|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 4:24:54 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? commonsensence,
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 17, 2011 4:32:23 GMT
Thermostat, Just what makes one a denialist? For example I do think man is having an impact on the climate. However, I think the impact has been over stated. The models have performed poorly and considering the vast number of factors and feedbacks that come into play what is a prudent coarse of action?
Does this make me a denialist?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 4:33:18 GMT
commonsense,
The ball is now in your court on this forum, but I gather you asked for that. Let me warn you, the denialists will rip you to shreads, so well developed are their objections.
But, whatever. This thread is about denailism.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 17, 2011 4:38:54 GMT
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.
You showed a graph with no attribution for the source of the data.
For all I know its a model output of what the ocean should be at depth in the event that warm water was abnormally downwelled in the ocean.
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.
There is nothing to refute. There is no claim for what the data represents.
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.
With zero provenance the data refutes nothing.
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? What is being proved here is the need for denialism.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 17, 2011 5:02:24 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) No, OHC has been increasing in the 0-700m level. Even Bob Tisdale agrees. See figure 2 bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/2nd-quarter-2011-nodc-global-ohc-anomalies/It seems you are trying very hard to deny reality, and not just by pretending the recent increase in OHC from 0-700m was a decrease! Yep, all data and metrics show a continued warming, whether we look at OHC, radiation imbalance, or surface temperatures as adjusted for ENSO. The science shows an increase in 0-700m and 700-2000m OHC and you "just don't like it" so you deny it without substantiation. Instead, you should post something which suggests that 700-2000m OHC is not rising. How about even substantiating your claim that 0-700m is cooling? You got any metric that doesn't show warming? Anything at all? Denialism and how it works. You do give life to this thread's premise.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 17, 2011 5:20:07 GMT
You showed a graph with no attribution for the source of the data. Read and retain! It came from NODC. If you want to refute them, then either post some other source or show how their methods are wrong. So far we have 0-700m OHC up, 0-2000m OHC sharply up, radiation imbalance very positive, and surface temperatures as adjusted for ENSO significantly up. Do you have any metric, any data, anything at all which supports your and Sig's claim? True denialism! You guys don't like the results, so you simply reject them. You continue to provide an example of this thread's premise!
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 17, 2011 5:48:59 GMT
commonsense, The ball is now in your court on this forum, but I gather you asked for that. Let me warn you, the denialists will rip you to shreads, so well developed are their objections. But, whatever. This thread is about denailism. They have no data or science on their side. Denialists like Sigurdur and Icefisher are shooting blanks. There's no danger of them ripping anything to shreds. I've noted four different metrics which all support an ongoing warming. (There are more, such as the ice balance on the planet) So far Sigurdur is the only one to reply with more than a whiny non-post, and he had to resort to an untruthful claim that 0-700m OHC is falling/cooling. Nope, they've got nothing. And yes, that's the essense of this thread. Sigurdur and Icefisher are presented with irrefutable data that the Earth is currently warming, yet they will deny it to their last breath while having/providing no data to back up their beliefs. That's denialism, pure and simple. So, Icefisher and Sigurdur, go ahead. Provide evidence that the Earth isn't currently warming. Show us you're not denialists. (Another way would be to just acknowledge that the Earth is currently warming!)
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Oct 17, 2011 6:18:26 GMT
commonsense, the link you give to Bob Tisdale, fig 1 from 2004 the first year that a comprehensive deployment of Argo buoys was completed, the ocean heat content has decreased. Your point? After ~60 years of above average solar activity and shorter cycle length it was no wonder that the oceans warmed. See fig 5 here:- www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 17, 2011 6:27:08 GMT
Just this week I clicked onto the story of the American exchange student Amanda Knox from Seattle Washington; seeing how ideology drove her fate. In particular I found a parallel between the climate denialism so prevelent on this forum and the behaviour of the legal authorities in Italy who drove the imprisonment of this unfortumate girl for the past four years in order to defend their illogical point of view. It is about denialism, and how it works. How many people continue to assert that this poor, simple girl is a viscious murderer. I think this story tells us a lot about how denialism works. The depth of your contributions on this forum are about the same as your stated depth of understanding of the Amanda Knox case. You brought your own idea to the story, chose what you wanted to believe with no knowledge of the details of the case, and no way to verify the claims in the article you read. You simply had to make up your mind what you wanted to believe about it, then had to send it through your emotional filters to draw the correlation to something you wanted to see - another point of view you don't understand, but like to attack. Interestingly, you now use confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) to continue to see what you want to see in other people, and if you don't see it, then your cognitive dissonance will take care of that for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). And I think the whole thing really comes from a cognitive bias to begin with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias). One observation of my own is that it is much easier to see these things at work in other people than it is in yourself. I think I am observing that again in someone calling themselves "Thermostat". And after such shallow attempts at contrived logic to cast the other side into a bad light, if it isn't working, just claim to be better educated ... (shoot, why not claim to have a PhD? Yeah, that's the ticket). Talk down to them. Claim that the other guys can't really comprehend the depth (sic) of your claims, lack an understanding of real science, lack an understanding of scientific literature, shoot ... just lack your superior mental facilities. Claim they don't provide anything (meaning, they didn't provide anything that agrees with you, thus your cognitive processes won't allow you to process it), then quickly dismiss them with some sort of ad-hominem attack (Call them a denialist) and claim to have the higher ground. If someone else jumps in on your side, even if they lack the basic understanding of the principles being discussed, jump in and compliment them (showing everyone but you that you haven't even read the argument with understanding.) Don't provide any substance, though! Wow! I think I just outlined a thermostat argument. I'm still waiting for that link to your thesis/dissertation, and any semblance of a defense of it. I'm calling out that you're full of shit and waiting for anything to show otherwise. If you can't back up even this claim, then what claim have you made on this board that you can back up? I think you're much like "ManyAndVaried" and a few other hotshots that have come along in the forum for a while ... actually, I seem to recall more attempts at putting substance in posts by ManyAndVaried and a few others who have engaged in much the same tactics as you use. I don't care what side of the argument you're on, even, you just provide nothing along the lines of what you claim. My assertion is that you can find all of the cognitive processes that you are trying to project onto other posters if you conduct a little introspection. If you really want to "understand," then that is where you should start ... but that's not what you're really trying to do, now is it? Just to help your spelling a bit: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicious (Try for yourself to get it to find "viscious.") At first I thought it was a typo, but you've used it more than once. Edit: 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. You're just a troll, aren't you? And not even a very entertaining or engaging one at that. That's all the time I will spend on it until you can show us that you are not just full of shit about your degree, and you're doing something besides just trolling the board.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 17, 2011 12:58:04 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? A PhD does not a scientist make. It also doesn't make one a better person, either. Oh, when you're working in the lab, do you mop the floor so that you end up near the door when finished? And do you prefer a sponge mop or yarn?
