Sign in to follow this  
Hard On The Wind

Oceans warming 40% faster than 5 year old estimates.

Recommended Posts

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/01/10/global-warming-oceans-hottest-record-2018-heating-up-faster-pace/2539570002/

Global warming isn't only cooking our atmosphere, its also heating up the oceans. The world's seas were the warmest on record in 2018, scientists announced Thursday. Also, ocean temperatures are rising faster than previously thought, a new paper said. Specifically, they're warming as much as 40 percent faster than an estimate from a United Nations panel just five years ago.

"If you want to see where global warming is happening, look in our oceans," said paper co-author Zeke Hausfather, in a statement. "Ocean heating is a very important indicator of climate change, and we have robust evidence that it is warming more rapidly than we thought," said Hausfather, who is a climate scientist with Carbon Brief

He also said that while 2018 was the 4th-warmest year on record in the atmosphere, it was the warmest year on record in the oceans, as was 2017 and 2016 before that. In fact, Hausfather told Reuters that records for ocean warming have been broken almost yearly since 2000.

Overall, while we're rightly concerned about what climate change is doing to our atmosphere, ocean heating is critical because an estimated 93 percent of all heat trapped by greenhouse gases settles in the world's oceans.

Meanwhile the faux security problem, the brown skinned hoard at the southern border, is getting all the attention.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, toecutter said:

That's odd.  Although alarming and worst then we thought, sea level rise doesn't appear to have got the memo: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Or maybe it's just a just circling back to "The oceans ate the warming" argument.

 

What is odd is you aren't very good at this.  Were you here when NannyGoat treated us to non stop giant graphs in full color constantly? The only thing he accomplished was running off those who just gave up at the amount of bullshit he spewed.  You have a steep hill to climb dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

What is odd is you aren't very good at this.  Were you here when NannyGoat treated us to non stop giant graphs in full color constantly? The only thing he accomplished was running off those who just gave up at the amount of bullshit he spewed.  You have a steep hill to climb dude.

I'm great at climbing hills. Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, toecutter said:

I'm great at climbing hills. Bring it on.

Must be tricky, missing a toe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An odd bit I ran across; people looking at the nutritional content of plants back to 1958 (a unique seed bank) determined that earlier plants had more nutrients in them than current plants.  It was explained by the higher temp's caused the plants to grow faster so they were unable to concentrate the nutrients.

Sorry, no cite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/01/10/global-warming-oceans-hottest-record-2018-heating-up-faster-pace/2539570002/

Global warming isn't only cooking our atmosphere, its also heating up the oceans. The world's seas were the warmest on record in 2018, scientists announced Thursday. Also, ocean temperatures are rising faster than previously thought, a new paper said. Specifically, they're warming as much as 40 percent faster than an estimate from a United Nations panel just five years ago.

"If you want to see where global warming is happening, look in our oceans," said paper co-author Zeke Hausfather, in a statement. "Ocean heating is a very important indicator of climate change, and we have robust evidence that it is warming more rapidly than we thought," said Hausfather, who is a climate scientist with Carbon Brief

He also said that while 2018 was the 4th-warmest year on record in the atmosphere, it was the warmest year on record in the oceans, as was 2017 and 2016 before that. In fact, Hausfather told Reuters that records for ocean warming have been broken almost yearly since 2000.

Overall, while we're rightly concerned about what climate change is doing to our atmosphere, ocean heating is critical because an estimated 93 percent of all heat trapped by greenhouse gases settles in the world's oceans.

Meanwhile the faux security problem, the brown skinned hoard at the southern border, is getting all the attention.

 

2

Really? A writer for a rabid Environmentalist screed whose bio ends with 

 He has spent the past 10 years working as a data scientist and entrepreneur in the cleantech sector.

No bias or economic compromise here.

