What hiatus?

[Abraham3]

And he's definitely not an expert.

 

[flacaltenn]

The divergence is there and you obviously see it. It means that heat is accumulating in the deeper water more rapidly than in the shallower water. Simple enough. Just like Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen concluded. Amazing the way that works, eh.

And it's your graph. If there's something else about it you'd like to point out to us, feel free. But I'm not your puppet. If you try to treat me like one again, I'm going to grow offensive.

I'm sad at your rejection of collaboration.. Soooooooooooooooooooooo
Let's just do it YOUR way.. You don't have a FUCKING IDEA what you're looking at..

We both know what we're looking at. You just don't want to admit it.

Absolute BULLSHIT... I'm trying to avoid MAKING a response because even if I DID -- you have ZERO CHANCE of understanding what I'm gonna tell you.. And I SINCERELY wanted to work with you so that you came away APPRECIATING the time I was willing to put into responding to you. You're not INTERESTED in math and science. OTHERWISE you would have taken my offer to discuss.

So NOW -- I'm gonna make some assertions that are TRUE and BASIC to understanding that graph..

1) Your assertion that the divergence in those 2 curves is particularly interesting or important is wrong..

2) The divergence is EXPECTED because of the relationship of the two variables plotted.

3) There is only ONE CONDITION where there would be NO DIVERGENCE between the functions. And that SPECIAL CASE is not supportable by reason or observation..

These statements are based on the following knowledge of what is in that data.

1) The data does NOT represent the CUMULATIVE TOTAL heat in those layers. It has been baseline NORMALIZED to remove the bulk measurement of the heat. They are derived "anomalies",.. That's why ZERO is part of the domain of the dependent variables.

2) The amount of heat in the 2 layers ARE NOT INDEPENDENT. ALL heat in the 0-700 layer is ALSO IN the 0 - 2000 layer..

3) So the dHeat/dTime slopes of those curves are the ONLY pertinent information. And the the dHeat/dTime slope of the 0-2000 layer must have the upper layer REMOVED to see the change in just the 700 - 2000 layer..

4) The only condition under which the curves would NOT diverge is if there were NO ENERGY AT ALL going into the 700-2000 layer. That is not a plausible condition.

5) In order for the ADDED heat in the 700-2000 layer to be SIGNIFICANT --- it's linear fit slope would have to be more than TWICE what the 0-700 m layer slope is.

6) The relative VOLUME of the 0-2000 layer is more than TWICE (and closer to 3 X what the 0 - 700 layer is and therefore THAT ALSO plays into statements about how much heat would be significant..

I'm working waaaaaaay too hard here.. So I'm done with you unless you want to understand further why you shouldn't be making these assholic simplications about data you don't understand.

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't even care to defend against your allegation.

Of course not. He, and the rest of us, have pegged you and any attempt to defend would only accentuate the very qualities that got you nailed in the first place.

I've observed you and have seen how you view the world. To you, there are two people: Those who agree with you and those whom you hate.

It doesn't take a smart person to notice your high tolerance or chemical dependency on bitterness and hatred. You make no attempt to hide it in literally each post. And that's you're right as an American: to hate.

So having noticed your unlimited hostility, I decided that the normal approach of challenging you only leads to you saying more hateful speech. So instead I tried a different approach: to acknowledge your beliefs as "interesting" and point out the certainty with which you believe yourself. Hence I called you a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is defined simply as "indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs." (wikipedia) It's clear you have an unwavering attachment to your beliefs. Fundamentalists are highly sensitive to challenges and are deeply loyal to their supporters.

Since it is utterly pointless to challenge someone with unwavering beliefs, what does it make sense to do? It can only make sense to not challenge you anymore. So I did just that by retracting my challenges in a fairly respectful manner. What was your response?

Like westwall, you couldn't even interpret this as real. In fact, your addiction to bitterness had no choice but to make wild allegations. Why? It has nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with who you are as a person: full of rage and hate. The only explanation I can see is that your existence completely depends on opposition in order to feel valid. So when I acknowledged your views as interesting and left it at that you had to invent insane motives. So you spent three separate replies making your hate speech known.

Congratulations on showing how worthless it is to not just challenge your highly sensitive views but to even respectfully reply to you. As any observer can see, you are the anti-thesis of logic and rational discourse; you are overflowing with venom towards anyone who you perceive as a threat to your highly sensitive views.

I think nothing of your replies but can't help notice how an insecure person tends to be defensive, and it's no secret you are excessively defensive.

