Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[freedombecki]

And you have no problem with what WAS in those emails? Of course you don't.
Just keep drinking the orange Kool-Aid, dude.

Still zero evidence to support what you wish was true. None.

Look it up on this message board, there are several threads on this very subject. But like a true leftwing nut, you would like someone do it for you.

The board nanny sez I have to spread reputation around before giving some to Meister again.

Good post, Meister.

 

[westwall]

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

Define ENTROPY and how it relates to energy.....

Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It relates directly to your post above. So. Do it.

 

[freedombecki]

What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks???

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.

You miss the point. The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts. But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts. Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?

I find it amusing that you laud Gleick for his felonious attack on the Heartland Institute because you despise them but want to torture the person who released the CLIMATEGATE emails which were demonstrating clear evidence of data falsification and fraud.

And for the record it is almost certain that it was an inside IT person who released the emails.

Ever so true. Funny how that works, isn't it.

 

[freedombecki]

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com"
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO maximum low of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2] and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any "trend" other than CO2.
In the process you never even noticed how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is lower than the average as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time to what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
Really? How would you know ?
In the same thread you and the other resident idiots kept claiming that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour

Good case, Polarbear.

 

[freedombecki]

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

DUDE ... I'm ignoring your side-step because that skepticalscience needs to be stopped...

Your theory about "scaling" is an argument -- but weak.. I could show a couple 11 year cycles on that scale if I wanted to.. The answer is --- they wanted an opportunity to MANIPULATE AND FUDGE the data so as you can see in their "plot" -- they chose to run an 11 yr AVERAGE over the data to REMOVE those cycles. And in doing so -- they also introduced changes in the RATE of decline and exaggerated the "limp dick" at the end.

You could take that PMOD data and run a linear fit thru it (with an 11 yr filter if you wanted) and there would be VIRTUALLY NO 1st or 2nd derivatives of slope in that plot. Meaning that the fitted line WOULD BE DAMN NEAR LINEAR...

But what we get in their manipulation is a plot showing very high ACCELERATIONS and higher derivatives that NEVER EXISTED in the pmod data.

I can almost tell you what they did.. If you zero fill the PMOD data to the right side and run the 11 yr filter over it --- the "droop" at the end would be the expected artifact. I've done this BY ACCIDENT many times. THIS ----- was done on purpose. ((because of the length of the filter, if you don't fill the ends with SOMETHING --- you lose years off the output at both ends))

Compare the 2 in the same post. Incompetence or devious mischief? I don't care....

Asolutely!!!

 

[PMZ]

It's funny that included in Freedom Becky's disguise is an American flag icon, and "freedom" in her name.

She wants to be free but at the expense of everyone else. Free to impose her ignorance and dysfunctional politics on the rest of the country. Free to change our Constitution to what benefits her.

You can see her heroes among those tea party nutballs trying their best to shutdown Congress and bring America to our knees.

We have freedom inherent in our democracy. She offers tyranny instead.

Let's show her the freedom of democracy and vote the tea party completely out of responsibility and public office.

That's real freedom.

 

[orogenicman]

Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal turkey basters society. It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer. She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees. Talk about blind faith!

 

[polarbear]

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

There is no fundamental error in Curry`s approach as there is in any method that fudges and "averages" all the other factors except CO2 into oblivion.
Before we go any further let`s take a look at the level of stupidity that Curry is trying to address having to use "stadium waves".

You said:

Weather pulses are just energy dissipators.

to which PMZ replied:

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

How can anyone even hope to get the point across with stadium wave analogies to dummies like PMZ who claims that energy is not dissipated.

Quoting you as far as Curry et al are concerned,

Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

It would be by far easier to describe the "periodic event" sequence for prime numbers.
We have been at that a lot longer than "climate science" and still have no way to establish a valid equation that can predict how far away or how close the next prime number is from the one at hand.

That prime number puzzle can and will be solved eventually because there is no bias or any amount of fudging involved to arrive at the solution.