Another author is  Kevin E. Trenberth as in this Kevin

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

And this Kevin 

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

to Michael as in this Mike

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

And this Mike

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

And again 

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

And finally is it a published paper? Or an opinion article?

image.thumb.png.cf42d638c06b6f36c5125aec14f124e6.png

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious when Jack goes full messenger attack mode. And cos I know you just can't help yourself, it's a peer-reviewed paper in Science. The tweet doesn't change that, but congrats on the deep dive to find precisely nothing refuting it's conclusions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I find it hilarious when Jack goes full messenger attack mode. And cos I know you just can't help yourself, it's a peer-reviewed paper in Science. The tweet doesn't change that, but congrats on the deep dive to find precisely nothing refuting it's conclusions.

You stupid fuck.  It is an "OPINION article" in the PERSPECTIVES section of Science magazine. Not a peer-reviewed journal paper. Published studies are placed in the "RESEARCH ARTICLES" section of the Journal not the "PERSPECTIVES" section you blithering fool. 

And Fuck the Forum Ignore Function for only working half the time. 

 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423

image.thumb.png.08f61fb4aab3aff0742492bb02d48512.png

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NannyGoat had bigger fonts, better colors and huge graphs.  You really suck at this.  Maybe you could give him a ring (no, not to marry, just contact - you have married enough).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You stupid fuck.  It is an "OPINION article" in the PERSPECTIVES section of Science magazine. Not a peer-reviewed journal paper. Published studies are placed in the "RESEARCH ARTICLES" section of the Journal not the "PERSPECTIVES" section you blithering fool.

You really don't know when to stop digging do you? You might want to look a little deeper before claiming that being in the Perspectives section means it's not a peer-reviewed submission. Perhaps start with the fact there is a set of instructions, on the Science website, on how to peer review a Perspectives submission. Then rage away off-screen and pretend you didn't read this. :rolleyes: 

 

Quote

And Fuck the Forum Ignore Function for only working half the time. 

I don't know why you even bother pretending. Everyone knows you peek. you reply to posts you've supposedly ignored DAYS after they've been posted. That's not on the forum, as anyone that actually has even basic coding knowledge has worked out already. That's on you clicking the view anyway link. I knew you wouldn't be able to help yourself and you proved it. :lol: 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

An odd bit I ran across; people looking at the nutritional content of plants back to 1958 (a unique seed bank) determined that earlier plants had more nutrients in them than current plants.  It was explained by the higher temp's caused the plants to grow faster so they were unable to concentrate the nutrients.

Sorry, no cite.

Higher temps and extra co2 has increased growth rate.

Quantity over quality.

Seems to have had a similar effect on my waist band.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, wonder if there is more than anecdotal evidence that this is causing more and larger red tide events.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, toecutter said:

I'm great at climbing hills. Bring it on.

how's this; don't minimize ecological problems, fukwit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

how's this; don't minimize ecological problems, fukwit. 

How's about we stop shooting our wads over non issues and focus on the real ecological issues, fucknuckle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, this is when we really miss Randumb. He would have come up with ‘shill’ and ‘cunt’ and some witty picture. 

How can we have a serious discussion without such support. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, toecutter said:

How's about we stop shooting our wads over non issues and focus on the real ecological issues, fucknuckle?

they're all 'issues' cameltoe, who the fk are you to pick and choose??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

they're all 'issues' cameltoe, who the fk are you to pick and choose??

So. BS ocean eating the warming story is the biggest issue, aye? It must suck to be you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, toecutter said:

So. BS ocean eating the warming story is the biggest issue, aye? It must suck to be you.

