHOLE are being heated to cause the thermal expansion.

117. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

I am quoting your entire post at August 1, 2014 at 8:15 am because your post admits that global warming has stopped.

It says

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 8:08 am
So, if one adopts the dubious assertion that the claimed rise in see level results from warming of deep ocean then it is not relevant to SURFACE warming which contributes to global warming.”

I have made no statement as regards to where the warming of the oceans is occurring. It doesn’t matter if the warming is at the surface or the warming is deep. The warming will cause thermal expansion. The effect of this thermal expansion is the rise in the sea level. Since the sea level has continued to rise for the past 17 years, it shows that the oceans AS A WHOLE are being heated to cause the thermal expansion.

You rightly say you “made no statement as regards to where the warming of the oceans is occurring”. But is DOES “matter if the warming is at the surface or the warming is deep”.

Global warming is an increase in the SURFACE temperature of the Earth.
Bulk warming of the ocean is not relevant, only surface warming can contribute to global warming.

At last you have admitted that global warming has stopped, but you have not yet recognised that you have admitted it so you are still trying to sell yourself a dead parrot.

Richard

118. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 8:29 am

Global warming is an increase in the SURFACE temperature of the Earth.”

I suggest you investigate the effects of the 1998 El Nino, then get back to me regarding the interaction of the ocean and the air.

I have not admitted that global warming has stopped, because unlike you, I consider the ocean water to be a part of the Earth. Your attempt at modifying the definition of “global warming” doesn’t work in the calculation of the Earth’s energy balance. You can try to disassociate ocean temperature form air temperature, but physics is not on your side with that obfuscation of your definition of “global”

119. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

I recognise that – as you say in your post at August 1, 2014 at 8:38 am – you fail to see that you have admitted that global warming has stopped. Indeed, in my post at August 1, 2014 at 8:29 am I wrote

At last you have admitted that global warming has stopped, but you have not yet recognised that you have admitted it so you are still trying to sell yourself a dead parrot.

But you say to me

I have not admitted that global warming has stopped, because unlike you, I consider the ocean water to be a part of the Earth.

Wrong, I do “consider the ocean water to be a part of the Earth” and I consider the mantle to be part of the Earth, too. But so what?

Global warming is an increase to average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
And you did not dispute that until it became clear that global warming has stopped.

Your assertion that I have attempted to redefine global warming is laughable, and it can only be understood as being your psychological projection. Indeed, you attempt to claim my use of the standard definition of global warming is “obfuscation” when the obfuscation is yours.

Global warming is NOT ocean heat as you have claimed.
Global warming is NOT the Earth’s energy balance as you have claimed.

Global warming is an increase to average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
Global warming has stopped. Face up to it, and live with it.

Your parrot is dead and nothing you say can change that. The parrot may resurrect but nobody can know if that will happen.

Richard

120. chuck says:

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 9:35 am

Global warming has stopped”

I have given you empirical proof that global warming has not stopped. The oceans of the earth right now are continuing to warm. The evidence of tis warming is the rise in sea level. Part of this rise of sea level is due to thermal expansion. The thermal expansion of the oceans is due to the oceans becoming warmer.

You are free to ignore the evidence of the oceans warming if you wish, but that just goes to show you that you are ignoring scientific evidence. I would like for you to explain how the thermal expansion of the oceans is occurring without the oceans warming. Your explanation of this effect would be an interesting overturning of basic physics.

121. chuck asserts:

I have given you empirical proof that global warming has not stopped.

Wrong, as usual. You have made an assertion. It is wrong. Deal with it.

Next, chuck says:

Thermal expansion is not “lagging”

chuck, you certainly are dense. The link you cited states:

…greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans…

the measurement of sea level rise indicates the warming HAS NOT STOPPED.

Folks, we are matching wits with an unarmed person.

Next, chuckles says:

You still have not explained the physics behind the “lagging thermal expansion”

The onus is on you to provide explanations, chuck. It is your conjecture that thermal expansion is instantaneous. But no one educated in the hard sciences would agree with that statement. You are just diggin a deeper hole.

It is the duty of skeptics to deconstruct conjectures wherever possible. What is left standing is as close to scientific truth as we can currently get. The problem with chuck is that there is nothing left standing with his conjecture.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?

John, I read recently a peer eviewed paper, which convincingly shows that ground water extraction accounts for a large fraction of land subsidence, which appears as sea level rise, even though it isn’t. That process continues even though global warming has stopped.

Only thing I know that causes thermal expansion is heat.

Some day chuck might get up to speed on the subject.

Next, chuck says:

Richard, please explain to me how water can thermally expand without an increase in temperature.

chuck is incredibly dense. He still cannot undserstand the concept of lag time:
T rises, then thermal expansion occurs. They are not simultaneous, but chuck says they are. He is wrong.