We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments.
They don`t refer to themselves as "inter governmental" because its just a nice sound byte ! They figure that`s their mandate and lobbied governments around the world to usurp that mandate...and are still at it.

A valid climate computer model is the last thing they want, because it would annihilate that entire "climate scientist" cluster-fuck.

Do we even need a valid computer model any more, in order to prove how wrong this CO2 vs. temp hypothesis is, (?) now that we know for 15 years and running that none of the CO2 based models came even close...

It`s high time to quit pouring all that funding into an "inter governmental" propaganda operation. As long as they exist the likes of Curry will be muted, defamed or whatever it takes keep the CO2 myth going.

The good news is that fewer and fewer nations respond to the IPCC`s lobbying efforts. Many of these nations don`t even respond any more or send only low-level bureaucrats which have no decision making authority as their delegates

 

[PMZ]

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

There is no fundamental error in Curry`s approach as there is in any method that fudges and "averages" all the other factors except CO2 into oblivion.
Before we go any further let`s take a look at the level of stupidity that Curry is trying to address having to use "stadium waves".

You said:

Weather pulses are just energy dissipators.

to which PMZ replied:

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

How can anyone even hope to get the point across with stadium wave analogies to dummies like PMZ who claims that energy is not dissipated.

Quoting you as far as Curry et al are concerned,

Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

It would be by far easier to describe the "periodic event" sequence for prime numbers.
We have been at that a lot longer than "climate science" and still have no way to establish a valid equation that can predict how far away or how close the next prime number is from the one at hand.

That prime number puzzle can and will be solved eventually because there is no bias or any amount of fudging involved to arrive at the solution.

We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments.
They don`t refer to themselves as "inter governmental" because its just a nice sound byte ! They figure that`s their mandate and lobbied governments around the world to usurp that mandate...and are still at it.

A valid climate computer model is the last thing they want, because it would annihilate that entire "climate scientist" cluster-fuck.

Do we even need a valid computer model any more, in order to prove how wrong this CO2 vs. temp hypothesis is, (?) now that we know for 15 years and running that none of the CO2 based models came even close...

It`s high time to quit pouring all that funding into an "inter governmental" propaganda operation. As long as they exist the likes of Curry will be muted, defamed or whatever it takes keep the CO2 myth going.

The good news is that fewer and fewer nations respond to the IPCC`s lobbying efforts. Many of these nations don`t even respond any more or send only low-level bureaucrats which have no decision making authority as their delegates

"We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments."

How come that you can't see this for what it obviously is? Pure non-objective unsupportable bias.

 

[PMZ]

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.

Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?

 

[westwall]

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.

Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?

And they are being shown to NOT be a driver of anything. THE dominant GHG on this planet is H2O vapor. CO2 is a trivial bit player that doesn't even get in the credits at the end of the movie. And, mr. luddite, you study that which you don't know so that eventually you can use that knowledge for something useful. We've discovered through the last three decades that AGW theory is wrong. Man has no global effect on anything. However, with the study of Urban Heat Island Effect we know that man does indeed warm small areas of the planet. However we have also been able to discover that once you get to around 15 miles away from a major urban center the temperatures drop back to normal.

That was a good thing to discover.

 

[PMZ]

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.

Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?

And they are being shown to NOT be a driver of anything. THE dominant GHG on this planet is H2O vapor. CO2 is a trivial bit player that doesn't even get in the credits at the end of the movie.

Agreed. But GHGs are what we are changing for the worse. They are the problem. Even if they only add a couple of degrees, to the many degrees of total GHG warming, that's enough to tilt the climate from what mankind has adapted to, to some other climate. That will cost us a bundle, unless we can stop making things worse in time.

Pure simple economics but driven by very complex science to predict the dynamics of AGW.

 

[westwall]

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs is the only climate driver that we can influence. We know without a doubt that that variable leads to AGW. And that AGW will inevitably lead to expensive consequences for humanity.

Why on earth would be studying other esoterica that we can't do a thing about?

And they are being shown to NOT be a driver of anything. THE dominant GHG on this planet is H2O vapor. CO2 is a trivial bit player that doesn't even get in the credits at the end of the movie.

