Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

It's weird how you guys always prefer James Hanson's GISS data set to the Hadley centers HadCRUT dataset.

The trendline with both of those sets is nearly identical.

[MannyIsGod]

It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.

1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?

2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.

3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.

Using an anomaly graph is fine. I actually don't have a problem with the graph Darrin posted and I feel its an accurate representation. He at least avoided a graph starting in 1998 which obviously skews things in a bad manner.

Darrin has a right to point out the difference in the two data sets but its not really that big. When you look at the trend lines for both of those sets - they're pretty much identical.

[RandomGuy]

Don't you get it?

We have no such test that is reliable [enough to determine the temperature of water entering the arctic].

Without knowing all variables outside the one we wish to understand from a proxy, the intended unknown cannot be properly determined. Other conditions were unknown for these proxy's in the past. they are far more complex that using deuterium, 14C, etc. as a proxy as multiple factors change how they develope. They are just complex enough that without knowing all other factors, they are absolutely unreliable as a proxy. You completely fail to comprehend the change in living conditions they would have gone through during and after the maunder minima.

I won't pretend to be smart enough to claim the results. Those who do are simply pulling the wool over you sheeple's eyes.

Like I said. You are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are on this topic.

Yes, yes, I just need to "do my research". That, along with the "sheeple" schtick is something that the 9-11 truthers tell me all the time.

So, in essence, you know of no reliable way that we might be able to reasonably determine temperature or conditions in the past in regards to this.

How convenient for your theories.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, yes, I just need to "do my research". That, along with the "sheeple" schtick is something that the 9-11 truthers tell me all the time.

So, in essence, you know of no reliable way that we might be able to reasonably determine temperature or conditions in the past in regards to this.

How convenient for your theories.

I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

[RandomGuy]

Using an anomaly graph is fine. I actually don't have a problem with the graph Darrin posted and I feel its an accurate representation. He at least avoided a graph starting in 1998 which obviously skews things in a bad manner.

Darrin has a right to point out the difference in the two data sets but its not really that big. When you look at the trend lines for both of those sets - they're pretty much identical.

and it is the trend line, the change over time, that is important in proving that we are affecting the climate through CO2 emissions.

[Wild Cobra]

and it is the trend line, the change over time, that is important in proving that we are affecting the climate through CO2 emissions.

Except...

How many temperature stations changed, where are they, are they an accurate representation, etc.

[RandomGuy]

I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

Again, another trait in common with the truthers. They never make claims or put forth theories or tests to their theories. They simply wave their hands at points or studies that contradict their own theories.

You say their claim is invalid, because they show a warming trend on waters entering the actic, something that to you, is virtually impossible.

It appears to be based on a specific, well-studied organism, and the various carbon ratios involved in those organisms.

Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

Are you saying you know more about the types of foraminifera than the scientists who study these organisms?

They seem to be fairly sure about the environmental ranges that they have catalogued so far for the various species of this organism.

Has your study of these creatures produced different environmental ranges for various species of foraminifera?

Enlighten the forum and tell us all about it.

[DarrinS]

It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.

1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?

2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.

3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.

GISS extrapolates over the poles, while Hadley prefers to work with actual station data. GISS is not in agreement with satellite data.

The trendline with both of those sets is nearly identical.

Are you serious?

[MannyIsGod]

The trendlines show nearly identical rates of change, Darrin. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Over a decade or so thats pretty god damn good.

[DarrinS]

The trendlines show nearly identical rates of change, Darrin. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Over a decade or so thats pretty god damn good.

They are clearly diverging and GISS has been diverging from UAH (satellite record), especially since 2003.

[Wild Cobra]

Enlighten the forum and tell us all about it.

They are using calcium formations. Acidity and other chemistry changes the equilibrium besides just temperature. Without knowing the composition of the other factors, it is impossible to properly extrapolate how the temperature affected the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The maunder minima and the aftermath definitely had an effect on more than just temperature.

[RandomGuy]

They are using calcium formations. Acidity and other chemistry changes the equilibrium besides just temperature. Without knowing the composition of the other factors, it is impossible to properly extrapolate how the temperature affected the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The maunder minima and the aftermath definitely had an effect on more than just temperature.

In attempting to negate this one study you are, essentially, saying that the biologists and geologists who have been studying this haven't considered those factors, ever.

Because of their diversity, abundance, and complex morphology, fossil foraminiferal assemblages are useful for biostratigraphy, and can accurately give relative dates to rocks. The oil industry relies heavily on microfossils such as forams to find potential oil deposits.[19]

Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

For the same reasons they make useful biostratigraphic markers, living foraminiferal assemblages have been used as bioindicators in coastal environments, including indicators of coral reef health. Because calcium carbonate is susceptible to dissolution in acidic conditions, foraminifera may be particularly affected by changing climate and ocean acidification.

It would seem that they have been studying these various factors.

