And I can chart (or quote others who have charted) the entire HCN record from pre-1900, and show where this one person is claiming something that the U.S. government's own records don't support.
One person named "Leonid Polyak, Richard B. Alley, John T. Andrews, Julie Brigham-Grette, Thomas M. Cronine, Dennis A. Darby, Arthur S. Dyke, Joan J. Fitzpatrick, Svend Funder, Marika Holland, Anne E. Jennings, Gifford H. Miller, Matt O’Regan, James Savelle, Mark Serreze, Kristen St. John, James W.C. White, Eric Wolff."
That seems like a really long name. Are you sure it's one person?
The HCN records surface temperatures, not Arctic sea ice extent.
Are you implying that the U.S. government's own records are reliable?
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss? [Jane Q. Public]
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.
Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then? I have. Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.
“If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.” [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]
“NOBODY in their right minds has — and I certainly have not — been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim.”[Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
“I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!”[Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
“Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years!”[Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
“We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years.”[Lonny Eachus,2009-07-02]
“First, people with at least half a brain — including in the U.S. — know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.”[Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.
Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.
The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."
I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Since you aren’t calling NAS “alarmist”, it’s great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
My links show that this isn't just about the NAS, it's also NASA and dozens of other scientific organizations who agree that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Since you aren't calling NAS "alarmist", it's great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
.@JunkScience Timothy Egan of NYT displays total ignorance of science; calls
alarmist "science" "indisputable". [Lonny Eachus]
I'd already told Lonny Eachus that the National Academy of Sciences said "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." So Lonny Eachus does seem to imply that the NAS displays total ignorance of science.
No, my links show that scientists understand the difference between correlation and causation. Here's another document by the National Academy of Sciences which may interest anyone who actually wants to understand the science. See page 5.
Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com[Lonny Eachus]
Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]
HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]
"It's possible that both the AGW deniers and AGW alarmists are wrong. Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control, the same ones that have caused ice ages and warm periods in the past when carbon outputs were nowhere near as high as they are now."
The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along. [Jane Q. Public]
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smearedpaleoclimatestudies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
NOBODY in their right minds has -- and I certainly have not -- been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim.[Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed. So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!![Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years![Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years.[Lonny Eachus,2009-07-02]
Certainly the globe has been warming... it has been trending warmer for thousands of years.[Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-03]
First, people with at least half a brain -- including in the U.S. -- know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.[Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surfacetemperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.
... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.
So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.
The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.
This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.
No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.
Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.
Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.
Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):
That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]
Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?
Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?
...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.
Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."
After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial
Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in theice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker AuroraAustralis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them."[Jane Q. Public,2013-12-28]
"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."
Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."
For some strangereason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.
... I was probably arguing against something other than what you actually meant.... I think we are again discussing two different things. I wasn't trying to argue that creationism was falsifiable. Or any of those other things you have brought in to the conversation.... you have done an awful lot of arguing over things I have NOT said.
No, I debunked these things you said:
... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument. [Jane Q. Public, 201]
You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.
In the case of the evolution argument, I have nothing further to say after this. My original comment was clear and I stick by it for, as I explained to you very plainly before, statistical reasons. You may have misunderstood what I meant, and that happens. But getting into whether creationism is falsifiable, or what your arguments are for or against it, stray far from the mark. They have next to nothing to do with my original point, which was that very few areas of science (or any ideology, for that matter) have ALL of the evidence on their side.
You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.
... my original comment was: "some facts exist that are evidence of creationism". (Or close enough as makes no difference.) But that was all I meant. I said or implied nothing else; only that some facts can support the argument of creationism... whether it is valid "science", or not. Something they can use to argue. I didn't even say that the argument had to hold up under scrutiny... only that there is evidence for it.
Thanks for finally being honest. You're not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You've used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist.... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public...."
... why you insist on continuing to bring these things [dark matter] up after they have been beaten into the ground baffles me.
First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.
Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.
The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.
Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.
In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.
Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:
"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."
Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.
Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:
Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.
Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.
Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a
Well, it was a retraction of that example. I'm not going to retract my more general claim, because it is not incorrect. And you are already well aware that statistically speaking, it is almost certainly true.
Maybe that was a bad retraction, and maybe you're not retracting your more general claim even though it's absurdly incorrect, and maybe you're accusing me of being "well aware" that your more general claim is "almost certainly true" even though I've been emphatically denying your absurd claim.
... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument.
It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases– a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. This is why I was confused when Brett mentioned Message Theory. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.
Your second example was actually bad too, because it shows evolution is falsifiable science while creationism is just religion. Try again.
Yes, or no. Do you deny that given the size of the body of evidence, the probability of ALL available evidence being against the ideas of creationism or "young Earth" is very close to zero? Do you deny that a corollary if this is that SOME evidence must almost certainly be supportive of creationism?
You've repeatedly claimed that some facts support the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Since you probably won't surprise us on this account, perhaps lowered expectations are in order. Earlier, you claimed:
Just one example: The fact that radiometric dating relies on certain assumptions has been one of their favorite talking points. Are those assumptions reasonable? I think so. But they ARE assumptions, and that is a fact. Therefore, there do exist facts that can be said to support (or at least not refute) the creationists' arguments....