Agreed. But GHGs are what we are changing for the worse. They are the problem. Even if they only add a couple of degrees, to the many degrees of total GHG warming, that's enough to tilt the climate from what mankind has adapted to, to some other climate. That will cost us a bundle, unless we can stop making things worse in time.

Pure simple economics but driven by very complex science to predict the dynamics of AGW.

Provably wrong. Our contribution to the global CO2 budget is miniscule. We likewise emit an infinitesimal fraction of the methane that so terrifies you all now (now that that damned CO2 isn't living up to its part of the bargain) and as we all know we don't add to the water vapor either. So no, your assertion is incorrect.

 

[orogenicman]

And they are being shown to NOT be a driver of anything. THE dominant GHG on this planet is H2O vapor. CO2 is a trivial bit player that doesn't even get in the credits at the end of the movie.

Agreed. But GHGs are what we are changing for the worse. They are the problem. Even if they only add a couple of degrees, to the many degrees of total GHG warming, that's enough to tilt the climate from what mankind has adapted to, to some other climate. That will cost us a bundle, unless we can stop making things worse in time.

Pure simple economics but driven by very complex science to predict the dynamics of AGW.

Provably wrong. Our contribution to the global CO2 budget is miniscule. We likewise emit an infinitesimal fraction of the methane that so terrifies you all now (now that that damned CO2 isn't living up to its part of the bargain) and as we all know we don't add to the water vapor either. So no, your assertion is incorrect.

Miniscule? In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuel combustion and cement production worldwide. An you think this is miniscule? Put the bottle down, son.

 

[flacaltenn]

Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal turkey basters society. It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer. She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees. Talk about blind faith!

What an arrogant set of assumptions that be matey... I know more about Becki's science knowledge and I'd be surprised if she hasn't had enough math and statistics to follow along.

I'll give you a "whoo hoo" when YOU show enough math chops to acknowledge what I've shown you... Then you'll feel much better...

Looky -- there are VIRTUALLY NO sources of info political or science that I personally BAN myself from considering.. I LOVE to bash and demolish weak crap. But these guys at skepticalscience are the ONLY folks on my "do not read" list.. Get it? They are the one EXCEPTION to my open mind in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE of knowledge.

Much like the fact that I only have ONE POSTER on ignore after 10K posts and several YEARS on USMB.. It takes a lot to reach my bar for being banned.

 

[orogenicman]

Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal turkey basters society. It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer. She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees. Talk about blind faith!

What an arrogant set of assumptions that be matey... I know more about Becki's science knowledge and I'd be surprised if she hasn't had enough math and statistics to follow along.

Gee, you got all of that from "Asolutely!!!"?

No doubt, you used your magic 8 to ball read between the word.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

There is no fundamental error in Curry`s approach as there is in any method that fudges and "averages" all the other factors except CO2 into oblivion.
Before we go any further let`s take a look at the level of stupidity that Curry is trying to address having to use "stadium waves".

You said:

Weather pulses are just energy dissipators.

to which PMZ replied:

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

How can anyone even hope to get the point across with stadium wave analogies to dummies like PMZ who claims that energy is not dissipated.

Quoting you as far as Curry et al are concerned,

Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

It would be by far easier to describe the "periodic event" sequence for prime numbers.
We have been at that a lot longer than "climate science" and still have no way to establish a valid equation that can predict how far away or how close the next prime number is from the one at hand.

That prime number puzzle can and will be solved eventually because there is no bias or any amount of fudging involved to arrive at the solution.

We can`t hope for any sort of rational solution for something way more complicated as long as the "research" is done, directed and funded by an "inter governmental" consensus opinion panel who`s sole purpose is not to investigate how to arrive at a rational solution...but who`s sole purpose is to establish that nothing else but CO2 drives temperature, silencing all dissent ..and then lobbies on a political level over our heads with our respective governments.
They don`t refer to themselves as "inter governmental" because its just a nice sound byte ! They figure that`s their mandate and lobbied governments around the world to usurp that mandate...and are still at it.