When the alarmist crowd fails to make logical arguments, they fall back on the argument from authority fallacy: the ‘consensus’ agrees with them, so they must be right. They constantly use that fallacy to buttress their argument.

Well, chuck is the lone ranger here. No one agrees with him. Therefore, the ‘consensus’ must be right, eh, chuck?

In this case, everyone else is right. But not because of any consensus. Chuck is wrong because he lacks any credible facts to support his belief. Argument by assertion is his stock in trade. No wonder his argument fails.

Global warming has stopped. But chuck is forced to argue that thermal expansion is instantaneous. If he admits the truth — that there is a lag time affecting thermal expansion — then chuck’s argument fails. So he is forced to make that ridiculous argument.

Global warming stopped many years ago, chuck. Everyone knows that. The sooner you accept it, the sooner you will stop sounding like a crazy person.

122. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am

Please explain to all of us the physics behind lagging thermal expansion.

How long must I wait after increasing the temperature of water 10 degrees C before the expansion takes place. Is it 10 minutes, 5 hours or 3 weeks?

123. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am

e. No one agrees with him ”

Physics is not a popularity contest. Are you suggesting to all of us here that “consensus” is your “proof?”

124. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am

” credible facts”

3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr for the past 17 years
Thermal expansion.

125. Matthew R Marler says:

richardscourtney: Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.

that’s nonsensical. His claim that global warming has not stopped because the sea level continues to rise is like saying that the parrot has not died because its feet continue to grow, absent other signs of life.

As far as I can tell (links and references hereby solicited), there is no good explanation of why the sea level continues to rise while the surface and troposphere temperatures remain approximately constant if the “global warming” is caused by an increase in CO2 concentration in the troposphere.

126. chuck says:

Please explain to all of us the physics behind lagging thermal expansion.

How many times do you have to be told that instantaneous thermal expansion is your conjecture? That means you have the onus of explaining.

So show us how that works. Explain how heat received in the oceans trnaslates into instant thermal expansion. Does it happen at the speed of light? Explain. The onus is on you.

Next, chucles says:

Are you suggesting to all of us here that “consensus” is your “proof?”

Reading comprehension, me bnoi. You needs it. Read what I wrote: consensus is not a valid argument. The fact is that you are simply wrong. No consensus needed. Still, no one agrees with you, and folks here are well educated in the hard sciences. Clearlly, you are not.

Finally, chuck says:

3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr for the past 17 years Thermal expansion.

Disregarding the fact that there is a lag time, and disregarding land subsidence — which reduces your statement to a prayer.

Global warming has stopped, chuck. Deal with it. Because it is painful to watch you argue like a Jehovah’s Witness.

127. Matthew Marler,

The argument that the sea level is rising due to AGW is easily debunked. Here is a chart showing that SL rise is cyclical.

This chart shows the rate of SL rise from the 1900’s. Notice that there is no “fingerprint of AGW”.

And this chart shows the long term sea level rise. It is obvious that there is no acceleration in SL rise — one of the central predictions of the alarmist cult. But there has been no acceleration. Therfore, SL rise is due to the natural recovery from the LIA, and not to human emissions.

I have plenty more charts and sources that say the same thing, if you’re interested. The notion that SL rise due to thermal expansion from AGW is nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that supports that belief.

128. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:53 am

“instantaneous thermal expansion is your conjecture”

I’ll demonstrate it for you in my laboratory.
..
I can also explain it by telling you all about vibrating molecules

129. richardscourtney says:

Matthew R Marler:

At August 1, 2014 at 10:50 am you assert

richardscourtney:

Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.

that’s nonsensical. His claim that global warming has not stopped because the sea level continues to rise is like saying that the parrot has not died because its feet continue to grow, absent other signs of life.

No, my analogy was sensible, correct and true. Yours is not.

The parrot seller claimed the parrot was alive because it had not fallen off its perch. But there was another possible reason why it had not fallen; i.e. the nails.

chuck claims global warming has not stopped because sea level rise has not stopped. But there are many possible reasons why the rise continues; e.g. glacial loss, tectonic movements, subterranian water extraction, etc..

The reality is that all estimates of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped, but chuck’s superstitious belief prevents him accepting that global warming has stopped.

Richard

130. chuck says:

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:53 am

the fact that there is a lag time”

There is no lag time in thermal expansion.

131. chuck says:

132. chuck asserts:

There is no lag time in thermal expansion.

Maybe not on your planet. But here on Planet Earth there is a lag time, as cited in the link above.

You are really sounding like a swivel-eyed lunatic. Faced with facts, you react like Leon Festinger’s Seekers, when they were told there was no flying saucer coming. They just refused to believe it.

Next:

Don’t change the subject.

Wake up. I wasn’t replying to you, I was answering Matthew Marler.

But now that you’re involved, explain why there is no acceleration in natural SL rise. Because that fact debunks everything you are arguing.