 

[gnarlylove]

Absolute BULLSHIT... I'm trying to avoid MAKING a response because even if I DID -- you have ZERO CHANCE of understanding what I'm gonna tell you.. You're not INTERESTED in math and science. OTHERWISE you would have taken my offer to discuss.

Typical Philosophy from Big Tenn. His opponents always happen to be uneducated, disinterested in science, and have refused to agree with what he has pre-determined to be "science" and "truth."

WAKE UP FLC! You never had monopoly on human understanding and to think you have an inch of space in your brain devoted to true beliefs is highly suspect.

From the obvious posts Abraham has made in the last year it is truly clear he has no interest in science. DUH! Otherwise he would agree with FLC! But if your keen, one might wonder about this strange 100% correlation between what FLC believes and what FLC calls independent "science."

So what is FLC definition of science? Oh that's right. It isn't science as broadly defined by the international community of scientists (which entirely contradicts his views) but is defined narrowly as the science which shows AGW to be just shy of 100% certainty.

Well, science can never reach 100% certainty by its nature. Induction does not imply 100%, never has, never will. But that aside, FLC must have taken some bad LSD because he keeps calling science as if it were his own when in reality virtually all science and scientists oppose his views.

Thus we can expect people like FLC to claim to own science or claim that science is on their side while his opponents engage in non-science. Typical tactic of someone who is stuck in his views because he is stubborn. Stuck by his own will between a rock and a hard place. Holding onto a religious notion (not scientific) that it is impossible for humanity to impact the biosphere.

I know you always want to jump into the nitty gritty of details. There is no harm in that, but when you consistently refer to your opponents as inferior names and "sport" why would any educated person waste their time on someone so bull headed as you? That's just using the same logic you used: "don't wanna waste my time"... the street goes both ways master of the universe (aka FLC, aka ego-maniac) and everyone knows current science is heavily in favor of climate disruption caused by humans, period. If you deny that, which you clearly did ("science supports me" and Abe doesn't engage in "science") then there is literally no use in talking to you because you hoard words and make discussion about a sophisticated version of name calling "I have true science" while my opponents engage in "nonscience." WTF? I thought you were the harbinger of fair and reasonable discussion? Looks like your just another fraud who is stuck in unwavering fundamentalist belief.

I'm not saying AGW is true, I'm merely noting how impoverished your methods of justification are. Whether AGW is false or not doesn't mean anything to what I'm saying. Your tactics are just lazy garbage when you claim to exclusively engage in "science"; anyone who has read scientific peer reviewed publishing knows your fundamentalism is extremely marginal.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no "sense of fairness" in math and science.. No "outcome based education". No "equality of assertions".. Not even a guarantee that folks are equally prepared to make assertions or discuss science and math.. So cut the Big Ten Philosophy psych operation and go find some threads where YOU CAN follow and contribute..

 

[Rambunctious]

climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection

 

[gnarlylove]

Can't take keen observation of your factual methodology? Claiming science as yours? Go cry elsewhere cry baby (demonstrating your methodology, I don't actually mean it otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in rational fact based discussion now would I?).

That is a total misrepresentation of what I was saying, which has been your method since I've come here: misconstrue reality and others to fit your views and enable you to erect criticisms that have nothing to do with the claims made.

I said you were supposedly the harbinger of reasonable discussion, meaning you bring only the facts to bear and leaving aside the rest. Fair just means what is right, not some pathetic view that Fox has, like "Fair and Balanced" programs/interviews where you always have two opposing sides even when one is completely ridiculous and false.

Perhaps AGW will be found by science in a decade that it is actually restoring and maintaining the natural balance in nature and that we should continue to burn fossil fuels until they run dry because it helps the environment. But to think that the current science that is published weekly and monthly and annually supports your views let alone allows you to claim science as exclusively yours demonstrates your total detachment from reality. I mean was your reply to Abraham a joke or do you really believe science is in full support that humanity cannot effect the globe? Were you drunk when you wrote that and overstepped your supposed "fact based method" or do you really believe science is yours? How detached from reality must I become to believe the incredibly stupid shit you say?

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't take keen observation of your factual methodology? Claiming science as yours? Go cry elsewhere cry baby (demonstrating your methodology, I don't actually mean it otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in rational fact based discussion now would I?).

That is a total misrepresentation of what I was saying, which has been your method since I've come here: misconstrue reality and others to fit your views and enable you to erect criticisms that have nothing to do with the claims made.