A valid climate computer model is the last thing they want, because it would annihilate that entire "climate scientist" cluster-fuck.

Do we even need a valid computer model any more, in order to prove how wrong this CO2 vs. temp hypothesis is, (?) now that we know for 15 years and running that none of the CO2 based models came even close...

It`s high time to quit pouring all that funding into an "inter governmental" propaganda operation. As long as they exist the likes of Curry will be muted, defamed or whatever it takes keep the CO2 myth going.

The good news is that fewer and fewer nations respond to the IPCC`s lobbying efforts. Many of these nations don`t even respond any more or send only low-level bureaucrats which have no decision making authority as their delegates

Even the climate scientists seem to admit they are a relatively immature science that has been thrown onto the International stage.. ((Poll of AGU and others))

And the problem with a young science playing to the masses is that even HONEST brokers of the discipline will be sucked into the circus. So our USMB idiots are no worse than every journal reporter that doesn't have a prayer of evaluating the concepts..

Funny you mentioned prime number prediction.. I spent 6 years in dark belly of the spy biz. And you'd be amazed at how quickly you can find the one prime number that was used to generate a non-repeating pseudorandom sequence of random numbers that is LONGER than the interval to that random number. Which is why there is such an emphasis on FINDING larger prime numbers in the first place. Without that motivation, it would be just another Fermat challenge limited to a small cluster of eggheads.. None of that violates any security oath BTW.....

But finding the everchanging next interval to a random number is NOT a periodic event. MAYBE a predictable event. When stuff oscillates or almost oscillates its because of well-known Linear System theory descriptions of Gain, Feedback, and Phasing.. Poles and Zeroes crap in linear equations --- if you know what I mean.. That kind of periodic.

And KNOWING for instance the exact PHYSICAL MECHANISM that can give you that equation for the AtlanticMOscillation, or even for ENSO would be a MAJOR contribution to understanding the processes that actually DRIVE the climate. So if Curry thinks that she's on to understanding how openings in Arctic Ice at the choke points DRIVE these patterns and can describe the phenomenon as a heat transfer equation --- that would be super cool. As compared to all the other JUVENILE descriptions that we have right now..

MY HOPE is that AT LEAST ----- we will get the message public that complex systems don't NEED to produce temperature results that LOOK EXACTLY LIKE or FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY the changes in the forcing functions. I already certainly KNOW this is true. I'm waiting on the climate science to mature to the point where this is EVEN DISCUSSED.

Beyond my paygrade as a spectator of this farce.. I've got my own bunch of idiots to deal with in the disciplines that I dabble in..

 

[flacaltenn]

Becky must be a member of the US Message board royal turkey basters society. It appears that if you are on the wrong side of an issue, she agrees with you and gives you a cheer. She doesn't know why or what the issues are about, but she agrees. Talk about blind faith!

What an arrogant set of assumptions that be matey... I know more about Becki's science knowledge and I'd be surprised if she hasn't had enough math and statistics to follow along.

Gee, you got all of that from "Asolutely!!!"?

No doubt, you used your magic 8 to ball read between the word.

You really don't want to get a "whoo hoo" from me --- do ya?

I know some USMB posters BETTER than my own Uncles and Aunts. Why do think forums like these are such a great way of "bonding" or "debating"? Maybe you should consider the lower bar on Twitter.

 

[orogenicman]

I spent 6 years in dark belly of the spy biz

That would explain your propensity for conspiracy theories.

 

[orogenicman]

What an arrogant set of assumptions that be matey... I know more about Becki's science knowledge and I'd be surprised if she hasn't had enough math and statistics to follow along.

Gee, you got all of that from "Asolutely!!!"?

No doubt, you used your magic 8 to ball read between the word.

You really don't want to get a "whoo hoo" from me --- do ya?

I know some USMB posters BETTER than my own Uncles and Aunts.

Probably because your uncles and aunts know you and don't want to hear about all the conspiracies rattling around in your head.