I replied by saying "No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again." and your response was "Okay, maybe it was a bad example."
Any example may be a bad example, so that wasn't a retraction. Your example actually was a bad example, and anyone who understood my point would have the intellectual integrity to admit that without weasel words. So perhaps my website was down; here's the relevant part:
Isochron dating results of old rocks depend only on nuclear decay rates being constant in time. Isochron dating isn’t dependent on initial quantities of elements, and the analysis method automatically produces error bars on the obtained age. The oldest rocks we have agree that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, plus or minus 100 million years or so.
Just to be clear, we can’t be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:
Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics’ predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it’s also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 mil
I'm not the one who claimed that some facts support the creationist position. You did. Repeatedly. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
To nobody's surprise, Jane "pulled a Jane" again. Retracting the two words "went missing" ignores all your other baseless smears, which I helpfully listed here. It's strange that you say I think you are another person. Anyone who reads this thread can confirm that I never said any such thing.
It's amusing that you have the time to write all that arrogant nonsense but don't have time to provide even one example of a fact that supports the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
Again, water is wet, which doesn't support evolution. But your original claim before your goalpost moving was that there are some facts which support the creationist position. You can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
Slashdot Mirror
One person named "Leonid Polyak, Richard B. Alley, John T. Andrews, Julie Brigham-Grette, Thomas M. Cronine, Dennis A. Darby, Arthur S. Dyke, Joan J. Fitzpatrick, Svend Funder, Marika Holland, Anne E. Jennings, Gifford H. Miller, Matt O’Regan, James Savelle, Mark Serreze, Kristen St. John, James W.C. White, Eric Wolff."
That seems like a really long name. Are you sure it's one person?
The HCN records surface temperatures, not Arctic sea ice extent.
Are you implying that the U.S. government's own records are reliable?
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.
Kinnard et al. 2011 reconstructed Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. Again, the modern decline is quite clear.
“NOBODY in their right minds has — and I certainly have not — been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim.” [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
“I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
“Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
“We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years.” [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]
“First, people with at least half a brain — including in the U.S. — know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.” [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
Also, I didn't mean to misspell Lonny Eachus. Sorry.
Also, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.
Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.
Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."
No, that's not science the way it's practiced by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Quaternary Association, the American Society of Agronomy, the
My links show that NASA, the NAS, and dozens of other scientific organizations accept the mainstream climate science that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus dismiss as "alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist."
Since you aren’t calling NAS “alarmist”, it’s great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
My links show that this isn't just about the NAS, it's also NASA and dozens of other scientific organizations who agree that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Since you aren't calling NAS "alarmist", it's great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
I'd already told Lonny Eachus that the National Academy of Sciences said "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." So Lonny Eachus does seem to imply that the NAS displays total ignorance of science.
No, my links show that scientists understand the difference between correlation and causation. Here's another document by the National Academy of Sciences which may interest anyone who actually wants to understand the science. See page 5.
Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
NOBODY in their right minds has -- and I certainly have not -- been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim. [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed. So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
The trend over 5 or 6 THOUSAND years has been warmer. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]
Certainly the globe has been warming... it has been trending warmer for thousands of years. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-03]
First, people with at least half a brain -- including in the U.S. -- know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
Jane and Lonny Eachus are wrong. According to Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF), the world has actually been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.
Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.
So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.
No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.
Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.
Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):
... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?
Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?
Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?
Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:
As Tom Curtis noted:
"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."
Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."
For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.
No, I debunked these things you said:
You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.
You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.
Thanks for finally being honest. You're not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You've used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."
Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.
Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.
Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:
"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."
Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:
Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.
Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a
Maybe that was a bad retraction, and maybe you're not retracting your more general claim even though it's absurdly incorrect, and maybe you're accusing me of being "well aware" that your more general claim is "almost certainly true" even though I've been emphatically denying your absurd claim.
No, you haven't, and you obviously didn't read the link I just gave you:
Your second example was actually bad too, because it shows evolution is falsifiable science while creationism is just religion. Try again.
Yes, I deny that any fact supports young earth or old earth creationism. Yes, I deny that there is any evidence supporting young earth or old earth creationism. I'm a denier.
You've repeatedly claimed that some facts support the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Since you probably won't surprise us on this account, perhaps lowered expectations are in order. Earlier, you claimed:
I replied by saying "No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again." and your response was "Okay, maybe it was a bad example."
Any example may be a bad example, so that wasn't a retraction. Your example actually was a bad example, and anyone who understood my point would have the intellectual integrity to admit that without weasel words. So perhaps my website was down; here's the relevant part:
I'm not the one who claimed that some facts support the creationist position. You did. Repeatedly. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
To nobody's surprise, Jane "pulled a Jane" again. Retracting the two words "went missing" ignores all your other baseless smears, which I helpfully listed here. It's strange that you say I think you are another person. Anyone who reads this thread can confirm that I never said any such thing.
It's amusing that you have the time to write all that arrogant nonsense but don't have time to provide even one example of a fact that supports the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
Again, water is wet, which doesn't support evolution. But your original claim before your goalpost moving was that there are some facts which support the creationist position. You can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.
Now that you've moved the goalpost to a fact that just doesn't refute the creationists' arguments, here's one: water is wet.