Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
No no no, sorry.
Gore, DiCaprio and the 10,000 delegates have NOTHING to do with GW alarmism.
Geezus.
World wide body of what? There is a climate psychologist that can help you. Seriously. An official IPCC paper writing climate psychologist.
world wide body of scientists; in that vein, member Colpy presumed to take liberties and attach his presumed indiscretions of a few scientists to the greater whole... the world wide body of scientists.
again, your overt petrOCD displays and your ever present petulant dances hardly qualify you to pass judgement on anyone... notwithstanding they carry no weight other than in the recesses of your mental minutia!
Hey now wildo. What type of lifestyles do you think the elite IPCC "climate scientists" (climate psychologists included) lead?
Are they gronola eating gods who drive electric cars, heat their homes and source their electricity from solar, grow gardens and fart nitrogen?
Are they gronola eating gods who drive electric cars, heat their homes and source their electricity from solar, grow gardens and fart nitrogen?
Ah... So it is a dictatorship. Thanks for agreeing. IPCC isn't part of the UN? That is news to the world.
the last thing I would do is agree with anything you ever said! Clearly you have no idea how the IPCC functions. Clearly, the IPCC is yet another of your boogeymen!
Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."
protip: I hate everyone equally wilbur...just tell Pete what you saw when you got off the bus. it's quite simple really.
One word from one watt and I hang my head in shame.
Someone who has been there would jump on that but......
Someone who has been there would jump on that but......
Having looked at the time series graph, I don't find it very conclusive. The periodicity with the PDO is based on on some spurious looking early data form the 20's that looks outside of two standard deviations, making it suspect. The PDO signal isn't even shown on the graph. Also worth noting that acidifcation has been detected in other series besides Feely's--U of Hawaii for example. Finally you'd expect more acidification with increasing pCO2, as CO2 forms a weak acid in water (carbonic acid).
I suspect that Wallace was being a d!ck, since they don"t actually show any of his emails, only Feely's snotty responses. I think to be fair the whole email exchange should be made available.
the related article/paper as published within the journal 'Oceanography'... inclusive of detailed chemistry and a related (data sourced) table of "average concentrations of carbon system parameters and temperature-and-salinity values for surface waters of the major ocean basins based on the global ocean data analysis project data set."
this 'event' has certainly reached the upper echelon of denier hype! What's lost in any denier articles is the, in my understanding, the reason the targeted data begins around 1990 is that it coincides with the availability of more reliable data based on alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at pH... that the 'ocean community' began to rely less upon the older dated 'pH bulb meters' and moved to rely upon other more reliable methods to determine ocean pH.
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
It’s possible that much or all of this post-1988 data was not recorded using glass electrode pH meters. As my earlier posts document, the ocean science community has moved away from glass electrodes starting about 1989, although other parts of the water scientific community and other industries continue to use glass electrode pH meters for all ranges of ionic strengths.
of course, none of the articles I perused across the typical denier blogs have Wallace including this little ditty in his article - go figure!I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!
nothing to say about the actual purposeful action of the denier 'Wallace'... and he most definitely is as I've caught up on his overall history. To me, nothing is more telling about his motive/agenda, than to read that linked reference I provided to the Jan, 2014 entry he wrote in his own blog. The guy absolutely knows about the distinction between the data in question, yet he proceeds to purposely speak to a "hiding of data"... to read how this has been played up throughout the denialsphere is a testament to how little most claimed "skeptics" actually scrutinize anything... as in, they don't!
Everything you shill for has been investigated and enough has been found wanting to put the entire line in doubt. Go read the story of the boy that cries wolf.
please provide examples of your described "what has been found wanting" - thanks in advance.
The proven lies from IPCC for a start. The UN idea of global wealth redistribution, The so called agreements on emissions that have us cutting way back on production while giving a pass to China and India. How much more proof do you want?