I said you were supposedly the harbinger of reasonable discussion, meaning you bring only the facts to bear and leaving aside the rest. Fair just means what is right, not some pathetic view that Fox has, like "Fair and Balanced" programs/interviews where you always have two opposing sides even when one is completely ridiculous and false.

Perhaps AGW will be found by science in a decade that it is actually restoring and maintaining the natural balance in nature and that we should continue to burn fossil fuels until they run dry because it helps the environment. But to think that the current science that is published weekly and monthly and annually supports your views let alone allows you to claim science as exclusively yours demonstrates your total detachment from reality. I mean was your reply to Abraham a joke or do you really believe science is in full support that humanity cannot effect the globe? Were you drunk when you wrote that and overstepped your supposed "fact based method" or do you really believe science is yours? How detached from reality must I become to believe the incredibly stupid shit you say?

Don't understand most of that -- and I really don't care to.. I'll make you the same offer I made to Abraham.. If you want to discuss how the "oceans ate the warming" explains or do not explain the "hiatus" (topic of THIS thread) and what information we can glean from graphs --- I will WORK WITH YOU to derive an understanding of those simple graphs..

And this personal amateur psychology and cheerleading doesn't even belong here..

 

[gnarlylove]

There is no "sense of fairness" in math and science.. No "outcome based education". No "equality of assertions".. Not even a guarantee that folks are equally prepared to make assertions or discuss science and math.. So cut the Big Ten Philosophy psych operation and go find some threads where YOU CAN follow and contribute..

There are two FLCs as it were. One says "science is no respector of persons and engages in slicing through the BS." This is what science does, yes. I am in full support with this claim.

Then there's the other FLC who calls his opponents names with inferior connotations and accuses those who disagree with his fringe beliefs as engaging in non-science.

Well, which is it? You can't claim that science is no respector of persons than claim it as your own. Reality doesn't work that way.

So either continue calling opponents adolescents and juveniles while determining the parameters of "science" according to FLC or take published peer review science at its word. So I can't see where you're getting your "science is mine" idea when you also claim science is no one's and cuts through the BS.

 

[jc456]

Can't take keen observation of your factual methodology? Claiming science as yours? Go cry elsewhere cry baby (demonstrating your methodology, I don't actually mean it otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in rational fact based discussion now would I?).

That is a total misrepresentation of what I was saying, which has been your method since I've come here: misconstrue reality and others to fit your views and enable you to erect criticisms that have nothing to do with the claims made.

I said you were supposedly the harbinger of reasonable discussion, meaning you bring only the facts to bear and leaving aside the rest. Fair just means what is right, not some pathetic view that Fox has, like "Fair and Balanced" programs/interviews where you always have two opposing sides even when one is completely ridiculous and false.

Perhaps AGW will be found by science in a decade that it is actually restoring and maintaining the natural balance in nature and that we should continue to burn fossil fuels until they run dry because it helps the environment. But to think that the current science that is published weekly and monthly and annually supports your views let alone allows you to claim science as exclusively yours demonstrates your total detachment from reality. I mean was your reply to Abraham a joke or do you really believe science is in full support that humanity cannot effect the globe? Were you drunk when you wrote that and overstepped your supposed "fact based method" or do you really believe science is yours? How detached from reality must I become to believe the incredibly stupid shit you say?

Misconstrue reality? Nice phrase. Sort of fits the alarmists beliefs.

Then you write to be fair means you must be right. Huh? To be fair, all that has to happen is to point out the lack of facts. Point to what is errored. Fair is being reasonable about a debate.

To thumb your nose at every logical rebuttle data is less than fair it is unreasonable. And if unreasonable is your goal, you reached it.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD I want to be clear I do not intend to attack you or your character. I have tried to engage you on a level which we cannot engage. Forgive my hubris, your ideas are interesting and I'm sure you recognize how true they are. Me calling you fundamentalist is nothing more than saying I know you believe your views to be wholly the truth and nothing but the truth. I'm glad you've found perfection on Earth; I too hope to unite with such perfection...maybe I'll meet you there.

You are so full of shit that your eyes must be brown. As to me being a fundamentalist, or even suspecting me of being a fundamentalist....once again, your shallow cookie cutter phislosphizing fails miserably.



My views are based on actual observation...not what I have been told to see. For example, from day one, I have said that bio fuels were a bad idea....now years later after much starvation and increase of food prices, not to mention the damage to the environment...the UN comes out and acknowledges that bio fuels, are indeed a bad idea.