133. chuck says:

134. chuck says:

135. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

I am losing count of the number of times you agree things which contradict your assertions.

The latest is in your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:21 am which says about sea level rise

dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:53 am

the fact that there is a lag time”

There is no lag time in thermal expansion.

But, as dbstealey has shown, there is a lag time between temperature and sea level rise.
Therefore, if – as you say – “There is no lag time in thermal expansion” then the sea level rise cannot be a result of thermal expansion. At very least, it cannot be a direct effect of thermal expansion.

And if the sea level rise is not a result of thermal expansion then it cannot indicate a temperature rise.

Richard

136. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

re your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:29 am.

NO! I will not give you my opinion. Your request emphasises your earlier assertion that empirical evidence is merely opinion.

YOU claim that the ‘parrot is still on its perch’ because of thermal expansion of the oceans, and I am pointing to the nails attaching it to the perch. YOU need to show ‘the nails are not sufficient’ to keep the parrot on the perch.

Global warming has stopped. Your superstition does not change that.

Richard

137. chuck says:

138. chuck says:

Still waiting for your physical explanation

Still waiting for you to visit Planet Earth, where the one making the conjecture has the onus of explaining it.

But chuckles cannot explain what he doesn’t understand. If 2 + 2 = 4 meant that chuck would have to acknowledge that global warming has stopped, then chuck would insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

That’s the kind of cognitive dissonance we’re dealing with.

chuck says:

Please post a link to the graph that shows the delay time in thermal expansion of heated water.

chuck, post a graph showing instantaneous therrmal response to input.

You can’t do it, because no such chart exists. Further: post your response to the source stating that there is a lag between input and response. You can’t do that, either. Thus, your argument fails, just like all your other impotent arguments.

139. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

Yet again you demonstrate your lack of ability at reading comprehension with your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:42 am.

I wrote

But, as dbstealey has shown, there is a lag time between temperature and sea level rise.
Therefore, if – as you say – “There is no lag time in thermal expansion” then the sea level rise cannot be a result of thermal expansion. At very least, it cannot be a direct effect of thermal expansion.

And if the sea level rise is not a result of thermal expansion then it cannot indicate a temperature rise.

and you have replied with this non sequitur

No Richard, you are wrong.
When you heat water it expands.
There is no lag.
When you warm the ocean, the sea level rises.
There is no lag.
In the past 17 years, the ocean continues to rise.
Part of that rise is due to thermal expansion.

I refuse to believe you are as stupid as your posts indicate.

You have not demonstrated that “Part of that rise is due to thermal expansion” and if you could it would not be relevant. The irrelevance of it is because only ocean SURFACE temperature contributes to global warming and global warming has stopped.

Richard

140. chuck says:

141. chuck says:

So, I guess you cannot explain your theory of “lagging thermal expansion”

Of course I can. But I am holding your feet to the fire of the scientific method. The onus is on you to explain. Trying to weasel out of it shows that you have no explanation.

Sea levels are rising at the same rate as they have for hundreds of years. There is no “fingerprint of AGW”, therfore, all of chuck’s arguments fail.

finally, what is “chuck’s” CV? I think he is a juvenile lemming who recently discovered the global warming scare. Let’s contrast ‘chuck’ with the link showing a clear lag time in thermal expansion. Because who should we beleiuve? An immature lemming? Or a scholarly paper? Because they cannot both be right, and clearly chuck is wrong.

142. chuck says:

143. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

In your post at August 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm you demand that dbstealey provide his “theory of lagging thermal expansion”.

He does not need one because it is YOU who is claiming the sea level rise is thermal expansion and he has shown there is a lag.

I keep telling you that when you claim the rise is thermal expansion then YOU need to explain the lag because the lag suggests the rise is NOT thermal expansion. But you ignore that reality with similar aplomb to your ignoring the reality that global warming has stopped.

Richard

144. chuck says:

145. richardscourtney says:

chuck:

Your idiocy has become so extreme that I am now convinced it is feigned.

At August 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm I wrote saying to you in total

In your post at August 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm you demand that dbstealey provide his “theory of lagging thermal expansion”.

He does not need one because it is YOU who is claiming the sea level rise is thermal expansion and he has shown there is a lag.

I keep telling you that when you claim the rise is thermal expansion then YOU need to explain the lag because the lag suggests the rise is NOT thermal expansion. But you ignore that reality with similar aplomb to your ignoring the reality that global warming has stopped.

You have yet again replied with non sequiter when at August 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm you write

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm

he has shown there is a lag.”

Richard, when you heat a substance, there is no “lag” in the expansion.
Please stop showing that you are unaware of high school physics.

THE LAG SHOWS THE SEA LEVEL RISE IS NOT THERMAL EXPANSION.
You claim it is thermal expansion so YOU – n.b. YOU and ONLY YOU – needs to explain the lag because it refutes your claim of thermal expansion.

