Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:55am PT
|
>Have you even looked at those two papers?
Yes I have.
>You say you read a thousand hours per year, then wave your arms
>and show no knowledge at all.
There you go again with the insults. Thanks for the laughs. I'll see you at the next series of monitoring conferences right? You do go rub elbows with the International GW research community, don't you?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:14pm PT
|
>Have you even looked at those two papers?
Yes I have.
Then why make false claims about what they contain?
There you go again with the insults. Thanks for the laughs. I'll see you at the next series of monitoring conferences right?
Not meant as an insult, I'm still inviting you to show rather than declare that you know something. And you're still spraying squid ink.
You do go rub elbows with the International GW research community, don't you?
Change that to "discuss research, exchange emails, attend meetings, coauthor papers or share data with scientists in the international climate research community?" Yes, pretty much every day.
But that was more of your squid ink, wasn't it? Is the Abraham et al. paper just about trends? Do Kosaka & Xie break no new ground? The editors and reviewers at Reviews of Geophysics and Nature did not think so. You do think so. Invited to back up your statement, all you've offered is sneering. Is that all you've got?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
|
The Chief: Quick, Maddog needs help, change the subject. Post some shiny bike pics. Hey look at me everyone. I can really draw attention to myself, all day long.
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
|
Mad69Dog, are you Jeff McCoy, the same maddog from rec.climbing who engaged in endless, inane tit for tat rants with Bill Zaumen? If I can guess your identity you must not really be intent on anonymity.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
|
>Then why make false claims about what they contain?
Specifically, what false claims? Bad is getting worse. Please show me globally consistent diesel flux.
Yes, I know people hate peer review. The drum I'm beating is that the data quality relative to the global energy balance has some question marks. Why can't people publicly admit how little is known about the composite energy balance calculation accuracy?
And again, why are we spending so much on the development of the technology if we already know the answers? Because the funding proposals justify the search for better measurement science? Post up some of your proposals that have passed your desk over the last few years and let's see why people want to spend more money.
What's so funny to me is that my premises stated have been: 1) Ocean temps are giving us the best look at the global temperature increase. Glacier recession is hard to interpret IMO but is basically consistent with ocean data. Etc. 2) I believe that part of the cause is FFC. 3) We need better estimates of all components of the global thermal balance.
So I've been calling for more work all along and lolling at all the knee jerks. Thanks for the laughs.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
|
Facts might get posted here from time to time but you guys are missing the boat in a big way. Have fun googling, boys. LOL !
"I swear I saw those pics and I was like "if I squint just right and Mad Dog's been staying on the honed-climber program" maybe that is him... he assures me it ain't. "
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
|
We know you are a formidable internet forum foe learned from all those pissing contests on rec.climbing. Congratulations!
Can you convince scientists about global warming? Unlikely considering your easily checked falsehoods so far.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
|
There was no expectation of convince-I-zation. Peer review is always a bitter pill to pulpit-bashers. Keep chewing, dude.
After I retire from my current #1 source of income, I'll come see if ST is still alive and if this thread is available. Then I'll post up my resume. He who laughs last and all that.
Mute, you should know that just because I've reviewed a peer's data doesn't mean that I can publish it.
"easily checked falsehoods"
Desperate you are.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:35pm PT
|
And yet, in 2006, atmospheric SO2 measurement doubled the previous high point.
Mad69dog,Maddog,Jeff McCoy, 2013.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
|
The Chief: Hey look at me. I can post pics. See how deep and clever I am.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
|
>Then why make false claims about what they contain?
Specifically, what false claims?
Specifically, these false claims:
I'm saying that the newer pubs don't really bring anything additional to the big picture. They continue to demonstrate a trend.
Less blatant, but fudging the truth:
What's so funny to me is that my premises stated have been: 1) Ocean temps are giving us the best look at the global temperature increase.
Actually, you repeatedly specified ocean surface temperatures until I pointed out two recent papers that address why sea surface temperatures are not the best look at global temperature increase. Rather than say "Oh!" or anything else about the new information, you fuzzed past with nothing-new-here declarations and dropped the "surface" from your claims.
Thanks for the laughs.
Yep, maddog/Jeff McCoy.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
|
The trend I'm talking about is that the ocean has been on a noisy upward temperature trend over the last 100 years.
"Actually, you repeatedly specified ocean surface temperatures"
Right, because it's easy and cheap. Having automated depth profiling is also great to have but I'm just not convinced it's worth spending much money on. Surface data is extensive and dirt cheep.
"It is possible that we will have to create policy with incomplete knowledge"
Good luck with that. How many of us thought that we'd see some positive change in the last decade?
"The obvious importance of identifying anthropogenic activities that are drivers comes from the possibility that we have some control over those drivers."
Honestly, you believe we have control over those drivers? I'm just not seeing the evidence...
"However, if you insist that the uncertainty be nil before any policy can be made"
Policy has been lagging since the 60s. I supported political change regarding FF well before global warming was a buzz phrase. But, you know, there is money to be made and the money man is driving the coal train.
No - not 'nil' uncertainty... We want to not just estimate the components, but also estimate what is known about the uncertainty for each. At least all the major contributors. That's expensive and this field has seen research dollars become more difficult to come by.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 02:13pm PT
|
Every time I click on this thread, folks like maddog and the chuff remind me of this poster:
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
|
The trend I'm talking about is that the ocean has been on a noisy up upward temperature trend over the last 100 years.
Your comment I quoted was in response to the papers. You say you looked at those papers, and they bring nothing new. Is the noisy 100-year trend in surface temperatures what those papers are about, or did they bring something new?
Having automated depth profiling is also great to have but I'm just not convinced it's worth spending much money on.
Most of the active researchers seem to think otherwise. Both papers explain why. Can you explain why you think they are wrong?
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
|
Isaac's typewriter seems to be adding to global warming.
"Can you explain why you think they are wrong"
It's just personal priorities in the face of shrinking research budgets. I think we are spending too much for people to go play on their submarines and sail around on ships. Yes, I'm laughing at the oceanographers across the hall.
To simplify, I support placement of in-situ T probes and I like to see funding for upgrading devices on commercial vessels. But it's not like we're seeing 5C increase a year - moving forward we don't need to worry about increasing data density in the ocean as much as in the atmosphere and above - again IMO.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 03:35pm PT
|
Mono: "Aerosols are well understood by climate scientists and anyone who looks below the surface."
Really?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674200112002040
and from some layman media:
"The scientists noted that while clouds may block solar radiation from entering the atmosphere, the conditions under which they form, and the extent to which they actually cool the planet by reflecting that radiation away, is very poorly understood. Further complicating matters, a warmer Earth holds more moisture, which could increase the total volume of clouds.
To reduce the uncertainty in climate projections, Cziczo and his research group at MIT are studying subjects such as aerosols, or airborne particles, which act as “seeds” that help clouds form. As particles like dust float up into the atmosphere, they provide a surface on which water vapor may condense or freeze, forming a fine mist that from a distance can appear puffy, layered, or wispy, depending on a region’s temperature and relative humidity."
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
|
Good advice, Chief.
They broke the mold with George.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
|
Thank god. fuking idiot
Chuff's motto:
The reason I talk to myself is that I'm the only one whose answers I accept. - George Carlin
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!