|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 2:34:22 GMT
sigurdur, To be clear, climate science is full of substance. Your comments however are useful in understanding denialism. Thanks for being so candid. Thermostat: IF you ever read the literature dealing with climate science, you would understand that what we know is dwarfed at this time by what we DON"T know. Just as an easy example, go to the which model is correct thread and comment on which model you think is correct and why it is correct. sigurdur, You wrote IF you ever read the literature dealing with climate science, you would understand that what we know is dwarfed at this time by what we DON"T know. sigurdur, what we do not know about every subject in science is just like this. fyi, that is the nature of science. I can see you are not a scientist. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 2:42:02 GMT
Wouldn't you think that 0-2000m OHC would be the preferable way to measure global warming? It's been rising and is currently at its highest level. Here's the data from NODC: www.realclimate.org/images/ohc2000a.jpgYou don't like OHC? How about global surface temperatures? Again, at their highest level, equalling the 1998 super-El Nino year. Remember, you MUST back out ENSO to get an apples to apples comparison, so again we see continued warming. Or are you against fair comparisons? Yes, pretty much 100% of the data says that the world is warming and yet you deny the evidence. You're a prime example of denialism at work. Thank you for proving the contention of this thread. Dude ... you're kidding ... right? Since ARGO was installed you've got no discernible increase in OHC down to 700 meters depth. You're seriously maintaining that co2 in the atmosphere is raising OHC from 700 to 2,000 meters depth but not for the first 700 meters down? Seriously? Seriously? Come on. Seriously? For real? Seriously? Got any diagrams on this? woodstove! my bro! A denialist to end all denialists! touche, your gambit is a request for more information, yet again, how denialist is that? How about instead you provide some scientifically relevant support for your wacky assertions? The Scientific community is not impressed by your bs woodstove Got any diagrams on this?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2011 2:46:12 GMT
Thermostat: ARGO data, which is the best we have ever had, shows no warming of OHC.
Woodstove made the assertation that the 0-700M of ocean is showing a cooling bias. Yet, some folks want us to believe that the 700M-2,000M of ocean is heating right on up.
Now....we all know that some folks are fools....and some folks aren't. Which category do you fall in?
(Hint: Examine the literature that wants to show us the deep ocean is warming while the upper ocean is cooling. Examine it closely!.....cause upon close examination, one finds very little measurement, but a lot of inuendo of models trying to prove we are continueing to warm as all the other metrics have shown a cooling bias)
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 2:48:00 GMT
I'm just curious,
I'm a scientist as in I have a Ph.D science degree and make a living in a lab doing research. I understand I have lots of critics on this forum, but I am curious, are any of you scientists as well? or not?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2011 2:48:36 GMT
I will admit that Trenbeth has a point. He can't account for the lack of continued buildup of heat. What this really shows is our poor measurement and model errors of what is escaping the earth at present.
Funny how that works isn't it? It is another flaw in the AGW theory don't ya think? I mean, how big of a bat does it take to knock some sense into some folks?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 2:53:16 GMT
I will admit that Trenbeth has a point. He can't account for the lack of continued buildup of heat. What this really shows is our poor measurement and model errors of what is escaping the earth at present. Funny how that works isn't it? It is another flaw in the AGW theory don't ya think? I mean, how big of a bat does it take to knock some sense into some folks? sigurdur, grasping at straws again? funny how that works. Another flaw in denialism rhetoric don't ya think? I mean ideology is your driver, not science.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2011 2:54:40 GMT
Thermostat: IF you are a scientist, your education lacked a basis. I don't know where you were educated, but if it was in the USA, our system must really be going downhill much faster than I ever thought possible.
I will give you a hint as far as education tho. A PHD is a nice moniker to have and if you really have one I commend you. However, you have much to learn.
As an example, when I talk to a certain plant pathologist, who has a PHD, his statement is that every time he talks to me he learns something new. Ya see, he is smart enough to know that those of us out in the field have hands on real life experience that he doesn't have.
IN fact, the solutions to many of our problems COME from the field. We will go to him to find the pathogen....and then we develop a solution that works on a commercial level.
This pathologist ran a spud farm fungicide program for one year. Almost broke the farm. What worked in the lab did NOT work on a commercial scale. He stated he learned a lot...and now calls farmers to find out information on real life scenerios.