The fun thing is that you now have taken on something in common with "moon hoax" jackasses. Often they rail against the fact that we never really landed on the moon, but seem ignorant of the fact that we landed not once, but several times.

This isn't the only study of these creatures out there that is used to draw conclusions about the environment.

Do you think that these people have gotten ALL of these studies wrong over the years and have NEVER considered the other factors you allude to?

You state they are "using calcium formations". The wikipedia entry to me says that silicon and oxygen isotopes are measured as well.

What in the study in question have you read that leads you to believe they were relying on calcium?

If you haven't read the specific study, then how do you know they were using "calcium formations"?

[RandomGuy]

I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

I have not moved the goalposts at all. I have merely asked you how you would go about testing your hypothesis.

Please show exactly where I "moved the goalposts".

The scientists supporting the AGW theory have hypothesis and have made good-faith efforts at supporting that with data, as one would expect real scientists to do.

If asking you for one of the most basic evidentiary elements in science is "moving the goalposts", that would seem to imply that asking anybody how they would test their hypothesis is moving the goalposts.

This is not advanced physics. Forming a hypothesis, and devising tests of that hypothesis are skills taught to elementary school kids.

Surely you can do better than a 5th grader.

Lastly, you have accused me of a rather direct logical fallacy. I am unaware that I have done any such thing.

Please show me how I have "changed the goal posts", or withdraw the assertion.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, if you can give me a link to this study, I would appreciate it.

You appear to have read it, based on your criticism. I have not.

[Wild Cobra]

Lets assume they are relying on the isotopes which are accurate for temperature. Only in fixed settings though.

Again, we now go to chemistry changes in the straits from the decline in glacier melting during the maunder minima, to the melting once it started warming again. This absence of, then excess of glacier waters change that isotopic mix in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the actual temperature.

This isotopic data is only accurate when you can determine other factors don't influence it.

Do you understand what both 18O and 13C represent?

[RandomGuy]

By the by:

Anyone reading up on this little bug may have noticed the wikipeida entry where it talks about "tests".

The form and composition of the test is the primary means by which forams are identified and classified. Most have calcareous tests, composed of calcium carbonate.[10] In other forams the test may be composed of organic material, made from small pieces of sediment cemented together (agglutinated), and in one genus of silica. Openings in the test, including those that allow cytoplasm to flow between chambers, are called apertures

test 2 (tst)
n.
A hard external covering, as that of certain amoebas, dinoflagellates, and sea urchins.

Test here has a very specific meaning that is not used in the more common "examination" sense.

[RandomGuy]

This isn't the only study of these creatures out there that is used to draw conclusions about the environment.

Do you think that these people have gotten ALL of these studies wrong over the years and have NEVER considered the other factors you allude to?

Lets assume they are relying on the isotopes which are accurate for temperature. Only in fixed settings though.

Again, we now go to chemistry changes in the straits from the decline in glacier melting during the maunder minima, to the melting once it started warming again. This absence of, then excess of glacier waters change that isotopic mix in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the actual temperature.

This isotopic data is only accurate when you can determine other factors don't influence it.

Do you understand what both 18O and 13C represent?

You did not answer my question.
I will, however, answer yours. Yes, I do understand what those two abbreviations represent.

Now answer my question.

In claiming that this study lacks sufficient consideration of other factors, you are directly implying that all the other studies done by biologists and geologists are similarly flawed.

Are they? Yes or no?

Or is it just this one study? If so, then how SPECIFICALLY did they get it wrong, and please reference the orginal source study methodology. Their claims appear to be based on the appearance of one or more specific species of this thing. What are the preferred environmental ranges (temperature and/or PH) of the species in question?

[MannyIsGod]

They are clearly diverging and GISS has been diverging from UAH (satellite record), especially since 2003.

I agree its warmer but I don't necessarily think its wrong. I think the fact that all temp records are rising at pretty much the same rates is telling but I think its very important to use ALL temp records and not focus on any single set.

[RandomGuy]

And lest you forget, I am still waiting on how you would test your "soot" hypothesis.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018

Forming an hypothesis, then thinking of ways to test that hypothesis are skills that are taught to elementary school students.

Surely you can demonstrate, with your vast wealth of scientific knowledge, a way to test your hypothesis.

[RandomGuy]

I agree its warmer but I don't necessarily think its wrong. I think the fact that all temp records are rising at pretty much the same rates is telling but I think its very important to use ALL temp records and not focus on any single set.

Focusing on one single thing is how conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists work.

They tend to ingore the wider weight of evidence.

When you start pulling together data set after data set that start reinforcing each other, while any one thing might be "weakly predictive", taken as a whole it starts to paint a fairly consistant picture.

[Wild Cobra]

Random..,.