And I am certain that you are not so devoid of any brain cells that you don’t understand this.

Richard

146. The Australian Government’s Department of the Environment states that:

Sea level rise will continue for centuries to thousands of years after greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans and the response of ice sheets.

But chuck insists that this is wrong. He claims that lag times are instantaneous.

So who should we believe? chuck?

Or an official publication, written by scientists who have forgotten more than clueless chuck will ever understand?

I really wonder about ‘chuck’. This is the middle of a work day. Either ‘chuck’ is unemployed, or he is cheating his employer by posting his comments incessantly on blogs.

Which is it, chuck? And what is your CV? Because as of now the evidence shows that you are commenting from profound ignorance. Are you an inmate in a mental facility? Or are you just trolling?

147. chuck says:

148. richardscourtney says:

dbstealey:

At August 1, 2014 at 12:46 pm you say

Either ‘chuck’ is unemployed, or he is cheating his employer by posting his comments incessantly on blogs.

There is another possibility and I think it is the most likely; i.e.
‘chuck’ is employed to troll and is remunerated for each post he/she/they makes.

Richard

149. richardscourtney says:

troll posting as chuck:

I am glad I am not in your “class” because I would not want to join you in primary school.

Your illogical, ignorant and silly posts are probably earning you money but they are achieving nothing else. Indeed, when your employer learns that your posts are discrediting warmunists then you may get fired as an employed troll.

Richard

150. chuck says:

151. chuck says:

152. Richard says:

There is another possibility and I think it is the most likely; i.e.
‘chuck’ is employed to troll and is remunerated for each post he/she/they makes.

That sounds reasonable. But if so, they should pay someone who makes sense. chuck doesn’t. His comments are nonsense.

153. richardscourtney says:

troll posting as ‘chuck':

What was your pay for providing your silly post at August 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm?

I’m waiting for your citation on the time lag in thermal expansion of water.

I don’t have one and I don’t need one because I am not claiming the lagged sea level rise is a result of thermal expansion:
YOU ARE MAKING THAT CLAIM NOT ME.

So, what is YOUR citation on the time lag in thermal expansion of water.
Your failure to provide the citation will be proof that you know your claim that the lagged sea level rise is a result of thermal expansion is plain wrong.

Richard

154. milodonharlani says:

chuck says:
August 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Do you seriously imagine that heat transfer is instantaneous?

Thermal lag describes a body’s thermal mass with respect to time. A body with high thermal mass (high heat capacity & low conductivity) will have a large thermal lag.

Thermal \ lag (s) = {\sqrt {1 \over {2 * \alpha * \Omega}} * L}

α = Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)

Ω = External angular frequency (s-1)

L = thickness (m)

Thermal lag is why temperatures next to oceans are moderated while those inland on continents aren’t, so are more extreme. Thermal lag explains why high temperatures in summer continue to increase after the solstice, & is why a day’s high temperature peaks in the afternoon instead of when the sun is theoretically at its peak, ie local real noon.

Why do you post here only to make a fool of yourself?

155. dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 11:06 am
And this chart shows the long term sea level rise. It is obvious that there is no acceleration in SL rise

I suggest you recheck this one it doesn’t match its description.

156. Phil.,

The information is from a peer reviewed paper by Holgate & Woodworth, 2004. The satellite altimeter data is self-explanatory.

If you have a problem with either that paper or the satellite data, please contact the original sources and argue with them.

Pretty much the same information is contained in the other two charts I posted in the same comment, so you are just nitpicking.

157. Matthew R Marler says:

richardscourtney: The parrot seller claimed the parrot was alive because it had not fallen off its perch. But there was another possible reason why it had not fallen; i.e. the nails.

Rising sea level seems to me more similar to growing feet, not nailed feet. It’s in the “-ing”, indicating an ongoing process.

dbstealey: The argument that the sea level is rising due to AGW is easily debunked. Here is a chart showing that SL rise is cyclical.

I already agreed that there is no good explanation how the sea level rise can be caused by atmospheric CO2 accumulation if the surface and troposphere temps are not increasing. That SL rise is cyclical hardly matters since the system is a nonlinear dissipative system with a high dimension.

158. richardscourtney says:

Matthew R Marler:

Your post at August 1, 2014 at 9:02 pm seems to be an argument for the sake of arguing.

No anology is perfect, and I think the ‘parrot & perch’ is a good one.
Don’t use it if you don’t like it.

The discussion is about cessation of global warming which is a rise in the global average surface temperature (GASTA). Global warming has stopped, and putative warming of deep ocean is not relevant to that because temperatures below the surface do not contribute to GASTA.

Richard

159. Matthew Marler says:

…the system is a nonlinear dissipative system with a high dimension.

Please translate that into terms that are easy to follow. Thanx.