I didn't say it was the biggest issue, did I you fukwit. I said it's just another symptom of a poisoned and dying biosphere, and for some 'tard from the void to label it as insignificant is fucking ludicrous. wise up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. So we have a poisoned and dying biosphere now do we? It definitely sucks being you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, toecutter said:

Ah. So we have a poisoned and dying biosphere now do we? It definitely sucks being you.

fuck you.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

You really don't know when to stop digging do you? You might want to look a little deeper before claiming that being in the Perspectives section means it's not a peer-reviewed submission. Perhaps start with the fact there is a set of instructions, on the Science website, on how to peer review a Perspectives submission. Then rage away off-screen and pretend you didn't read this. :rolleyes:  

 

I don't know why you even bother pretending. Everyone knows you peek. you reply to posts you've supposedly ignored DAYS after they've been posted. That's not on the forum, as anyone that actually has even basic coding knowledge has worked out already. That's on you clicking the view anyway link. I knew you wouldn't be able to help yourself and you proved it. :lol: 

 

1

Did you read it? I though Badlatitude was the forum moron but you just eclipsed him.  The article is an opinion piece, The lead author has been trying to sell the 40% number for several years. 

screenshot-www.sciencemag.org-2019_01.11-06-51-33.thumb.jpg.7947d338db6580ee6c8d5524d732590e.jpg

Sorry, I rarely peak you are on the ignore list because you are eminently worthy of being ignored. But, when the forum software screws up and exposed someone on my list or they get quoted, well sometimes I read before I catch it.

 

 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

This might be of greater concern

999px-Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions.svg.

It'll just be a matter of time before some climate scientist associates the speed of shift, with co2 levels and global temperatures and blames it all on climate change anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, toecutter said:

It'll just be a matter of time before some climate scientist associates the speed of shift, with co2 levels and global temperatures and blames it all on climate change anyway.

 

Close!

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160408-climate-change-shifts-earth-poles-water-loss/

Quote

Climate Change Is Moving the North Pole

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, toecutter said:

It'll just be a matter of time before some climate scientist associates the speed of shift, with co2 levels and global temperatures and blames it all on climate change anyway.

Bingo!!

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207270

 

Quote

Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, a Possible Connection

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, toecutter said:

That's odd.  Although alarming and worst then we thought, sea level rise doesn't appear to have got the memo: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Or maybe it's just a just circling back to "The oceans ate the warming" argument.

 

Save that NOAA graph (gasp) showing ~2.2mm /year sea level rise since 1870 for when ranDumb shows up again in his 7meter tide in reasee theead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

 Everyone knows you peek. you reply to posts you've supposedly ignored DAYS after they've been posted.

 

Your hypocrisy is astounding. How do your look your imaginary children in the face? 

And Jack just to be clear I am in no way supporting you by flaming Dickbreath here. Either of you could take out the ‘biggest  fuckwit on site’ award for 2019. Still it will be a hollow victory now that Randumb has retired from the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Keep this up and ranDumbest will be compelled to come back. 

Like LB I kind of enjoy the guy's contribution. He may have drunk the whole barrel of Kool Aid and then eaten the barrel for good measure, but he comes with a certain entertainment factor. 

Besides it's somewhat refreshing to be called a cunt by someone other then my missus once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how posters who have been on SA for over ten years with very few posts suddenly sprout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Interesting how posters who have been on SA for over ten years with very few posts suddenly sprout.

Conspiracy theory? Hacked account? Or just amazed that some people have more to do in their lives than mash a keyboard all day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Did you read it? I though Badlatitude was the forum moron but you just eclipsed him.  The article is an opinion piece, The lead author has been trying to sell the 40% number for several years. 

Yes, I did. And it's peer reviewed. Regardless of your claims to the contrary. With data provided to back up it's conclusions. Provided in the references and supplementary data. Your characterisation of it as merely. An op-ed is incorrect. 

 

14 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Sorry, I rarely peak you are on the ignore list because you are eminently worthy of being ignored. But, when the forum software screws up and exposed someone on my list or they get quoted, well sometimes I read before I catch it.

You responded again. Quoting me even as opposed to your usual attempts to disguise who you are responding to. Proving that you peeked not just once, but twice in the same 24 hours. 

No-one believes your bullshit about not peeking Jack. And why should they, you are a proven liar with an inability to stop once caught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saorsa said:

This might be of greater concern

999px-Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions.svg.