The changing rate of the glacier melt on both sides of the maunder minima changes the 18O and 13C contents to an make the readings unreliable. You end up with more and less dilution of the waters with isotopic ratios of the past. It changes the reliability of the testing.

Don't you get it. All the possible proxies they are using are bad data, because of how the water chemical and isotopic balance was changed. It wasn't changed only by the temperature range they wished to capture, but by the past temperature rages trapped in ice, and of the chemical changes on the land. That area is too close to both melting glacier ice and river run off.

[RandomGuy]

Random..,.

The changing rate of the glacier melt on both sides of the maunder minima changes the 18O and 13C contents to an make the readings unreliable. You end up with more and less dilution of the waters with isotopic ratios of the past. It changes the reliability of the testing.

Don't you get it. All the possible proxies they are using are bad data, because of how the water chemical and isotopic balance was changed. It wasn't changed only by the temperature range they wished to capture, but by the past temperature rages trapped in ice, and of the chemical changes on the land. That area is too close to both melting glacier ice and river run off.

How do you know that the study relied on those isotopes for its methodology?

Have you actually read it?

I noticed you tap danced around that question, with your usual hand-wavy dismissal of anything that challenges your already-held views.

I asked for a specific link to the study itself. I was unable to find it.

Please provide a link to the study, so that I don't have to take your word for it. I can think of at least one method for estimating environment that doesn't require the measurement of isotopes that can be performed on recent sedimentation.

Bull has been called. Put up or shut up. I have some doubts you even read the study to be able to comment on its methodology.

[RandomGuy]

This isn't the only study of these creatures out there that is used to draw conclusions about the environment.

Do you think that these people have gotten ALL of these studies wrong over the years and have NEVER considered the other factors you allude to?

Lets assume they are relying on the isotopes which are accurate for temperature. Only in fixed settings though.

Again, we now go to chemistry changes in the straits from the decline in glacier melting during the maunder minima, to the melting once it started warming again. This absence of, then excess of glacier waters change that isotopic mix in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the actual temperature.

This isotopic data is only accurate when you can determine other factors don't influence it.

Do you understand what both 18O and 13C represent?

You did not answer my question. In claiming that this study lacks sufficient consideration of other factors, you are directly implying that all the other studies done by biologists and geologists are similarly flawed.

Are they? Yes or no?

Or is it just this one study? If so, then how SPECIFICALLY did they get it wrong, and please reference the orginal source study methodology. Their claims appear to be based on the appearance of one or more specific species of this thing. What are the preferred environmental ranges (temperature and/or PH) of the species in

Random..,.

The changing rate of the glacier melt on both sides of the maunder minima changes the 18O and 13C contents to an make the readings unreliable. You end up with more and less dilution of the waters with isotopic ratios of the past. It changes the reliability of the testing.

Don't you get it. All the possible proxies they are using are bad data, because of how the water chemical and isotopic balance was changed. It wasn't changed only by the temperature range they wished to capture, but by the past temperature rages trapped in ice, and of the chemical changes on the land. That area is too close to both melting glacier ice and river run off.

How many times do I need to ask this question?

There are far more than this one study done on these organisms in the field of biology that have been done over decades. These aren't "climate scientists". This is basic biology and geology.

Are all those other studies similarly flawed?

[RandomGuy]

And lest you forget, I am still waiting on how you would test your "soot" hypothesis.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018

Forming an hypothesis, then thinking of ways to test that hypothesis are skills that are taught to elementary school students.

Surely you can demonstrate, with your vast wealth of scientific knowledge, a way to test your hypothesis.

Still waiting on this one too.

Either you can formulate a test for your hypothesis, or you can't. I will assume that if you ignore this again, you can't. If you can't, then you get to join the Truthers in the corner.

[Wild Cobra]

How do you know that the study relied on those isotopes for its methodology?

Have you actually read it?

I am stating why your arguments are invalid. I didn't bring up the isotopes, but am referring to why in this case they cannot be used. Same wit the Plankton.

I noticed you tap danced around that question, with your usual hand-wavy dismissal of anything that challenges your already-held views.

Bull .

You are doing the tap-dancing. When i say why something doesn't work as a reliable proxy, you change the argument.

I asked for a specific link to the study itself. I was unable to find it.

I don't care what the study says. When itused sedementation and relies on the things I have seen, it doesn't work.It's bull . maybe that's why you cannot find the study.

Please provide a link to the study, so that I don't have to take your word for it. I can think of at least one method for estimating environment that doesn't require the measurement of isotopes that can be performed on recent sedimentation.

Fine, show me. My entire point is that there is no reliable way to measure the sedament in that area because of the ecological changes that we cannot account for. If your article can somehow magically account for them, then I'm game.

Bull has been called. Put up or shut up. I have some doubts you even read the study to be able to comment on its methodology.

I was the first to call bull . You're not able to back up the articles claim. It's not for me to have to disprove it any more than I have. How about proving the article.