Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pathetic (Score 1) 1079

by phlinn (#48458017) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
Citation needed. There is ZERO evidence that Mao was a net positive. The only people who think otherwise are ideologues who believe that communism is inherently good and benevolent regardless of it's actual effects, and despite the totalitarianism inherent in it's basic definition. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" has no room whatsoever for freedom of choice.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by phlinn (#47911293) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.

I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.

It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.

CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only .01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.

I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 499

Tolerance does not equal approval. The fact that you can still do your job is irrelevant. They are under no obligation to hire you just because you are qualified, and there is a good reason to suspect that someone who is philosophically opposed to government will not do the best job they can for the government even if they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now, if you had already been hired and had a good track record, you would have a good argument against being fired.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by phlinn (#47908509) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
After playing with the data for a bit, I found one set of data that has a downward trend. The RSS MSU lower trop global mean. Starting in 1999, which is a more reasonable year, it shift to a slight upward trend. Unfortunately your site doesn't give a value for the slope. Eyeballing it, 2002 or thereabouts is a better start, which drops them below the 15 year cutoff, except the line from NOAA didn't exclude peak to trough periods.

Being highly set dependent is suspicious, but the on the other side the adjusments made to surface station data are suspicious in nature based on my own checking. Specifically, averaging all adjustments for the GHCN after the flap about the Darwin station, I found a definite warming linear trend in the adjustments. The USHCN had a significant quadratic trend in adjustments, such that 80% or more of the warming trend in the data was created by the adjustments.

They were using global coverage. CRU Global average in the downward trend, and UAH in the one that had a very slight upward trend (.0004 per year). I can't see the slope of the trendline on that site you gave, but visually it's the same. Calling that basically flat is defensible, assuming reasonable error bars.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by phlinn (#47861993) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
It is outside the 95% confidence interval of existing models, according to NOAA back in 2008.

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find it highly suspicious that they chose to claim 2001 as the start, which doesn't match the date anyone else is using for the start of the current pause, 1999.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by phlinn (#47756817) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by phlinn (#47756761) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 2) 465

by phlinn (#47729357) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)

A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by phlinn (#47729157) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.

I am here by the will of the people and I won't leave until I get my raincoat back. - a slogan of the anarchists in Richard Kadrey's "Metrophage"

Working...