Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[Agit8r]

the first doesn't mention ocean water at all.

The second and third are climate denier websites (i.e. NOT AT ALL SCIENTIFIC)

So again we are back to you spouting political faith, that is devoid of any supporting scientific evidence.

That's because it was an EXPERIMENT. It wasn't based on computer models which is all that your precious sources present. So here is a case where scientists actually DID an experiment in the real world and you, the clownboy, prefers science fiction to empirical data.

You're dismissed.

All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking. Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world? Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without applying due diligence to the scientific method--without anything like evidence to present to the dupes who read their fictions. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, there surely are.

 

[flacaltenn]

That perturbation right at 2000 is an artifact of their modeling.. Doesn't exist in the REAL MEASURED data from NOAA. No lying involved. The slope DECREASES over the period of the pause.

Now tell us --- How did the oceans STEAL missing heat from the surface if it SLOWED the rate of it's EATING heat during the pause. ???

Let's see your data.

WTF you talking about Wilbur ?? We're talking about reading an f-ing graph... What data do you need?

Do you know what the slope of a line is? Do you know the difference between DEcelerating and ACcelerating and what that looks like on a graph? Of course you don't. Or wouldn't have asked for "my data"...

How very convenient that AFTER you claim the slope decreases with the pause (which began in 1998) you suggest that you were actually talking about other data (which is the data I wanted to see since this data doesn't do what you say it does) and then you go on to claim its an artifact.

What crap. Your NOAA/NESDIS data only contain one of the three sets BTK shows and it displays a similar launch upward between 2001 and 2004.

The slope DOES decrease during the pause. Can't help you with your complete inability to pull inferences out of visual data.. In order to "decrease during the pause" LOGICALLY it would have had to be LARGER going into the pause. OMG.. Hopeless.
IN EITHER data set.. And if you can't see how much more prevalent all those modeling artifacts are in BTK -- that's also a graph-reading problem..

If you can't answer the question...

Is the SLOPE higher from 1992 to 2000 --- or from 2002 - 2010 -- you shouldn't be posting data and graphs..

Just after 2001, the slope rises dramatically. If you want to keep trying to hide that FACT, feel free. You're the one that looks like an idiot for doing so.

After it rises "dramatically" in 2001 --------------------------
from 2002 to 2010 --- is the slope HIGHER or LOWER than it was in 1992 to 2000?

EVEN IF those slopes were IDENTICAL.. You cannot HIDE "excess heat in the ocean" if the ocean is storing at the SAME RATE it was PRIOR to the pause. In fact, the whole period of analysis shows pretty much the same rate of storage overall. No substantial acceleration..

YOU --- can't read a graph..

 

[westwall]

That's because it was an EXPERIMENT. It wasn't based on computer models which is all that your precious sources present. So here is a case where scientists actually DID an experiment in the real world and you, the clownboy, prefers science fiction to empirical data.

You're dismissed.

All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking. Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world? Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without any evidence to back them up. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, who use fiction instead of the scientific method, there surely are.

Are you fucking high? the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want. If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor old Mr. Westwall, cannot accept the reality of AGW. Calls everyone in the AGU and GSA frauds and whores.

Well, we do have excess heat. California is still in the grip of a record drought. Oregon and Washington are in extreme drought, and we have already had 6 million acres burned, and the fire season looks to go on for at least another three months. And the temperature in Portland, Oregon, is 91 degrees F. And we have long passed the previous record of 90+ days in one summer. The fires in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are being measured in tens of square miles burned, and in the case of the Soda fire, hundreds of square miles burned.

But fruitloops want to blame everything on the government, and then defund the very people dealing with the fire situation.

 

[Agit8r]

All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking. Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world? Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without any evidence to back them up. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, who use fiction instead of the scientific method, there surely are.

Are you fucking high? the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want. If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.

Again, you make implausible assertions without evidence to back them up. Just use your brain. What is more likely; a conspiracy within almost the entire scientific community, or that these few fringe scientists who cite no other published work than their own scribblings, are being paid by a few misanthropes who are reaping huge profits at the expense of all future generations.

It is beyond obvious that the latter is the true scenario, because that is where every shred of actual evidence points.

 

[westwall]

Poor old Mr. Westwall, cannot accept the reality of AGW. Calls everyone in the AGU and GSA frauds and whores.

Well, we do have excess heat. California is still in the grip of a record drought. Oregon and Washington are in extreme drought, and we have already had 6 million acres burned, and the fire season looks to go on for at least another three months. And the temperature in Portland, Oregon, is 91 degrees F. And we have long passed the previous record of 90+ days in one summer. The fires in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are being measured in tens of square miles burned, and in the case of the Soda fire, hundreds of square miles burned.

But fruitloops want to blame everything on the government, and then defund the very people dealing with the fire situation.

Show me a reality asshat. The reality is the world is getting colder no matter how desperately your "researchers" go back and falsify the historical temperature record. Based on MANY peer reviewed papers the current drought in California is nothing. The drought in the 1980's was as bad or worse. The droughts that have occurred over the last 1200 years are provably FAR worse than anything happening today. The one difference today is there are 33 million people living in a fucking desert.

THAT is the reality, you dimwitted fool.

 

[flacaltenn]

Went thru PAGES of this crap on Ocean Acidification before.. We went thru MANY papers that folks "felt" were damning indictments of the imminent dangers. And what was found was most of the time -- almost comical..

