Slashdot Mirror

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]

Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".

Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.

Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.

Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:

"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

And once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades".

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]

Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".

Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.

Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.

Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:

"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

And once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades".

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]

Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".

Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.

Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.

Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:

"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

And once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades".

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

Nerem et al. 2011 [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Why did Lonny Eachus link to a graph showing a 3.1 mm/year global sea level trend? Since that's higher than Lonny's claimed "1.1 mm/year", doesn't that simple comparison show the rate of sea level rise is increasing (i.e. accelerating) over the long term? And since Lonny's accused scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year, why did Lonny cite a graph containing what he called a lie from a scientist he's previously called a "liar"?

Furthermore, that's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a slide from a 2011 presentation which hasn't been turned into a peer-reviewed paper. A real skeptic might wonder why it hasn't. Hint: in 2011 Jane/Lonny briefly stopped denying satellite measurements of sea level because they showed a short term drop. Of course, scientists told Jane that this was because the 2011 La Nina caused such massive flooding that global sea level fell temporarily. See Boening et al. 2012 (PDF).

So is it really surprising that calculating sea level acceleration from 1993-2011 gave an unrepresentative answer? Especially because that's a short timespan, and detecting acceleration requires a longer timespan than just detecting a trend. Maybe we could learn why that 2011 presentation hasn't become a peer-reviewed paper by looking at that same data up to 2016.

Let's analyze that raw data (backup) from sealevel.colorado.edu (backup). Here are accelerations and uncertainties for timespans that all end at 2016.1 but start at 1993, 1994, etc. Notice the similarities between the satellite acceleration graph and the older global tide gauge acceleration graph I've shown Jane/Lonny. All the black best-fit accelerations are positive. More recent accelerations tend to be larger. (The most recent accelerations and even their red lower 95% confidence intervals are off the scale even though the upper vertical limit is twice as high as in the older graph.) This tends to suggest that not only is global sea level accelerating, it's even "jerking" up.

(Technical note: those 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a ARMA(1,1) noise model. I also tested AR(1), MA(1), ARMA(1,2), and ARMA(2,1), but ARMA(1,1) minimized both the AIC and BIC.)

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing.

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

Nerem et al. 2011 [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Why did Lonny Eachus link to a graph showing a 3.1 mm/year global sea level trend? Since that's higher than Lonny's claimed "1.1 mm/year", doesn't that simple comparison show the rate of sea level rise is increasing (i.e. accelerating) over the long term? And since Lonny's accused scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year, why did Lonny cite a graph containing what he called a lie from a scientist he's previously called a "liar"?

Furthermore, that's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a slide from a 2011 presentation which hasn't been turned into a peer-reviewed paper. A real skeptic might wonder why it hasn't. Hint: in 2011 Jane/Lonny briefly stopped denying satellite measurements of sea level because they showed a short term drop. Of course, scientists told Jane that this was because the 2011 La Nina caused such massive flooding that global sea level fell temporarily. See Boening et al. 2012 (PDF).

So is it really surprising that calculating sea level acceleration from 1993-2011 gave an unrepresentative answer? Especially because that's a short timespan, and detecting acceleration requires a longer timespan than just detecting a trend. Maybe we could learn why that 2011 presentation hasn't become a peer-reviewed paper by looking at that same data up to 2016.

Let's analyze that raw data (backup) from sealevel.colorado.edu (backup). Here are accelerations and uncertainties for timespans that all end at 2016.1 but start at 1993, 1994, etc. Notice the similarities between the satellite acceleration graph and the older global tide gauge acceleration graph I've shown Jane/Lonny. All the black best-fit accelerations are positive. More recent accelerations tend to be larger. (The most recent accelerations and even their red lower 95% confidence intervals are off the scale even though the upper vertical limit is twice as high as in the older graph.) This tends to suggest that not only is global sea level accelerating, it's even "jerking" up.

(Technical note: those 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a ARMA(1,1) noise model. I also tested AR(1), MA(1), ARMA(1,2), and ARMA(2,1), but ARMA(1,1) minimized both the AIC and BIC.)

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing.