And I doubt that you will ever meet with me intellectually, anywhere. You lack critical thinking skills. You are a knee jerk emotionalist driven not by what you see, but by what you feel.

True. You don't need to be an expert to realize that turning food into fuel is going to have bad repercussions.

Lefties leave a wake of good intentions gone bad everywhere they go. Somehow they manage to overlook the death, misery, and poverty they cause and tell themselves they are doing the right thing.

 

[gnarlylove]

I am the biggest proponent of death misery and poverty. My lifestyle choices involve killing, inflicting pain and robbing.

Wait, what the hell is SSDD talking about? He sure as hell doesn't know what I do with my life.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can we close this thread now??? Or does anyone want to continue the topic?

 

[gnarlylove]

Can we close this thread now??? Or does anyone want to continue the topic?

Is this common? Do you go around asking each thread when it's over? Why do you seem so eager to shut this down?

You havent answered why you think science is something only "your side" engages in while us adolescent novices and AGW folks don't. But you have the silliness to announce or call for the end of this thread like a captain of USMB. Like I said, is this common? Why would you not reply to valid criticism and instead shut it down? Weird.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can we close this thread now??? Or does anyone want to continue the topic?

Is this common? Do you go around asking each thread when it's over? Why do you seem so eager to shut this down?

You havent answered why you think science is something only "your side" engages in while us adolescent novices and AGW folks don't. But you have the silliness to announce or call for the end of this thread like a captain of USMB. Like I said, is this common? Why would you not reply to valid criticism and instead shut it down? Weird.

The topic was abandoned a while ago and is on life support.. There is no valid criticism here -- just personal bickering. Why don't you tell us what the topic is? Do you think the divergence showing in those two set of data is meaningful in terms of the "lost surface heat"? Did I screw up in my analysis for Abraham? I'm bitter because I work hard to STAY on topic, but when that happens, the AGW consensus crowd disappears in a cloud of dust.. I'm bitter because I was baited into answering a person who CAN'T or WON'T continue the discussion that this thread was MEANT for.

As for your observations about USMB and moderation.. Self-moderation is a good thing and it's encouraged. And the sure signs of a thread about to fall out of "self-moderation" mode is a loss of topic and a lot of bickering.. There are places on this wonderful board where we could go and psycho-analyze the shit out of each other.. And roast each other with whatever means necessary. I don't dwell there. THIS is where I choose to spend time.

You shouldn't analyze the question --- "Does anyone wants to continue the topic ??" anymore than you should be analyzing my posting style or impugning my integrity or contributions to the thread..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd like to read some studies on rather we're in a pause or not.

I find it a interesting question.

 

[SSDD]

I am the biggest proponent of death misery and poverty. My lifestyle choices involve killing, inflicting pain and robbing.

Wait, what the hell is SSDD talking about? He sure as hell doesn't know what I do with my life.

Do you have any idea how much suffering misery and death can be laid at the feet ov environmentalists "good intentions". If you support the green agenda and feel good about if then you prove my point. It would seem that you don't know what you do with your time because you are so f'ing shallow.

 

[skookerasbil]

climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection

100 % correct......and so many bozo's think its about the environment for the EPA.

The Obama EPA is as corrupt as hell.......a tool for destruction of the capitalistic system. The Obama EPA is in the midst of putting 2 1/2 million coal workers out of work with BS levels of regulations. The Bush administration wasn't much better.

 

[Abraham3]

Can we close this thread now??? Or does anyone want to continue the topic?

Is this common? Do you go around asking each thread when it's over? Why do you seem so eager to shut this down?

You havent answered why you think science is something only "your side" engages in while us adolescent novices and AGW folks don't. But you have the silliness to announce or call for the end of this thread like a captain of USMB. Like I said, is this common? Why would you not reply to valid criticism and instead shut it down? Weird.

I concur. I find it particularly troubling coming from a moderator.

 

[westwall]

Can we close this thread now??? Or does anyone want to continue the topic?

Is this common? Do you go around asking each thread when it's over? Why do you seem so eager to shut this down?

You havent answered why you think science is something only "your side" engages in while us adolescent novices and AGW folks don't. But you have the silliness to announce or call for the end of this thread like a captain of USMB. Like I said, is this common? Why would you not reply to valid criticism and instead shut it down? Weird.

I concur. I find it particularly troubling coming from a moderator.

Why? It was a thoughtful post. You and yours are merely engaging in your circle jerk and refusing to address when your claims are summarily demolished. You're not trying to engage in debate, you're just yelling.