Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[gslack]

So then you can't point to one post out of "several" where YOU told ME specifically you were an engineer... Oh come now low-rep clone, we know better than that.. YOU forgot who YOU were this time, AGAIN... Dude you do it a lot...

Yes, yes you did socko.. we know, you are an expert in whatever you need to be, to win this debate..

ROFL, BTW.... when you said;

" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"

One what socko? A BT data? LOL, where you just stomping your foot and saying "I know you are but what am I"???

You should just call me a doodie-head, and run off, it would have at least looked better than that childish nonsense..

And I am attacking you because you aren't debating honestly. When you got caught bullshitting instead defending it, you tried to claim some position of authority on the matter. A position that you, just like the countless times before, and under various other names, do not have..

You don't learn from your previous mistakes socko.. You pull this everytime you get either too busted, or too lazy to defend a position or claim. You suddenly pull I'm an authority" out of your ass, when you're in a pickle... WHat's worse is you say crap like "I've told you that several times now."when we can all see that under this name you use now, you did nosuch thing with me.. In fact with this name you're using we haven't talked much. I figured why bother, I can talk to one of the other "you"...

How many of you now have the same rep problem? LOL 4? 5? ROFL, it's okay junior, we are really fooled...

I'm going to assume from all this that you wouldn't know a BT if it was up your arse sideways. The contention that Trenberth has drawn conclusions not warranted by his data is a completely unfounded assertion. It's the sort of thing that doesn't make it past peer review.

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Even if I agree to that, the ocean is a huge place and the XBTs are dropped off ships doing other tasks so the spacial coverage is less than optimal. I am having a really hard time believing that our measurements of deep ocean temps is whithin an order of magnitude of 0.01 degrees. How many XBTs have been launched? A few million? A few tens of millions? What kind of coverage does that work out to? One reading per 100 sq miles per month?per year? Less?

LOL, maybe if you grew a spine and quit running away every time you get made a fool of, you would come across less like a douchebag...

You asked me for my position in the other thread and when I gave it, you ran... LOL, dude seriously you are about as cowardly a poster as there is...

He didn't say XBT he said BT and used the term like an idiot as well.. Why aren't you jumping on him for it Ian? Why not get on PMZ for his BS version of the law of conservation of energy?

You're supposed to be mr.science authority on here when someone dares question your god spencer, yet you say nothing to those schmucks again...

Like I said before, luke-warmer my ass... You're a warmer playing devils advocate...

 

[orogenicman]

And you are - right. Nobody.

 

[Abraham3]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Almost. I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years. XBT probes are analog devices. They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want. The question is their accuracy.

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT. Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin. Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21. The probes come in several different flavors. They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers. They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently. CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much. Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work. I will get back to this this afternoon. However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information. The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be. Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years. That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around. Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.

Back this evening.

 

[Saigon]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

.

It does. Click on his user name, then public profile, then user lists. There are options for friends and for ignore. I also have glsack on ignore, and hopefully other users will do the same.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?

Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?

A moron would be a person who thinks that when food is plentiful -- animals get fatter instead of expanding their population.. Less die from lack of food. But the freedom to get fat and lazy isn't a part of Darwinian survival.. Is it?

Wow. You're apparently an expert on animal nutrition, as well. So please explain why animals are getting fatter. You're really good at casually dismissing the theories and experiments of others without having to so much as look at them, but have zero explanations of your own. That's interesting.


I find it also odd that you are the rare human that has never continued eating past satiation, or never eaten simply for the enjoyment of tasting the food you're eating. Do you not have taste buds? If you had ever experienced these things, you would know first hand that evolution wires animals to over-consume food. This is because - in nature - there is actually some benefit to getting a little fat. When the food supply turns around and becomes scarce, the fatter animal can wait longer for the food supply to return.

 

[gslack]

Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?

A moron would be a person who thinks that when food is plentiful -- animals get fatter instead of expanding their population.. Less die from lack of food. But the freedom to get fat and lazy isn't a part of Darwinian survival.. Is it?

Wow. You're apparently an expert on animal nutrition, as well. So please explain why animals are getting fatter. You're really good at casually dismissing the theories and experiments of others without having to so much as look at them, but have zero explanations of your own. That's interesting.


I find it also odd that you are the rare human that has never continued eating past satiation, or never eaten simply for the enjoyment of tasting the food you're eating. Do you not have taste buds? If you had ever experienced these things, you would know first hand that evolution wires animals to over-consume food. This is because - in nature - there is actually some benefit to getting a little fat. When the food supply turns around and becomes scarce, the fatter animal can wait longer for the food supply to return.

ROFL,not very good with metaphors I see...

 

[gslack]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Almost. I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years. XBT probes are analog devices. They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want. The question is their accuracy.

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT. Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin. Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21. The probes come in several different flavors. They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers. They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently. CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much. Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work. I will get back to this this afternoon. However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information. The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be. Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years. That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around. Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.

Back this evening.