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

Nerem et al. 2011 [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Why did Lonny Eachus link to a graph showing a 3.1 mm/year global sea level trend? Since that's higher than Lonny's claimed "1.1 mm/year", doesn't that simple comparison show the rate of sea level rise is increasing (i.e. accelerating) over the long term? And since Lonny's accused scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year, why did Lonny cite a graph containing what he called a lie from a scientist he's previously called a "liar"?

Furthermore, that's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a slide from a 2011 presentation which hasn't been turned into a peer-reviewed paper. A real skeptic might wonder why it hasn't. Hint: in 2011 Jane/Lonny briefly stopped denying satellite measurements of sea level because they showed a short term drop. Of course, scientists told Jane that this was because the 2011 La Nina caused such massive flooding that global sea level fell temporarily. See Boening et al. 2012 (PDF).

So is it really surprising that calculating sea level acceleration from 1993-2011 gave an unrepresentative answer? Especially because that's a short timespan, and detecting acceleration requires a longer timespan than just detecting a trend. Maybe we could learn why that 2011 presentation hasn't become a peer-reviewed paper by looking at that same data up to 2016.

Let's analyze that raw data (backup) from sealevel.colorado.edu (backup). Here are accelerations and uncertainties for timespans that all end at 2016.1 but start at 1993, 1994, etc. Notice the similarities between the satellite acceleration graph and the older global tide gauge acceleration graph I've shown Jane/Lonny. All the black best-fit accelerations are positive. More recent accelerations tend to be larger. (The most recent accelerations and even their red lower 95% confidence intervals are off the scale even though the upper vertical limit is twice as high as in the older graph.) This tends to suggest that not only is global sea level accelerating, it's even "jerking" up.

(Technical note: those 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a ARMA(1,1) noise model. I also tested AR(1), MA(1), ARMA(1,2), and ARMA(2,1), but ARMA(1,1) minimized both the AIC and BIC.)

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing.

Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]

Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:

"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA [42] and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46]. ... according to national statistics for the USA, while area burned by prescribed fire has changed little overall since reporting began in 1998 (10 year average: 8853 km2), area burned by wildfires has seen an overall strong trend of increase by over 5%/yr over the period 1991–2015, with 2015 exceeding 40 000 km2 burned for the first time during the past 25 years (figure 3). This increase has been accompanied by an overall decline in the number of fires (figure 3). This suggests a general trend of fewer, but larger wildfires, which is also highlighted for forests in the western USA by Westerling for the period 1983–2012 [46]. ..."

So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time [47]."

Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

The bit of video I saw showed Dr Spencer arguing against genetic randomness. Maybe he believes the only other possibility is Intelligent Design? I don't know. I haven't looked into it. [GiordyS]

Ironically, GiordyS says this in response to my pointing out that Dr. Spencer has been making his "intelligent design" views public for years... and in that bit of video Dr. Spencer was repeating classic "intelligent design" arguments. "Maybe?" You still "don't know"? Seriously?

But I know nothing about competing genetic randomness theories, so my lack of surprise has nothing to do with the actual science, in case you misunderstood. (I haven't looked into it.) [GiordyS]

They're not "competing genetic randomness theories. That's the entire point. "Intelligent Design" is a supernatural "explanation" which violates methodological naturalism and therefore would destroy science if it were confused with a scientific hypothesis. If the scientific process included a "supernatural" option, it would be used on a daily basis because people (including scientists) are lazy. As I've said before, I believe that science absolutely requires naturalism for two reasons. First, supernatural explanations are compatible with any and all eventualities, therefore they are not falsifiable and do not provide unique predictions.