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 17, 2011 13:05:17 GMT
I've met many teachers who, despite have a 'teaching degree,' couldn't teach well.
Along with others here, I suspect you don't know jack about squat.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 13:34:55 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) No, OHC has been increasing in the 0-700m level. Even Bob Tisdale agrees. See figure 2 bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/2nd-quarter-2011-nodc-global-ohc-anomalies/It seems you are trying very hard to deny reality, and not just by pretending the recent increase in OHC from 0-700m was a decrease! Yep, all data and metrics show a continued warming, whether we look at OHC, radiation imbalance, or surface temperatures as adjusted for ENSO. The science shows an increase in 0-700m and 700-2000m OHC and you "just don't like it" so you deny it without substantiation. Instead, you should post something which suggests that 700-2000m OHC is not rising. How about even substantiating your claim that 0-700m is cooling? You got any metric that doesn't show warming? Anything at all? Denialism and how it works. You do give life to this thread's premise. From your link. How many times can it be posted before it sinks in? This is the crux of the matter; statistically zero rise in OHC since 2003. Maybe you should first understand what 'statistically zero' means. So yes, the ball is in your court. If the heat is hiding below 700m, then SST should precede the heat that is postulated to be hiding in the abyss, and 300m, and 700m. BTW, why did Trenberth say it was a travesty they couldn't account for the lack of warming if he knew it was hiding below 700m?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 17, 2011 14:53:54 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? Okay, here's an offer. Provide us with the link to your thesis/dissertation and provide even a half-assed defense of it, and I will open up who I am and provide links to the public facing articles I've published within the last year. Does that sound fair? The ball is in your court.
|
|
|
Post by byz on Oct 17, 2011 15:47:07 GMT
I studied a degree in Physics, currently doing another one in Maths and Computer science. One thing I find very funny is that if physicists took the same approach as climate scientists then we would now say that neutrinos travel faster than light, that the science is settled and Einstein was wrong. However in the field of physics we have always got the possibility of proving that Einstein theories of relativity (special and general) can at any point be proved wrong, however we will also throw open our results as CERN did and ask other physicists to pull it apart. One of the reasons I am not a believer in the alarmist AGW hypothesis is that the formulae that is often quoted for CO2's warming effect has a constant that has a greater effect than the logarithmic part of the equation actually involving CO2 and when I asked where is the constant derived from I get a stoney silence or people try to change the subject As a physicist i can tell you the experiments that help derive various universal constants but the constant in the CO2 equation no one seems to have a clue
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 16:32:18 GMT
No, OHC has been increasing in the 0-700m level. Even Bob Tisdale agrees. See figure 2 bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/2nd-quarter-2011-nodc-global-ohc-anomalies/It seems you are trying very hard to deny reality, and not just by pretending the recent increase in OHC from 0-700m was a decrease! Yep, all data and metrics show a continued warming, whether we look at OHC, radiation imbalance, or surface temperatures as adjusted for ENSO. The science shows an increase in 0-700m and 700-2000m OHC and you "just don't like it" so you deny it without substantiation. Instead, you should post something which suggests that 700-2000m OHC is not rising. How about even substantiating your claim that 0-700m is cooling? You got any metric that doesn't show warming? Anything at all? Denialism and how it works. You do give life to this thread's premise. From your link. How many times can it be posted before it sinks in? This is the crux of the matter; statistically zero rise in OHC since 2003. Maybe you should first understand what 'statistically zero' means. So yes, the ball is in your court. If the heat is hiding below 700m, then SST should precede the heat that is postulated to be hiding in the abyss, and 300m, and 700m. BTW, why did Trenberth say it was a travesty they couldn't account for the lack of warming if he knew it was hiding below 700m? Looking at it another way, I'd like commonsense to explain how he can conclude OHC is rising as advertised. It is beyond belief anyone with an ounce of integrity can. Data here climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
|
|