Please clarify, respectfully? Is this magnetic north, summer/winter ocean extent, polar bear population centers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gissie said:

Damn, this is when we really miss Randumb. He would have come up with ‘shill’ and ‘cunt’ and some witty picture. 

How can we have a serious discussion without such support. 

.....and graphs.....don't  forget graphs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

. Perhaps start with the fact there is a set of instructions, on the Science website, on how to peer review a Perspectives submission. Then rage away off-screen and pretend you didn't read this. :rolleyes: 

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying I can peer review a research paper? Do you know how little worth "peer reviewed " just  became....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the whole climate change thing is settled science, how come they are so far out with the predictions over just a five year period. 

Or is this just weather and nothing to get upset about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

If the whole climate change thing is settled science, how come they are so far out with the predictions over just a five year period. 

Or is this just weather and nothing to get upset about?

You really think people can predict climate beyond "its going to get hotter"?

Really?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You really think people can predict climate beyond "its going to get hotter"?

Really?

 

I would certainly hope so. Surely we can expect more than the scientific phrase - it will be hotter. Or am I expecting to much. 

I do miss Randumb’s graphs, he would have set me straight. Maybe you could whip one up for me Ease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:

Please clarify, respectfully? Is this magnetic north, summer/winter ocean extent, polar bear population centers?

Magnetic North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gissie said:

If the whole climate change thing is settled science, how come they are so far out with the predictions over just a five year period. 

Or is this just weather and nothing to get upset about?

This is from a few years ago now but is still fundamentally true - (NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | APRIL 2015 | )  The root of the answer to your question is that the people best capable of modeling energy and flow (i.e., theoretical physicists) aren't interest in climate change and the people most interested in climate change aren't that capable of doing that modeling.  I've got the full article if you want to give me some sort of email but I'm not posting it - it's not mine.  I'm sure it's down loadable somewhere.

The four questions are:

What role does convection play in cloud feedbacks?

What controls the position, strength and variability of storm tracks? 

What controls the position, strength and variability of the tropical rain belts? 

What role does convective aggregation play in climate? 

 

 

 

Climate.png.890547627d94436d4b4954de119ae8ee.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:

You are saying I can peer review a research paper? Do you know how little worth "peer reviewed " just  became....

No, you cannot. The instructions are for those asked to do so. Do you know how little worth your opinion just became asking such a stupid question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Magnetic North.

The pole shift IS causing climate change. Is there any money to be made there? What are 1st world human doing to cause this pole shift? How much will it cause to stop this pole shift? Where should the pole be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, warbird said:

You are saying I can peer review a research paper? Do you know how little worth "peer reviewed " just  became....

 

1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

No, you cannot. The instructions are for those asked to do so. Do you know how little worth your opinion just became asking such a stupid question?

You are saying that can't be hacked?:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, warbird said:

You are saying that can't be hacked?:ph34r:

I'm saying that questions as stupid as that mean you haven't read them and indicate your carers need to limit your Internet access to an hour each day after nap time and taking your meds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cmilliken said:

This is from a few years ago now but is still fundamentally true - (NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | APRIL 2015 | )  The root of the answer to your question is that the people best capable of modeling energy and flow (i.e., theoretical physicists) aren't interest in climate change and the people most interested in climate change aren't that capable of doing that modeling.  I've got the full article if you want to give me some sort of email but I'm not posting it - it's not mine.  I'm sure it's down loadable somewhere.

The four questions are:

What role does convection play in cloud feedbacks?

What controls the position, strength and variability of storm tracks? 

What controls the position, strength and variability of the tropical rain belts? 

What role does convective aggregation play in climate? 

 

 

 

Climate.png.890547627d94436d4b4954de119ae8ee.png

Thanks for the pointer. Looking for the original article has lead me down a nice rabbit hole. Good to get unbiased comments from the actual bright guys involved. Was surprised to see they still have so much difficulty getting the super whizz modeling folk to both with them. 

So thanks again and will PM if need a link to the original article. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad it was helpful!