Second, if science allowed supernatural explanations as a legitimate recourse, they would be used far too often because we can't distinguish poorly understood natural phenomena from genuinely supernatural phenomena:

• Laplace never would've studied the stability of the solar system, so NASA wouldn't know to put the SOHO and WMAP satellites in their respective Lagrange points.
• The question of why atoms are stable despite the predictions of classical electrodynamics would've been answered in the same way Newton explained the solar system's stability, so quantum mechanics (along with much of modern technology) wouldn't have been discovered.
• The precession of Mercury's orbit would've been dismissed as "Allah pushing the planet around," so we never would have discovered Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, without which GPS devices can't function accurately.
• The missing 2/3 of solar neutrinos would've been explained as "Ra's chariot soaking up the neutrinos on their way to earth," so neutrino oscillation would never have been proposed and proven, which would cause our cosmological models (if 'science' of this kind could even lead to such models) to be inaccurate because we wouldn't know that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass.
• Cosmic rays with energies above the GZK limit are currently unexplained. Should we bother looking for a naturalistic explanation, or just say they're "Jesus particles"?
• Should we continue to try to quantize gravity, or announce that the obvious impossibility of such a feat is proof that the universe contains a message from its Intelligent Designer?

If you think that any of these examples are silly, exactly how are they differen

More to the point, you also said (after listening to Dr. Roy Spencer endorse the "theory of creation" over evolution) "I wouldn't be surprised if there is contradictory evidence that is simply ignored or dismissed because it challenges orthodox views. Scientists are human beings after all."

You were responding to a video where Senator Whitehouse asked Roy Spencer "And do you still believe that the Theory of Creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the Theory of Evolution, to be specific?"

Dr. Spencer replied: "I think, I think I could be put into a debate with someone on the other side and I think I could give more science supporting that life is created than they could support, with evidence, that life evolved through natural random processes, so yes."

Dr. Spencer has been making his "intelligent design" views public for years before GiordyS cited him for his climate contrarian views.

And once GiordyS finds out about Dr. Spencer's creationist views, he says "I wouldn't be surprised if there is contradictory evidence that is simply ignored or dismissed because it challenges orthodox views. Scientists are human beings after all."

As I've explained, intelligent design is certainly not scientific. But to return to my original point with this analogy, should I ignore all that evidence just because GiordyS's source Dr. Spencer is a creationist?

Copied from here:

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]

Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being rep

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]

Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Are you sure you're not a 911 truther? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Are you sure you don't deny basic physics? http://dumbscientist.com/archi...

Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets. That is true. The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . Tamino shows that RSS satellite record does not line up with tropospheric temperature measurements. Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]

@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]

I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

... warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-11-01]

No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."

I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".

And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)

Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]

I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:

"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."

Jane

... warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-11-01]

No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."

I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".

And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)

Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]

I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:

"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."

Jane

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

Jane, remember that you spent years and hundreds of pages desperately regurgitating Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense.

Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation. Years don't fix this problem, Lonny. Not unless you retract your Slayer claims and find it in your heart to stop spreading Slayer misinformation.

But that's probably asking the impossible, because Jane/Lonny Eachus is so brainwashed that he went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

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]

Once again, 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 are calculated over periods which 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.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

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.

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.

... 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 p

... 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. ...

Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of anything I actually said I'll count it as a lie in its entirety. First, I didn't at any time say I was talking about statistics actually involving "young earthers" per se. I was simply speaking of statistics, as a field, in a completely general sense. The science of statistics. Which has NOTHING to do specifically with young-earthers. ...

How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:

... They just happened to be topic under discussion, but my comment was about the nature of evidence, not about young-earthers.It's a fact of life that if you hunt long and hard enough, you can find evidence for just about anything. 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. They may not have any good evidence. But the notion that they have found some kind of evidence -- not proof mind you, but evidence, no matter how thin or tiny -- is strongly supported by a smidgen of statistical thinking. He flatly denies the idea that they could have any evidence at all, even though I've explained to him repeatedly that he appears to be conflating evidence with proof. Or even possibly just degrees of evidence. ...

Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.

... So for him to imply, as he does above, that I my comment in any way "treats creationism as a scientific hypothesis", is just crazy. Plain and simple. There is zero truth to it. ...

Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.

Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have

... 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. ...

Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of anything I actually said I'll count it as a lie in its entirety. First, I didn't at any time say I was talking about statistics actually involving "young earthers" per se. I was simply speaking of statistics, as a field, in a completely general sense. The science of statistics. Which has NOTHING to do specifically with young-earthers. ...

