Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[orogenicman]

Took about 20 milliseconds to find it. Have at it:

Temperature Data

You wanted the raw data. You got it. Now, what I want from you is to take that data and produce something (anything) that refutes the papers based on this data that says the oceans are heating up (particularly at depth). Shit or get off the pot.

How is that paper coming along, westwall?

What was that olfraud? BUSTED!

What it was about is that you demanded the RAW data, and now after someone presented it to you, you are apparently refusing to do anything with it. Like I said, shit or get off the pot.

 

[orogenicman]

I realize you won't read the paper. No sense spending ten minutes getting smarter. But you could have wasted the ten seconds it would have taken to read my post with your brain engaged.

THE ARGO DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING BELOW 700 METERS AFTER 1998 THAN DOES THE NON-ARGO DATA.



Seems to me you ought to read the paper.



You wish.

It does? Show us. And not models, we want raw data.

Seems like these guys (Oro-man and Abraham) believe that this short technical "letter" was a fully illuminated "study".. There is a massive amount of handwaving regarding data prep in that short story we're discussing.

A note here about "bias correction being done with the modern Argo data" --- A note there about the model adding "corrections" to the historical data.. And NO FREAKING idea of how much of the result is data and how much is programming.

MAYBE --- on SOME other PLANET --- scientists are happy to TRUST and be disinterested in details.. But not in the circles I inhabit.. And CERTAINLY not for climate scientists who just discovered that the Oceans store 90% of the energy..

I want to know HOW they covered the planet with the available data.

Want to know how seasonal corrections were made.. How undersampled historical data was used. I want to know HOW MANY SAMPLES below 700 meters were USED to drive the model..

Not interested in the details of the MODEL resolution.. I want to know about HISTORICAL resolution of the data.

Anybody that knows crap about the oceans ---- KNOWS that thermal effects at depth are LOCALIZED artifacts. Miss ONE major thermocline and you're data is crap..

What we DON'T believe in is the credibility of anyone who says "don't show me the models, show me the RAW data", and when presented with the requested data, refuses to do anything at all with it.

 

[Abraham3]

Anybody that knows crap about the oceans ---- KNOWS that thermal effects at depth are LOCALIZED artifacts. Miss ONE major thermocline and you're data is crap..

This line tells me that it is you that doesn't know crap about the oceans.

 

[Abraham3]

Given what I asked above about how much DATA was used used below 700m..

You might want to reference what the SPATIAL distribution of that "warming" might be..

Miss a warm current at 250m, find a warm spot at 800... Does the MODEL do this for you?

You might want to review the caption on your graphic and tell us what GCM stands for, oh Despiser-of-Models

 

[Saigon]

It's a very strange thing that many of our Sceptical posters despise models, but use them frequently should the models back their case in some way.

 

[Abraham3]

Seems like these guys (Oro-man and Abraham) believe that this short technical "letter" was a fully illuminated "study"..

It's been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. Now I know you don't have much to do with that sort of thing, preferring to reference blogs and... well... blogs. But I actually put some value into that sort of thing.

I have found it to be a fairly common practice among AGW-deniers to scream that "the data isn't available", when it fact it is available. As far as the spatial resolution of the data: it is what it is. The datasets they used are extensive but filling in the gaps is accomplished with short term model runs. The model is set up with all the data they've got and then run for ten days. Then it gets reset to the data once again and run for another ten days. I wager the results are more robust than the GCM output you just posted.

 

[SSDD]

We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets. I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.

Actually, you have been told that the greenhouse effect calculations when applied to other planets with atmospheres don't even get close to the observed temperatures. Perhaps you should first learn to read and comprehend what was said before you attempt science.

And I gave you links to start on another thread. Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?

 

[orogenicman]

We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets. I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.

Actually, you have been told that the greenhouse effect calculations when applied to other planets with atmospheres don't even get close to the observed temperatures. Perhaps you should first learn to read and comprehend what was said before you attempt science.

And I gave you links to start on another thread. Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?

I for one am fully prepared to read anything you've got that supports your claim wrt ghg calculations applied to other planets. The ball is in your court. Links?

 

[gslack]

I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect my apolgy now Ian....

 

[IanC]

I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect may apolgy now Ian....

Poor gslack. So little brain power. It must be difficult for him to even get through common daily tasks. I pity his wife.

Why would I apologize for stating that I don't believe pmz was the author of that quote? You are too retarded to understand the meaningof the quote so I will apologize for implying that you are sn idiot. It was unnecessary piling on

 

[PMZ]

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack. He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog. A true troll.

 

[gslack]

I am going to randomly post this until Ian apoloigizes...

Here's the link to the quote Ian just accused me of inaccurately citing to his pal PMZ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656080-post113.html

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

His words bolded, taken verbatim from the sourced post...Incidently, everything in that post, save for a few of the more ignorant lines was stolen from another website, i pointed this out to the plagarizing weasel, and his excuse was he had "" in it.. No link, no source, no atribution, the dude even edited in his own line into the thing... My response to that post where I show this fact with links...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7656213-post115.html

I expect may apolgy now Ian....