And it is weird.  There is an obvious answer - one of the mega-wealthy types - say a Tom Styer or even a Soros/Koch, could just pay for the research to get done.  Which brings up the obvious question - why haven't they?  The answer is that it comes down to control of information and sometimes you just really don't want to know.

Virtually every scientist/engineer goes through 'Engineering Ethics' at some point and is given the case study of the Ford Pinto - a car that had defective part that ultimately lead to fatalities.  The 'ethical dilemma' is balancing costs vs potential human suffering and death.  As an engineer, the answer is, of course, to bring it up, stop the presses, and make the fix.  Knowing that something is defective and allowing it to go forward is evil.  But there is another answer - don't play the game.  That doesn't mean lie.  That means do the necessary analysis, and that's it.  Don't push the 'what ifs' farther than you need too.  Don't ask - don't tell.

True story - I was in a meeting with half a dozen developers (all working on competing technologies) in the early 90's and some computer modeling folks from a company that would ultimately be folded into Ansys (i.e., the FLUENT guys), hosted by the Dept of Energy.  In essence, the modeling folks had come up with some simulations and wanted input from the industry folks to make it more accurate.  Their estimates/calculations weren't right and they wanted to know why.  I told them it would never happen - none of us would ever tell them.  Industry folks would use their software but would never tell them what was wrong with their setup.  And I was right.   The DOE ultimately had to issue a subcontract and do it's own research through ANL/PNNL to get the info.  

Why?  Because of control of information.  If that model showed that one particular design would 'never work' or had some sort of perceived flaw, then that design would get squashed.  And it didn't matter if the model was true.  That's not the way the research game works.  Even back then, the INTERNET lasts forever.  Research is hard enough and filled with failure.  The last thing you need is some borked model telling a funding agent you had a flaw.  Guess what the first couple of slides are going to be in EVERY PRESENTATION you ever give going froward?  Explaining why the model was wrong.  Yea, thanks but no thanks.  So, you run the model internally, make sure you've covered all your bases, then MAYBE share the results.

Long winded - what motivation does a theoretical physicist have in helping a climate change scientist fix their model?  Are they any closer to a nobel?  Do they get tenure?  And what happens if they happen to show there is NO issue?  Is anyone going to throw that physicist a parade?  Or is he just going to be slaughtered as a denier?  Who's gonna pay for a few thousand core-hours of processor time?  No physicist wants to be that guy.  

The billionaire club could pay and solve the issue - but they don't.  Don't ask don't tell. Cause they don't really want to know either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I'm glad it was helpful!

And it is weird.  There is an obvious answer - one of the mega-wealthy types - say a Tom Styer or even a Soros/Koch, could just pay for the research to get done.  Which brings up the obvious question - why haven't they?  The answer is that it comes down to control of information and sometimes you just really don't want to know.

Virtually every scientist/engineer goes through 'Engineering Ethics' at some point and is given the case study of the Ford Pinto - a car that had defective part that ultimately lead to fatalities.  The 'ethical dilemma' is balancing costs vs potential human suffering and death.  As an engineer, the answer is, of course, to bring it up, stop the presses, and make the fix.  Knowing that something is defective and allowing it to go forward is evil.  But there is another answer - don't play the game.  That doesn't mean lie.  That means do the necessary analysis, and that's it.  Don't push the 'what ifs' farther than you need too.  Don't ask - don't tell.

True story - I was in a meeting with half a dozen developers (all working on competing technologies) in the early 90's and some computer modeling folks from a company that would ultimately be folded into Ansys (i.e., the FLUENT guys), hosted by the Dept of Energy.  In essence, the modeling folks had come up with some simulations and wanted input from the industry folks to make it more accurate.  Their estimates/calculations weren't right and they wanted to know why.  I told them it would never happen - none of us would ever tell them.  Industry folks would use their software but would never tell them what was wrong with their setup.  And I was right.   The DOE ultimately had to issue a subcontract and do it's own research through ANL/PNNL to get the info.  