How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:

... They just happened to be topic under discussion, but my comment was about the nature of evidence, not about young-earthers.It's a fact of life that if you hunt long and hard enough, you can find evidence for just about anything. 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. They may not have any good evidence. But the notion that they have found some kind of evidence -- not proof mind you, but evidence, no matter how thin or tiny -- is strongly supported by a smidgen of statistical thinking. He flatly denies the idea that they could have any evidence at all, even though I've explained to him repeatedly that he appears to be conflating evidence with proof. Or even possibly just degrees of evidence. ...

Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.

... So for him to imply, as he does above, that I my comment in any way "treats creationism as a scientific hypothesis", is just crazy. Plain and simple. There is zero truth to it. ...

Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.

Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have

... 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. ...

Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of anything I actually said I'll count it as a lie in its entirety. First, I didn't at any time say I was talking about statistics actually involving "young earthers" per se. I was simply speaking of statistics, as a field, in a completely general sense. The science of statistics. Which has NOTHING to do specifically with young-earthers. ...

How incredibly bizarre. After Jane claimed that "a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you," I explained that Jane's "completely general" argument doesn't apply to creationism, because creationism is a supernatural "hypothesis" and therefore can't be supported by some evidence. Ironically, Jane simply accused me of lying and then just blissfully keeps repeating the same nonsense as though he hadn't read a single word I wrote:

... They just happened to be topic under discussion, but my comment was about the nature of evidence, not about young-earthers.It's a fact of life that if you hunt long and hard enough, you can find evidence for just about anything. 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. They may not have any good evidence. But the notion that they have found some kind of evidence -- not proof mind you, but evidence, no matter how thin or tiny -- is strongly supported by a smidgen of statistical thinking. He flatly denies the idea that they could have any evidence at all, even though I've explained to him repeatedly that he appears to be conflating evidence with proof. Or even possibly just degrees of evidence. ...

Again, that can be true for actual competing scientific hypotheses. They could be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science.

... So for him to imply, as he does above, that I my comment in any way "treats creationism as a scientific hypothesis", is just crazy. Plain and simple. There is zero truth to it. ...

Saying that "young-earth creationists have some evidence" is treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence. In fact, Jane just repeated that claim ad nauseum above.

Again, I've explained that considering the possibility that creationism can have

"When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ..." That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...

Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.

As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.

Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".

Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.

But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.

It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on th

If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?

Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification. Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again it's meaningless to ask if an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere causes significant ocean acidification. If that 50 ppm increase occurs over centuries or millenia, it's less likely to cause significant ocean acidification than if it occurs over decades because of the higher rate of increase.

... You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

No, I've already told you that your second question is meaningless because paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

There's a difference between "unknown" and "unknown to Jane".

... Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you. While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today. Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm). [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change. Once again, if atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both p

I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

Hold on there mister, the Laschamp event only lasted less than 500 years, and occurred in the middle of an ice age, over 41,000 years ago. I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of unknowns that make it very difficult to conclude that "the climate didn't change". ... I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event.

So your preferences are different than Richard Alley's. He concluded at 43:01 that "We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it's just about that simple. These cosmic rays didn't do enough that you can see it."

Maybe this is because Richard Alley's estimate that the Laschamp anomaly lasted "for a millenium or so" matches other estimates that are longer than 500 years.

We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.

I've explained that the maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there’s no long term trend in Svensmark’s data, which would be necessary to explain the long term warming trend that’s been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of this textbook.

Update: Other relevant papers include Kristjansson 2002 and Laut 2003, followed by Svensmark’s response and Laut’s rebuttal. More recently, Erlykin et al. suggest that the apparent correlation is due to direct solar activity, while Pierce and Adams state: “In our simulations, changes in CCN [cloud condensation nuclei concentrations] from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”

Another update: Snow-Kropla et al. 2011 makes similar points.

You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.

Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface? You've been vigorously disputing these fundamental physics for years. Can you finally admit that mainstream scientists know how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing. I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).

But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:

"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."

"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."

The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.

That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing. I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).

But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:

"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."

"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."

The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the