Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 16, 2014 - 11:12pm PT
|
Sketch, you're one for the books.
You make these claims, but can't back them up. I said your post wreaked of sarcasm, and quoted you:
Perhaps you can provide the parts of those reports, where the subject was covered in depth (ba dum bump).
And you claim this wasn't "flippant or snarky"? You are not honest.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2014 - 11:16pm PT
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)#History
History[edit]
A program called Argo was first proposed at OceanObs 1999 which was a conference organised by international agencies with the aim of creating a coordinated approach to ocean observations. The original Argo prospectus was created by a small group of scientists, chaired by Dean Roemmich, who described a program that would have a global array of about 3000 floats in place by sometime in 2007.[4] The 3000-float array was achieved in November 2007 and was global. The Argo Steering Team met for the first time in 1999 in Maryland (USA) and outlined the principles of global data sharing. The Argo Steering Team made a 10-year report to OceanObs-2009[5] and received suggestions on how the array might be improved. These suggestions included enhancing the array at high latitudes, in marginal seas (such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean) and along the equator, improved observation of strong boundary currents (such as the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio), extension of observations into deep water and the addition of sensors for monitoring biological and chemical changes in the oceans. In November 2012 an Indian float in the Argo array gathered the one-millionth profile (twice the number collected by research vessels during all of the 20th century) an event that was reported in several press releases.[6][7] In 2014 the Bio-Argo program is expanding rapidly.[8]
I guess if you want to know about the oceans you've got to measure them...
...and when the information started to come in, it seems that it was very useful in describing the energy transfer.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.argo.net
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2014 - 11:25pm PT
|
And what happened to all those floats Ed? Were there some of them reporting back data outside the range of expectations? What was the treatment that those floats data were given- ignored, adjusted, or replaced by infill?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 17, 2014 - 08:11am PT
|
Throughout this exchange I repeatedly shown [sic] where your [sic] full of sh#t.
Gosh Sketch, I thought I put you in your hole. But since you keep coming back and accusing me of being full of it, maybe you can explain where it is I'm wrong. Let's take this to the mat.
I'm saying your post was a sarcastic attack. You posted the following:
Help me out, here.
I looked for coverage of ocean heat content in FAR, SAR & TAR. Seemed like the subject was little more than a passing footnote.
Perhaps you can provide the parts of those reports, where the subject was covered in depth (ba dum bump).
Here's how I read this:
 "Help me out here." :: You're not really looking for help, this is the beginning of your attempt to put Mono's nose in it.
"I looked for coverage ..." :: This is actually a straight-forward sentence.
"Perhaps you can provide ..." :: And here's the hook. The word "perhaps" implies that you believe Mono cannot provide what you're asking. The closing "da dum bump" is aimed directly at Mono, the subject of your post as you yourself admit. I read this as saying, "I looked and could not find anything. I bet you can't either. Ba dum bump, I win."
You say your post was just a polite question to Mono. Either your mother didn't teach you properly or you don't have a clue what "polite" means.
You say that your last sentence was "was a joke. A pun. Directed at no one." Well I think you're full of it here.
But I'd like to hear from you. I've told you how it looks to me, please show me where I'm wrong. Since you're so fast to say I'm full of it, explain to me how your joke, your pun wasn't you being just an asshat.
If you can't do that, then go back to your hole.
Lastly, my reply to your sarcastic attack said, "please post another graph that shows your inability to grasp concepts", and " please, one more cherry pick." While my tone was sarcastic, the content was dead on; if the shoe fits, wear it.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 17, 2014 - 08:25am PT
|
His entire MO is to ask questions of which he knows the answers and deliver personal insults
Spot on Norton, thanks for the reminder.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 08:35am PT
|
you could delete the thread and skratch would no longer exist. simple.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 08:46am PT
|
as if posterity gives a f*#k...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
some of you need to brush up on your understanding of irony.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 09:27am PT
|
Where were the Human Emissions that caused them CLIMATE RECORDS?
emitting from the anthropogenic asses driving the ploughs. but you're right as usual humans had nothing to do with the dustbowl.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 09:45am PT
|
don't worry skratch you'll always be the snarkiest of the irrelevant. No bigger dooshe on the interweb.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 09:50am PT
|
entertaining as always chief. thanks for laughs,
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 09:55am PT
|
From Chief link...I don't think he ever read or understand his graphs or links.
""In combination then, these two different phenomena managed to bring almost the entire nation into a drought at that time," said study co-author Richard Seager, from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. "The fact that it was the worst of the millennium was probably in part because of the human role."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 10:00am PT
|
"Numerous survey studies have been done, and the results are overwhelmingly in favor of scientific consensus that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause. Surveys done by reputable organizations find that around 97% of climate scientists agree with the statements above. The following are results from a few of these surveys, plus a resolution from a very distinguished group of scientists.
Expert Credibility in Climate Change
This study compiled a list of 1,372 climate scientists, and then looked at those who are "actively publishing" in the science of climate. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" by the evidence. The results were that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. They also found that those scientists that were unconvinced had significantly fewer publications (in any science) than those that were convinced. This suggests that the (vocal) "unconvinced" group actually has done a lot less research. (Read this study in full.)
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
This study was done in order to address the broader question of public opinion versus scientific opinion. It asked two questions, one about whether temperature is increasing, and one about whether or not human activity is contributing to any change. Here are the results:
Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.
Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
**About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.
The anonymous poll sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.** The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 17, 2014 - 10:19am PT
|
Sketch, you explained nothing.
But you know that.
And yes, I agree, your intent was obvious.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 10:30am PT
|
Afraid to answer simple, on-topic questions?
You really are just a little pussy.
it's unfortunate that's the best you can do.
You can only speculate about that but you've proven time and again you're just a little bully with compensation issues. look at you, going all self righteous moderator, demanding answers to your simplistic questions, and narcissistic enough to think you deserve a considered reply to the bile you contribute on a hourly basis. You persistently demonstrate your intelligence and you seem surprised when you receive exactly the amount of respect you've earned.
but hey, look at all the attention you're getting and that's the main thing right?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 10:36am PT
|
Chief here you go...http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Try to read it slowly.
"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 10:39am PT
|
I'm speculating? what method are are you using?
never claimed to be a scientist chief. So I can either learn from scientists or from you, sketch and sumpter.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!