Why?  Because of control of information.  If that model showed that one particular design would 'never work' or had some sort of perceived flaw, then that design would get squashed.  And it didn't matter if the model was true.  That's not the way the research game works.  Even back then, the INTERNET lasts forever.  Research is hard enough and filled with failure.  The last thing you need is some borked model telling a funding agent you had a flaw.  Guess what the first couple of slides are going to be in EVERY PRESENTATION you ever give going froward?  Explaining why the model was wrong.  Yea, thanks but no thanks.  So, you run the model internally, make sure you've covered all your bases, then MAYBE share the results.

Long winded - what motivation does a theoretical physicist have in helping a climate change scientist fix their model?  Are they any closer to a nobel?  Do they get tenure?  And what happens if they happen to show there is NO issue?  Is anyone going to throw that physicist a parade?  Or is he just going to be slaughtered as a denier?  Who's gonna pay for a few thousand core-hours of processor time?  No physicist wants to be that guy.  

The billionaire club could pay and solve the issue - but they don't.  Don't ask don't tell. Cause they don't really want to know either.

I am a little humored by the "deniers club" reference. Except I haven't  been billed dues, I Might be a member. Give me hard science that discounts all of the current failures. Unequal measuring and unequal adjustment of those mesurements puts the CAGW in bad light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 2:22 AM, toecutter said:

I do the cutting.

Is this why you go around in circles? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 8:43 AM, SailBlueH2O said:

And the temp monitoring has probably increased %10,000.....just saying

Little doubt that. Global satellite measurements of surface temps has only been going on for about 4 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 9:59 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, I did. And it's peer reviewed. Regardless of your claims to the contrary. With data provided to back up it's conclusions. Provided in the references and supplementary data. Your characterisation of it as merely. An op-ed is incorrect. 

 

You responded again. Quoting me even as opposed to your usual attempts to disguise who you are responding to. Proving that you peeked not just once, but twice in the same 24 hours. 

No-one believes your bullshit about not peeking Jack. And why should they, you are a proven liar with an inability to stop once caught. 

"Commentary material MAY be peer reviewed at the editor's discretion"  They have the same policy for letter's to the editor you feckless imbecile. A prudent policy no doubt, to check what you print in your magazine regardless of a manuscript's category. But it remains "COMMENTARY" not a published research paper. 

The same submission policies say "Perspectives .... do not discuss primarily the author's own work". 

How can it be peer-reviewed published research when it isn't even the author's own research?  

As for peeking? Having started this smackdown, I wanted to make your humiliation complete and utter.  

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

"Commentary material MAY be peer reviewed at the editor's discretion"  They have the same policy for letter's to the editor you feckless imbecile. A prudent policy no doubt, to check what you print in your magazine regardless of a manuscript's category. But it remains "COMMENTARY" not a published research paper. 

Thank you. So being in the Perspective section doesn't rule out that it is a peer reviewed submission with the data & research to back it up (as published in supplementary material & referenced at the end of the submission, as this one has done). Appreciate you finally getting around to admitting you were wrong.

 

Quote

 The same submission policies say "Perspectives .... do not discuss primarily the author's own work". 

How can it be peer-reviewed published research when it isn't even the author's own research?

Yes, because the definition of "peer-reviewed published research" doesn't require "authors" to have done said research. Something any student who has published a paper encounters when they have to stick their professor's name on the paper too. I'm guessing when you "attended" (but didn't "graduate from") MIT, the smart folks avoided you like the plague... or perhaps just didn't notice you when you were vacuuming their floors at night.

 

Quote

As for peeking? Having started this smackdown, I wanted to make your humiliation complete and utter.  