I can only suggest that you do the same when it comes to AGW. You, my young feller, are the one who seems to be in constant denial, not those of us older folks who have seen the same crap before, and will see it again.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 2:59:08 GMT
Thermostat: IF you are a scientist, your education lacked a basis. I don't know where you were educated, but if it was in the USA, our system must really be going downhill much faster than I ever thought possible. I will give you a hint as far as education tho. A PHD is a nice moniker to have and if you really have one I commend you. However, you have much to learn. As an example, when I talk to a certain plant pathologist, who has a PHD, his statement is that every time he talks to me he learns something new. Ya see, he is smart enough to know that those of us out in the field have hands on real life experience that he doesn't have. IN fact, the solutions to many of our problems COME from the field. We will go to him to find the pathogen....and then we develop a solution that works on a commercial level. This pathologist ran a spud farm fungicide program for one year. Almost broke the farm. What worked in the lab did NOT work on a commercial scale. He stated he learned a lot...and now calls farmers to find out information on real life scenerios. I can only suggest that you do the same when it comes to AGW. You, my young feller, are the one who seems to be in constant denial, not those of us older folks who have seen the same crap before, and will see it again. sigurdur, I appreciate that you have not personally pursued an advanced degree in science, fair enough. So forum members should appreciate that your understanding of the educational process here is non existent.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 3:03:07 GMT
Again,
As a scientist I find science denialism to be a fascinating issue.
Thanks to all of the practicing denialists here who provide ongoing live examples for us to evaluate.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2011 3:10:51 GMT
Thermostat: Sorry, but if you are an example of the current crop of PHD's, offffffta is all I can say.
It is you that have no idea of how education really does work.
I am sorry that our system seems to have deteriorated to the point that your lack of substance has exposed.
You paid a lot of money for nothing it would seem.
And once again, it is you that continues to deny real life observations verses the modeled potential.
I would appreciate a comment from you on the Which Model is correct thread. Let's see where your thoughts really are.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 3:25:46 GMT
Thermostat: Sorry, but if you are an example of the current crop of PHD's, offffffta is all I can say. It is you that have no idea of how education really does work. I am sorry that our system seems to have deteriorated to the point that your lack of substance has exposed. You paid a lot of money for nothing it would seem. And once again, it is you that continues to deny real life observations verses the modeled potential. I would appreciate a comment from you on the Which Model is correct thread. Let's see where your thoughts really are. sigurdur, You will need to get more specific if you want to make a substantive point. not clear about your 'which model is correct thread' since you failed to provide a link.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 3:30:06 GMT
Thermostat: Sorry, but if you are an example of the current crop of PHD's, offffffta is all I can say. It is you that have no idea of how education really does work. I am sorry that our system seems to have deteriorated to the point that your lack of substance has exposed. You paid a lot of money for nothing it would seem. And once again, it is you that continues to deny real life observations verses the modeled potential. I would appreciate a comment from you on the Which Model is correct thread. Let's see where your thoughts really are. sigurdur, You will need to get more specific if you want to make a substantive point. not clear about your 'which model is correct thread' since you failed to provide a link. You've been given several examples, go troll somewhere else. Recall the "stratospheric cooling" dope you were smoking?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 17, 2011 3:31:28 GMT
Thermostat,
I can't believe you are a scientist or that you are qualified to work as one.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 3:51:15 GMT
Thermostat, I can't believe you are a scientist or that you are qualified to work as one. Many people lie about themselves online. It can be a form of narcissism or other psychosis. Obviously the kid is immature and relies on talking points from other sources such as unSkepticalScience, where John Cook is well known for being shall I say, less than honest? Like they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 17, 2011 4:02:57 GMT
Yes, pretty much 100% of the data says that the world is warming and yet you deny the evidence. You're a prime example of denialism at work. Thank you for proving the contention of this thread.I suppose the first thing warmists who make this claim in this manner could do is redo high school English grammar. Warming implies continuing warming. Warmed means it warmed sometime in the past. Today as I pointed out everybody recognizes, except morons, that all our climate monitoring indicates warming has stopped. Warmist morons continue to maintain its warming and moronically point to graphs of historic temperatures that show it "warmed" in the past and don't show that its "warming". Warmist scientists tending to be a bit smarter than the aveage sycophant tend to offer an explanation for the lack of evidence of continued warming. They may select that its warming and blame poor monitoring for not detecting it. However, this is a position that is destructive of the scientific basis it warmed historically, thus the underlying basis of CAGW. Fact is evidence that it warmed was built on an inferior monitoring system and we only learned it wasn't warming when we put ARGO out there. So Commonsense you don't strike me as a moron so maybe its just misinformation or a grammar problem. But one thing for sure you can't intelligently claim by going: the climate arm wave arm wave is "warming" when the best science available says it is not. Does denialism prevent you from assimilating data? I just posted a link which showed 0-2000m OHC is climbing RIGHT NOW, and has significantly risen since ARGO was put in place. I also noted that surface temperatures during the 2010 La Nina matched a super El Nino 12 years previously, which further supports ongoing warming. Instead of posting something which refutes the data, you just whined like a true denialist, and even added baseless insults to prove your own lack of maturity. Truly pitiful. The data refutes your stance. It IS warming RIGHT NOW, and the data supports this claim, whether we're talking OHC or surface temperatures as adjusted by ENSO. Yet again, you prove this thread's point and are a prime example of how denialism works. Do you have any data which supports your denialist claim that warming has stopped?
|
|