Please,by all means ignore me socko.. LOL

BTW, I hate to interupt your re-written wikki on bathythermographs, but when Ian asked about the accuracy you claimed previously, I am pretty sure he assumed that the hundreths you claimed were the tolerances. You know as in + or - a hundreth or two.. If you say it can measure down to whatever you want, but the accuracy is the issue, than you obviously are talking about the units measure and not the accuracy. Which makes your previous claim moot...

Seems silly to claim you can measure temps down to hundreths of a degree if you can't be certain the measurement is within a hundreth of a degree of accuracy. It's kind of like balancing your checkbook by rounding everything up to the nearest dollar.

Please continue on your babble...

 

[gslack]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

.

It does. Click on his user name, then public profile, then user lists. There are options for friends and for ignore. I also have glsack on ignore, and hopefully other users will do the same.

You been claiming to ignore me for months now... Please, please, please, stop being a punk and doit already..

 

[RollingThunder]

I posted this on another thread but it would be very relevant here too at this point.

Just a note for anyone who might be new to this forum: the slackjawedidiot is a troll who will never post anything actually relevant to the topic at hand. As a troll, his mission is to derail informative threads with pointless quibbles and off topic nonsense. Engaging him in debate is futile since he isn't here to debate facts but only to disrupt actual debate. Either ignore him and his clueless drivel or mock him for his idiocy. Attempting to respond normally to his demented posts and expecting a rational response is a huge waste of time.

Just so you know...

 

[PMZ]

My experience also.

 

[mamooth]

We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's,

As is common, the actual science says that Westwall's references are completely incorrect. Sure, someone said those things, but they were totally wrong. Sea ice extent was far greater then than it is today. We know this because the Danish kept detailed sea ice maps starting in 1922.

It's a mark of pseudoscience, of course, when someone ignores good data in favor of cherrypicking various random comments. The cult has decreed sea ice was lower in the 1920s, so the cultists are required to only present data to support that mantra.

 

[PMZ]

You don't understand the deniers dilemma. There is no data, there are no theories, that support what they want to be true. It's a tough existence that they have. It's like science is against them.

 

[Abraham3]

This is a link in to an e-book on oceanographic instrumentation. It contains a good discussions on XBT accuracy. See section 1.3.3 about page 14-16 as I recall.

Data Analysis Methods in Physical Oceanography - Google Books

 

[Abraham3]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Almost. I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years. XBT probes are analog devices. They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want. The question is their accuracy.

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT. Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin. Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21. The probes come in several different flavors. They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers. They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently. CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much. Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work. I will get back to this this afternoon. However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information. The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be. Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years. That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around. Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.

Back this evening.

Thanks for the advice, I have put GSlack on my ignore list.

The work I linked to above indicates that the accuracy of the Sippican T-5 probe is +/-0.06C. I am quite certain that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's work can be trusted in that regard.

Keep in mind IanC, that in order for the temperature rise they found to be false in the manner you suggest would require a major bias problem, not one of accuracy. I'm not saying a bias is impossible, but one that happens to produce a consistent pattern across the world's ocean basins is extraordinarily unlikely.

The evidence suggests that changes brought about by global warming have altered the Earth's heat transport mechanisms. Significant amounts of heat that used to remain in the atmosphere are now getting sucked into the deep ocean. Whether the climate changes doing that will remain in place, change further or return to their original state is - as far as I've heard - unknown. But what we do know is that the Earth is still receiving more energy than it radiates away. We are not at thermal equilibrium. Temperatures will continue to rise.

 

[gslack]

I posted this on another thread but it would be very relevant here too at this point.

Just a note for anyone who might be new to this forum: the slackjawedidiot is a troll who will never post anything actually relevant to the topic at hand. As a troll, his mission is to derail informative threads with pointless quibbles and off topic nonsense. Engaging him in debate is futile since he isn't here to debate facts but only to disrupt actual debate. Either ignore him and his clueless drivel or mock him for his idiocy. Attempting to respond normally to his demented posts and expecting a rational response is a huge waste of time.

Just so you know...

LOL, looks like I need to make you cry and run off again.. Seems you forgot your last breakdown..

Stalking me isn't a good idea trolling blunder, you know I don't think of you that way...

Yes,yes, I see all your text but all I make of it is "Gslack made me cry!!!!!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Almost. I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years. XBT probes are analog devices. They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want. The question is their accuracy.

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT. Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin. Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21. The probes come in several different flavors. They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers. They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently. CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much. Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work. I will get back to this this afternoon. However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information. The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be. Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years. That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around. Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.

Back this evening.

Thanks for the advice, I have put GSlack on my ignore list.

The work I linked to above indicates that the accuracy of the Sippican T-5 probe is +/-0.06C. I am quite certain that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's work can be trusted in that regard.

Keep in mind IanC, that in order for the temperature rise they found to be false in the manner you suggest would require a major bias problem, not one of accuracy. I'm not saying a bias is impossible, but one that happens to produce a consistent pattern across the world's ocean basins is extraordinarily unlikely.