Because the papers are frought with "we don't knows" and "they didn't study" comments. And any FIELD research admitted that isolating a deep sea squid in a 4 ft tank and studying "it's stress level" is a very iffy proposition.

The AUTHORS of these papers having been funded under Global Warming grants were OBLIGED to make comments to please their sponsors. But the WORK was extremely dissappointing and inconclusive..


Agit8er ---- If you want to review some papers. Check out this 3 year old thread...


Oceans will be drastically different by 2100 Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


EVERY ONE of those papers tossed out were actually ADMISSIONS of what has NOT been studied and what is NOT known -- but has a propaganda wrapper on it for the sponsor so that they would get paid under a Global Warming grant..

 

[Old Rocks]

All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking. Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world? Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without any evidence to back them up. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, who use fiction instead of the scientific method, there surely are.

Are you fucking high? the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want. If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.

I see. So what you are saying is that all the Scientific Societies in the world, in all the differant cultures, differant political systems, are in on a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to fool all the rest of us.

Mr. Westwall, seek mental help.

 

[westwall]

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without any evidence to back them up. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, who use fiction instead of the scientific method, there surely are.

Are you fucking high? the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want. If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.

Again, you make implausible assertions without evidence to back them up. Just use your brain. What is more likely; a conspiracy within almost the entire scientific community, or that these few fringe scientists who cite no other published work than their own scribblings, are being paid by a few misanthropes who are reaping huge profits at the expense of all future generations.

It is beyond obvious that the latter is the true scenario, because that is where every shred of actual evidence points.

No, it is your brain that is not working. We all agree that it is a bad idea to have the fox watch the henhouse. Except for climate science. Somehow they are magically exempt from greed and corruption.

So, mr. agitator, how come the climate science field is the only one that ignores the scientific method by not releasing their raw data and methodology to other scientists so that their work can be checked? Hmmm? That is foundational principle of modern science.

Only religious nutcakes demand that you get the "WORD of GOD" from their high priests.

Well that and climate so called scientists.

 

[westwall]

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....

The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings. As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing. When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without any evidence to back them up. There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, who use fiction instead of the scientific method, there surely are.

Are you fucking high? the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want. If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.

I see. So what you are saying is that all the Scientific Societies in the world, in all the differant cultures, differant political systems, are in on a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to fool all the rest of us.

Mr. Westwall, seek mental help.

Do they get their funding by supporting the fraud. Yes or no? Answer the question little silly person. YES OR NO?

 

[flacaltenn]

So now we have Mr. Westwall claiming that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are corrupt. And pray tell me what organization is the 'Fraud of AGW'?. Mr. Westwall, you are just as kooky as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Wonderful peer group you have there.

Do they generate their funding based on supporting the fraud of AGW. Yes or no?

C'mon olfraud. It's an easy question to answer. Funny how you jump all over the military industrial complex for doing the exact same thing yet are blind as the proverbial fucking bat when it is an industry that you support.

We can try that question another way.. How much funding do you think is out there to study tiny sea snails??

NOW --- how much funding is available if you can plausibly state that tiny sea snails are THREATENED BY GLOBAL WARMING???

C'mon.. It's not that they are dishonest.. They just to eat and avoid being an Uber Driver..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

 

[westwall]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

When the canary in the coal mine has been catastrophically wrong for 30 years, yeah, you ignore the ignorant twat.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Really?

 

[westwall]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Really?

Yeah, really. Care to present the sea ice graphs from before 1979? You know the ones that show the Arctic sea ice at levels comparable to those of today? No? I didn't think so....fucks up your bullshit meme don't they....



Here, I did it for you...Wow...look at all that missing sea ice. Wonder where it all went? Wonder why it came back? Wonder where it's going now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, your graph ends at 1996.

Arctic Sea Ice Volume

ArctischePinguin:

 

[Old Rocks]

SVS Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2014 with Area Graph

Sea ice extent trend for the Northern Hemisphere. From theNational Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Arctic Change Ice - Sea Ice

Good reason not to post what happened past 2006.

 

[jc456]

Read and learn something....


CP - Abstract - Water pH and temperature in Lake Biwa from MBT CBT indices during the last 280 000 years

Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading and deliberately so Principia Scientific Intl

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corals_acidification.pdf

the first doesn't mention ocean water at all.

The second and third are climate denier websites (i.e. NOT AT ALL SCIENTIFIC)

So again we are back to you spouting political faith, that is devoid of any supporting scientific evidence.

That's because it was an EXPERIMENT. It wasn't based on computer models which is all that your precious sources present. So here is a case where scientists actually DID an experiment in the real world and you, the clownboy, prefers science fiction to empirical data.

You're dismissed.

All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking. Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world? Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.

why? Did you answer that or not?

It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.

Like government handing out money like candy to keep the masses at bay fudging temperatures and calling sky is falling

 

[westwall]

SVS Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2014 with Area Graph

Sea ice extent trend for the Northern Hemisphere. From theNational Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Arctic Change Ice - Sea Ice

Good reason not to post what happened past 2006.

Oh? Why is that? Why gee whiz, lookey here, the sea ice is greater today than it was back in bad ol 2007 when it was at its all time record low. Gosh golly mr beaver, I thought there was going to be NO ice at the north pole by 2013. Here it is 2015 and lo and behold there's still ice here....

 

[Crick]

For any natural parameter, when you hit a record, be it high or low, you can always expect to fail to meet that record for a bit.

You've never had statistics, have you.