No-one believes you at all Jack. Not a single soul. Even you know it's bullshit. You respond all the fucking time to posts you claim not to see. We not only see proof like this, but you are a proven, beyond any doubt whatsoever, documented liar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, any peer review of http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128 would have been fairly cursory - probably the editor + one or two others max.  The paper itself is a meta-study - it's a summary of a bunch of other people's work.  Because of that, there's a lot less need for a specific technical expertise in some acute area - more just cogent reading skills and the time to spot check references.  These authors aren't exactly charting new ground so much as gathering up similar references.

The 'letters' section of most professional journals are basically for this purpose - they're either for 'hey, look at this cool thing I just discovered - look for my paper later this year' or, as in this case, "Here's a cliff-notes summary of a chunk of similar work with a conveniently organized reference list so you don't have to go digging for references". 

Publish or perish.  Welcome to the grind of higher ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 11:54 PM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You stupid fuck.  It is an "OPINION article" in the PERSPECTIVES section of Science magazine. Not a peer-reviewed journal paper. Published studies are placed in the "RESEARCH ARTICLES" section of the Journal not the "PERSPECTIVES" section you blithering fool. 

And Fuck the Forum Ignore Function for only working half the time. 

 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423

image.thumb.png.08f61fb4aab3aff0742492bb02d48512.png

 

You shouldn’t be allowed to ignore anyone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 2:32 PM, cmilliken said:

I'm glad it was helpful!

And it is weird.  There is an obvious answer - one of the mega-wealthy types - say a Tom Styer or even a Soros/Koch, could just pay for the research to get done.  Which brings up the obvious question - why haven't they?  The answer is that it comes down to control of information and sometimes you just really don't want to know.

Virtually every scientist/engineer goes through 'Engineering Ethics' at some point and is given the case study of the Ford Pinto - a car that had defective part that ultimately lead to fatalities.  The 'ethical dilemma' is balancing costs vs potential human suffering and death.  As an engineer, the answer is, of course, to bring it up, stop the presses, and make the fix.  Knowing that something is defective and allowing it to go forward is evil.  But there is another answer - don't play the game.  That doesn't mean lie.  That means do the necessary analysis, and that's it.  Don't push the 'what ifs' farther than you need too.  Don't ask - don't tell.

True story - I was in a meeting with half a dozen developers (all working on competing technologies) in the early 90's and some computer modeling folks from a company that would ultimately be folded into Ansys (i.e., the FLUENT guys), hosted by the Dept of Energy.  In essence, the modeling folks had come up with some simulations and wanted input from the industry folks to make it more accurate.  Their estimates/calculations weren't right and they wanted to know why.  I told them it would never happen - none of us would ever tell them.  Industry folks would use their software but would never tell them what was wrong with their setup.  And I was right.   The DOE ultimately had to issue a subcontract and do it's own research through ANL/PNNL to get the info.  

Why?  Because of control of information.  If that model showed that one particular design would 'never work' or had some sort of perceived flaw, then that design would get squashed.  And it didn't matter if the model was true.  That's not the way the research game works.  Even back then, the INTERNET lasts forever.  Research is hard enough and filled with failure.  The last thing you need is some borked model telling a funding agent you had a flaw.  Guess what the first couple of slides are going to be in EVERY PRESENTATION you ever give going froward?  Explaining why the model was wrong.  Yea, thanks but no thanks.  So, you run the model internally, make sure you've covered all your bases, then MAYBE share the results.

Long winded - what motivation does a theoretical physicist have in helping a climate change scientist fix their model?  Are they any closer to a nobel?  Do they get tenure?  And what happens if they happen to show there is NO issue?  Is anyone going to throw that physicist a parade?  Or is he just going to be slaughtered as a denier?  Who's gonna pay for a few thousand core-hours of processor time?  No physicist wants to be that guy.  

The billionaire club could pay and solve the issue - but they don't.  Don't ask don't tell. Cause they don't really want to know either.

Makes sense. If you invested time and effort and was able to show the thought processes at the moment are correct you would get asked why did you waste your time, prove it wrong and have the denier label tattooed on your forehead forever. 