Poor gslack. So little brain power. It must be difficult for him to even get through common daily tasks. I pity his wife.

Why would I apologize for stating that I don't believe pmz was the author of that quote? You are too retarded to understand the meaningof the quote so I will apologize for implying that you are sn idiot. It was unnecessary piling on

Douchebag, you claimed the quote wasn't his or at least an inaccurate depiction of his words...

The fact is the quote is verbatim. It's right there in plain sight. The link to verify as well..

You can either apologize or be considered a liar, and a coward... Come tothink of it, that's what we already know about you anyway...

Kiss my ass you cowardly litle punk..

 

[gslack]

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack. He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog. A true troll.

Any answer on what's up with your rep socko?

Was it plagiarizing or socking?

 

[Abraham3]

And I gave you links to start on another thread. Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?

The Nikolov/Zeller comments at the link you provided do NOT indicate that temperatures on other planets cannot be calculated from greenhouse effects. They simply show that they can do it with their ATE.

 

[gslack]

And I gave you links to start on another thread. Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?

The Nikolov/Zeller comments at the link you provided do NOT indicate that temperatures on other planets cannot be calculated from greenhouse effects. They simply show that they can do it with their ATE.

Why don't you man upand explain the rep problem you and PMZ developed at the same time socko?

 

[orogenicman]

We've been told several times now that the Greenhouse Effect cannot be made to work on other planets. I'd like a link to a peer reviewed paper supporting that contention.

Actually, you have been told that the greenhouse effect calculations when applied to other planets with atmospheres don't even get close to the observed temperatures. Perhaps you should first learn to read and comprehend what was said before you attempt science.

And I gave you links to start on another thread. Are you such a whiner that you must wine the same whine on all available threads?

I for one am fully prepared to read anything you've got that supports your claim wrt ghg calculations applied to other planets. The ball is in your court. Links?

Bump. Well? I'm waiting.

 

[orogenicman]

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack. He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog. A true troll.

A better nickname for him would be fleastack.

 

[gslack]

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack. He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog. A true troll.

A better nickname for him would be fleastack.

Nah, I think I should be called Mr. Make the warmers cry... You crybabies lack the abilty, fortitude, and moral/ethical backbone to be anything more than what we see here.. Fakes..You claim you're scientists or engineers or whatever, and cannot even be bothered to make a good show of it. When you get caught being ignorant of your claimed expertise, you goand come back as a new person.. But a new person with the same problems the last one got caught with.. Ignorance...

When any of you, get the ability to post honestly and with some substance, maybe you will do a better job. But until then all we have to do is wait and watch your pride and desire to appear more than what you are overtake you.. You will always overstate, overcompensate, overreach, and overly commit yourself to an absolute that you cannot defend...

Just like you have done...

 

[PMZ]

Both sides in this are burdened by Slacksack. He does neither any good and subtracts from all dialog. A true troll.

A better nickname for him would be fleastack.

Nah, I think I should be called Mr. Make the warmers cry... You crybabies lack the abilty, fortitude, and moral/ethical backbone to be anything more than what we see here.. Fakes..You claim you're scientists or engineers or whatever, and cannot even be bothered to make a good show of it. When you get caught being ignorant of your claimed expertise, you goand come back as a new person.. But a new person with the same problems the last one got caught with.. Ignorance...

When any of you, get the ability to post honestly and with some substance, maybe you will do a better job. But until then all we have to do is wait and watch your pride and desire to appear more than what you are overtake you.. You will always overstate, overcompensate, overreach, and overly commit yourself to an absolute that you cannot defend...

Just like you have done...

Pity poor Slacksack. He's made a fool of himself most every day here. Whenever he tries to spout some science he gets it all wrong and has to backpedal like crazy. So, he's left with only trolling. Making up conspiracies hoping that folks won't notice zero substance.

Who wouldn't notice?

 

[gslack]

A better nickname for him would be fleastack.

Nah, I think I should be called Mr. Make the warmers cry... You crybabies lack the abilty, fortitude, and moral/ethical backbone to be anything more than what we see here.. Fakes..You claim you're scientists or engineers or whatever, and cannot even be bothered to make a good show of it. When you get caught being ignorant of your claimed expertise, you goand come back as a new person.. But a new person with the same problems the last one got caught with.. Ignorance...

When any of you, get the ability to post honestly and with some substance, maybe you will do a better job. But until then all we have to do is wait and watch your pride and desire to appear more than what you are overtake you.. You will always overstate, overcompensate, overreach, and overly commit yourself to an absolute that you cannot defend...

Just like you have done...

Pity poor Slacksack. He's made a fool of himself most every day here. Whenever he tries to spout some science he gets it all wrong and has to backpedal like crazy. So, he's left with only trolling. Making up conspiracies hoping that folks won't notice zero substance.

Who wouldn't notice?

Oh stop crying socko... Just come back as a new poster again.. You do it all the time anyway.. You post as this or that until it gets busted, and then you come back as another person.. Next time come back as a janitor.. Then you can clean up the crap post..