Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 1) 67

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations all end at 2009.5.

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

But as usual Jane/Lonny Eachus just makes up numbers to support his baseless accusations rather than actually doing the math.

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 2, Informative) 67

pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-31]

Yes it is. As the NAS explains on page 6 here:

"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."

So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.

And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 385

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. ... [Dumb Scientist]

... All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier. I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-28]

Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:

HadCRUT4 trend: +0.050 ± 0.139 C/decade (2 sigma)

NOAA trend: +0.079 ± 0.131 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) trend: +0.086 ± 0.148 C/decade (2 sigma)

GISTEMP trend: +0.100 ± 0.141 C/decade (2 sigma)

Berkeley trend: +0.096 ± 0.137 C/decade (2 sigma)

HadCRUT4 krig v2 trend: +0.111 ± 0.152 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) krig trend: +0.111 ± 0.157 C/decade (2 sigma)

RSS trend: -0.055 ± 0.246 C/decade (2 sigma)

UAH trend: +0.054 ± 0.251 C/decade (2 sigma)

All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 385

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. [Dumb Scientist]

Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest. Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Again, your accusation that "NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer" is completely baseless and incompatible with an understanding of how NOAA and NASA actually correct for time of observation bias (TOBS).

Six's thermometers have automatically recorded maximum and minimum temperatures since ~1780, so there's no reason to speculate about whether people "attempted" to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day. That has happened automatically for over two centuries.

As Dr. Venema explains, calculating the daily mean temperature by averaging the high and low temperatures isn't always the best choice, especially if the diurnal temperature range is smaller than day-to-day variability. The best choice, of course, would be to measure the temperature at every instant during the day and then average all those measurements.

That's feasible with 2015 electronics, but it wasn't in 1937. Instead, some scientists recorded the temperature four times a day, at 0, 6, 12, and 18 hours universal time (UTC). Other scientists didn't like getting up in the middle of the night, so they measured three times a day at 7, 14 and 21 hours local time.

NOAA and NASA aren't assuming that high and low temperature records were taken at particular times of day. The scientists who recorded temperatures didn't just write down the temperature, they also wrote down when it was recorded.

That's why it should be obvious that correcting for time of observation bias means that NOAA and NASA think that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Otherwise all those years of careful work by countless unnamed scientists couldn't ever be used to correct for time of observation bias.

But hey, why not hurl baseless and incoherent accusations at NOAA and NASA? You don't have to make sense, just spread confusion.

The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context. When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument? You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Charming. So you won't retract your baseless accusation that NOAA adjusted 1937 downward when they actually adjusted it upward?

You won't retract your accusation that adjustments are "always cooler in the past and warmer now" or your claim that the government's own unmanipulated data shows no significant warming since around 1900? Even now that you know the government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do?

Can we agree that it's stupid to call those adjustments "fraud"?

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 2) 385

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last century. Without those adjustments, last year's record global surface temp would be even more of a record, especially compared to 1937. Think about that.

"If you just wanted to release to the American public our uncorrected data set, it would say that the world has warmed up about 2.071 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Our corrected data set says things have warmed up about 1.65 degrees Fahrenheit. Our corrections lower the rate of warming on a global scale." [Dr. Russell S. Vose, chief of the climate science division at NOAA's Asheville center, and a coauthor of Karl et al. 2015]

When adjusting for real errors corrections tend to be in a random direction. Not always cooler in the past and warmer now!!! The very fact that the adjustments have almost universally been in the same directions is cause for skepticism of the result. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-28]

Nonsense. Once again, Jane/Lonny's "fact" is completely wrong.

Constantly adjusting past temperatures one direction, down, to create a warming trend is embarrassingly shameful. [ReasonBurger, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

It's embarrassingly shameful that so many gullible people have been fooled into baselessly accusing scientists of constantly adjusting past temperatures down to create a warming trend. How many more years of "studying" will it take them to realize that they were completely wrong about this simple fact? Even then, will they ever retract their baseless accusations?

... I'm not just speaking from abject ignorance, I've been following the subject since Al Gore's movie came out. I know what the physics of mainstream AGW theory are. I know how the models work. I know how homogenization is done. I know what a TOBS adjustment is. And on and on. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Does Jane/Lonny really know what a TOBS adjustment is?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

That's not the most effective way to show that you know what a TOBS adjustment is. No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. One day Jane/Lonny might realize that their TOBS adjustments depend on NOAA and NASA thinking that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Then Jane/Lonny might retract his baseless accusation that NOAA and NASA hold such a ridiculous position.

What makes you think I'm ignorant about homogenization? None of this is new. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-12]

Do you know what "iteratively homogenized" means? They tortured the data until it threw up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Again, that's not the most effective way to show that you're not ignorant about homogenization. Instead, maybe you could just admit that all your accusations listed above are completely wrong. Then maybe you could begin to have a productive discussion about incremental improvements to NOAA's temperature adjustments.

Comment Re:Ironic (Score 1) 195

It's called the Maunder Minimum for a reason. There is definitely a correlation with sun activity... and my guess is that it's better than the correlation with volcanism. I don't know that for sure, but that's my best recollection. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-15]

It is easier to believe the documented condition of the sun going quiet for a few hundred years was the major factor behind the cooling than it is to believe one or more volcanoes were going off constantly for a few hundred years creating an ash blanket over the Earth for the whole period and caused it. [dunkindave, 2015-07-15]

Miller et al. 2012 says the Little Ice Age "can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions".

Of course, the Maunder Minimum also contributed to the Little Ice Age. Regarding other contributors, Ruddiman 2003 (PDF) says "plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300–1900 AD)."

There's been some debate about Ruddiman's "early anthropogenic" hypothesis. He discusses the LIA in his 2013 AGU lecture at 38m29s. Briefly, plagues killed many people in Europe and the Americas during the LIA, and their farms were overgrown by forests. That sequestered atmospheric CO2, causing even more cooling.

Comment Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Comment Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413

Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?

But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Comment Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413

Jane/Lonny Eachus also won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Comment Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score 1) 413

I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood. Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious. There is nothing more to be said.

Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

... It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. ...

Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.

In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.

So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.

In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!

Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Working...