The evidence suggests that changes brought about by global warming have altered the Earth's heat transport mechanisms. Significant amounts of heat that used to remain in the atmosphere are now getting sucked into the deep ocean. Whether the climate changes doing that will remain in place, change further or return to their original state is - as far as I've heard - unknown. But what we do know is that the Earth is still receiving more energy than it radiates away. We are not at thermal equilibrium. Temperatures will continue to rise.

Atmospheric heat sucked into the deep oceans...the person sitting next to me on the train is wondering what made me laugh out loud

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[RollingThunder]

Atmospheric heat sucked into the deep oceans...the person sitting next to me on the train is wondering what made me laugh out loud.

Retards like you, CrazyFruitcake, often laugh at the things that are beyond your very limited comprehension. Room temperature IQ people like you are almost always very suspicious of all of that science that you can't understand. It's part of being so severely retarded, so your attitude is not at all surprising. In fact, we've all come to expect this kind of idioticly ignorant and very pointless response from you.

 

[westwall]

We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's,

As is common, the actual science says that Westwall's references are completely incorrect. Sure, someone said those things, but they were totally wrong. Sea ice extent was far greater then than it is today. We know this because the Danish kept detailed sea ice maps starting in 1922.

It's a mark of pseudoscience, of course, when someone ignores good data in favor of cherrypicking various random comments. The cult has decreed sea ice was lower in the 1920s, so the cultists are required to only present data to support that mantra.

Yeah, cute graphic. The maps show maximum extent and you show it at minimum. Here's what it was at a similar time there propaganda boy....

 

[westwall]

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Does this board's software have an ignore button?

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Almost. I've been dropping BTs and analyzing the data (making raytrace plots, find the layer, sonar-type crap) for over 30 years. XBT probes are analog devices. They'll give you readings to a millionth of a degree if you want. The question is their accuracy.

The dominant device since the invention of the gadget is the Sippican XBT. Sippican is now owned by Lockheed Martin. Their are a few companies making competing systems and probes but they are all compatible copies of the Sippican designs. Sippican's latest kit is the Mk 21. The probes come in several different flavors. They have a range of units that measure temperature, but they also have probes that directly measure sound velocity, CTD probes (conductivity, temperature, depth) and current profilers. They make launching rigs for ships, submarines and aircraft and modified probes to go with each due to the different launch vessel dynamics.

The temperature probes get launched the most frequently. CTDs are favored by oceanographic researchers but they cost two to three times as much. Temperature probes come in several different varieties for different depth ranges and precision.

I'm afraid I have to go to work. I will get back to this this afternoon. However, if you do a search on calibration and Sippican XBTs you will find a wealth of information. The parameter most commonly bandied about is the fall rate of the things but obviously temperature is tweaked as need be. Check out the literature.

And, yes, millions of XBTs have been dropped over the years. That may not be much, but temperature profiles do not change rapidly as one moves around. Near local fresh water outfalls and tidal courses, their can be dramatic local changes, but in the deep ocean, a single good BT drop will give you valid data for several square miles.

Back this evening.

Thanks for the advice, I have put GSlack on my ignore list.

The work I linked to above indicates that the accuracy of the Sippican T-5 probe is +/-0.06C. I am quite certain that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's work can be trusted in that regard.

Keep in mind IanC, that in order for the temperature rise they found to be false in the manner you suggest would require a major bias problem, not one of accuracy. I'm not saying a bias is impossible, but one that happens to produce a consistent pattern across the world's ocean basins is extraordinarily unlikely.

The evidence suggests that changes brought about by global warming have altered the Earth's heat transport mechanisms. Significant amounts of heat that used to remain in the atmosphere are now getting sucked into the deep ocean. Whether the climate changes doing that will remain in place, change further or return to their original state is - as far as I've heard - unknown. But what we do know is that the Earth is still receiving more energy than it radiates away. We are not at thermal equilibrium. Temperatures will continue to rise.

Funny how you can't seem to SHOW any change in the heat transfer system. You guys wave your hands and mumble under your breath in a conman sort of way, but when pressed for an ACTUAL MEASURABLE EXAMPLE......why...you run and hide and call people names.

 

[RollingThunder]

We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's,

As is common, the actual science says that Westwall's references are completely incorrect. Sure, someone said those things, but they were totally wrong. Sea ice extent was far greater then than it is today. We know this because the Danish kept detailed sea ice maps starting in 1922.

It's a mark of pseudoscience, of course, when someone ignores good data in favor of cherrypicking various random comments. The cult has decreed sea ice was lower in the 1920s, so the cultists are required to only present data to support that mantra.

Yeah, cute graphic. The maps show maximum extent and you show it at minimum. Here's what it was at a similar time there propaganda boy....

And there's the walleyedretard once again demonstrating just how retarded and/or senile he really is. Anyone sane and rational who looks at the old ice extent maps from the 1920s and 30s that mammoth posted can clearly see that they are all dated "August", which was about the time of year of minimum ice extent in those decades. But ol' Walleyed manages to make the moronic claim that: "the maps show maximum extent", an event that happens in March, and then he follows up with an unidentified and unattributed graphic of maximum ice extent in some year or other. LOLOL. Denier cult dingbats are soooo funny.