Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 08:53pm PT
|
Good evening climate supermen.
Forgive my stupidness.
What is Argo?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:02pm PT
|
Ahhh yes thank you Monolith.
Very nice .....
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:37pm PT
|
edit: wes,, when i was 6 i could recite the periodic table of elements.
I work with 7 major acids from metal tans (chromium) to organic and the neutralizers, ph levels, inhibitors etc etc etc. You have zero clue as to the amount of chemistry involved in my trade. zeeerowwww...
That means sooooo much less than you think it does.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
|
Nope, I'm saying more Argo floats does not necessarily equal a steep rise, like you claim.
You can see the rise taper off before Argo is even half deployed.
And yep, the data shows several drops and plateaus, just what you would expect from a natural phenomena.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:03pm PT
|
Chief, get some glasses, and draw straight lines.
Your line is slanted from 2000, idiot.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:05pm PT
|
I'm away for a few days; i glance at this threads new content to see that the resident chief scientist, our own Dr. Ed Hartouni, has been lording around impugning the realists (that's the skeptics for the uninformed) motives in denying anthropogenic climate catastrophe and attempting to belittle us for our lack of scientific training to his level. Well Dr. Ed, may i remind you that if this little debate was being judged by an unbiased and impartial panel ( no thats not DMT) you would already have lost. First, several thousands posts ago when you admitted " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to natural variability". Second, several hundred posts ago when you fully decloseted your political ideology and in effect said; The era of the individual is over with the limitations of sustainability imposed by our overpopulation. You seem to be of the ideology that human freedom, mobility,choice, even thought should be surrendered to the collective. Now anyone, with any degree of rational thought process, would look at that kind of statement and conclude that you can't seperate the bias of your ideology from the science you practice. Perhaps you have forgotten this, perhaps you don't realize that all incoming observations for you are clouded by your ideological filter, but surely you realize that all analysis and dissemination of this science is heavily tinged by your ideals. You've lost twice professor, i urge you to take off the shet covered glasses and try to get the clear picture of the real world before you are a three time loser.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
|
HOLY SH#T, that is the best you can do?
That is one of the saddest efforts I have ever seen... and I once taught a 3rd grade science class. Rick Dumber's post above is also pretty damn sad... but at least it is 5th grade level stupidity.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:29pm PT
|
Dumbass, that chart was upper ocean only. And you have to average all those lines.
My chart is upper, lower and atmosphere + land and ice.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:32pm PT
|
What all of you catastrophists, scientists and interested laymen alike, have got to begin to admit is that your holy grail, the models, are grossly incorrect in their testable predictives. Yes, the science is solid as far as the mythical molecules abilities in being able to absorb earth upwelling IR, but the degree of permanent sequestration of rising temps is not keeping pace with the increase of atmospheric CO2 content. There are things happening on this Earth that the scientists have ignored, undervalued, or just plain don't know. Collectively they are the negative feedbacks that are preventing the system from becoming uninhabitable to it's biological systems that are themselves a controlling mechanism of climate change. This latest IPCC meeting was met with a collective yawn from the media and general public. Those that are following it see the beginning of the end for the criers of climate doom. Scientists the world over are looking into new avenues of natural climate change mechanisms and publishing results in ever increasing numbers. CAGW's gig is up!
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:32pm PT
|
Well, it is official... chaff doesn't know how to read graphs. Anyone surprised? Didn't think so.
Rick, with all do respect, please shut the fuk up you ignorant fool.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:41pm PT
|
mono: you have to tilt the upper line cuz...
chuff: Tilt what line???
idiot
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
|
I see you've conceded the 2000 start point. Good job.
The charts don't plot the same thing, and when you average the 'flatlining' sections of your chart, you still get a rise, it's just not as steep as the previous section.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
|
LOL Chief, if you average the 'flatlining' sections, you will get a rising line, just like my chart.
The sections are on top of each other and start near each other at the circle, idiot.
Each one is made by a different team, using different methods. That's why you need to average them.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 12:13am PT
|
Hilarious watching you comparing charts with different start dates, one averaged and one not.
Hey, look at 2003-2004 on both charts, the same inflection point.
Better contact Judith Curry, you've blown the whole ocean warming thing apart.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 12:41am PT
|
Thanks Bruce, but this is already a well known process for publication in the CC mega industry. Lindzen, Spencer, the Idso's, and many many others have commented about it repeatedly. Do you have any idea of the amount of money greasing the skids of this scam? Maybe you should take a serious look, it might just be a pathway to recovery for you.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 12:51am PT
|
Bullshit Chief. You will find that lots of charts are averages of multiple data sets, just like the ocean heat content.
I'll be back in a few days to see what progress you've made.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 01:07am PT
|
Look at you. Splitting hairs...
and being a d1ck about it.
and you are just being an idiot. I am not just splitting hairs about the grouping because the difference in what you have found in a blogg and what was actually asked in the article is very important. You obviously haven't cared to read a short and very easy to read article.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 09:49am PT
|
Peer review has been on my mind lately as we wrap up one paper and think of drafting two others. Also there seems to be a small stack of requests to do reviews in my inbox. Everyone who goes through this could tell stories about the times it worked well and poorly. The effort and intelligence of editors can make a big difference. Still it's a central and important part of the process.
I've seen some quite silly blog posts where over-sensitive authors recount a normal but critical review experience, and whinge of persecution to their fans.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 10:43am PT
|
According to just about every climate change expert I've read and the IPCC (let's exclude skeptics), humans have caused most of the warming in recent history. Less than 1% of all the papers examined support that position. Less than 2% of the papers stating a position support that position.
You could always read the article and try to understand it. You are for example using "support that position" incorrectly above.
I definitely don't think that the cook et al. paper is the last word on the matter but any criticism should at least be based on the article.
The article do for example clearly show that a large part of authors do not make any exact claims in regard to AGW in their abstracts.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!