Same goes for the billionaire. Accused of wasting time if it stays the same theory or shunned from the Billionaires Ball for being a dick if you proved it wrong. To much money still to be made from the uncertainty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, cmilliken said:

FWIW, any peer review of http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128 would have been fairly cursory - probably the editor + one or two others max.  The paper itself is a meta-study - it's a summary of a bunch of other people's work.  Because of that, there's a lot less need for a specific technical expertise in some acute area - more just cogent reading skills and the time to spot check references.  These authors aren't exactly charting new ground so much as gathering up similar references.

The 'letters' section of most professional journals are basically for this purpose - they're either for 'hey, look at this cool thing I just discovered - look for my paper later this year' or, as in this case, "Here's a cliff-notes summary of a chunk of similar work with a conveniently organized reference list so you don't have to go digging for references". 

Publish or perish.  Welcome to the grind of higher ed.

1

It is labeled "Commentary" by Science Magazine. It is not new, published research or even old published research. it is the authors' views on some aspect of prior research, his opinion. 

Bent sailor tried, rather comically, to claim it was peer-reviewed research.  It isn't. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It is labeled "Commentary" by Science Magazine. It is not new, published research or even old published research. it is the authors' views on some aspect of prior research, his opinion. 

Bent sailor tried, rather comically, to claim it was peer-reviewed research.  It isn't. 

Since you decided to site me, I decided to go dig a bit.  Science Magazine does do peer reviews, even for the Perspectives section.  Here's the outline of the overall policy:

https://www.sciencemag.org/authors/peer-review-science-publications

Here's the pdf instructions for the reviewers of the Perspectives sections: 

https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/PSinstr13.pdf

"Overall Recommendation: On the basis of the mission statement above, recommend in your review whether the Perspective should be published in Science and provide a critique based on the following:

Impact: Please evaluate to what extent the synthesis in the Perspective is novel, broadly important or provides needed insight on a topic. Perspectives are not a venue for an author to promote his or her own work. Authors may refer to their own papers but this should not be the focus of the commentary. Perspectives may contain opinion but should provide a balanced view; statements of fact should be supported by references. Perspectives should tell the reader about future prospects and implications.

Figure: The figure should illustrate the essential message of the Perspective. The aim is to catch the eye while informing the reader. Complex and detailed diagrams, charts, tables, and graphs are to be avoided."

----------------

I stick by all my earlier assertions.  

1) Any peer review of http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128 would have been fairly cursory - probably the editor + one or two others max <Only some of the submitted papers are reviewed in depth.  That's different than not reviewed at all>

 2) The paper itself is a meta-study - it's a summary of a bunch of other people's work.  Because of that, there's a lot less need for a specific technical expertise in some acute area - more just cogent reading skills and the time to spot check references.  These authors aren't exactly charting new ground so much as gathering up similar references. <self evident from reading>

3) The 'letters' section of most professional journals are basically for this purpose - they're either for 'hey, look at this cool thing I just discovered - look for my paper later this year' or, as in this case, "Here's a cliff-notes summary of a chunk of similar work with a conveniently organized reference list so you don't have to go digging for references". <Perspectives are short overviews of current research findings, intended for a broad audience of scientists. They may accompany a paper in Science, discuss work published elsewhere, or describe results presented at a workshop or conference.  Perspectives should add a fresh dimension to the topic of discussion and not merely summarize results or papers.>

---------

Regarding your specific claim - that this article was not peer reviewed - I believe you are incorrect.  Bent is likely correct.  Regarding the meta-claim that the peer review is terrible, I'm actually more sympathetic.

 

Perspectives.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It is labeled "Commentary" by Science Magazine. It is not new, published research or even old published research. it is the authors' views on some aspect of prior research, his opinion. 

Actually, you might want to read them references and look at where they got that data numb-nuts. 

 

3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 Bent sailor tried, rather comically, to claim it was peer-reviewed research.  It isn't. 

It's a peer-reviewed paper. Papers are not defined as free from commentary. Merely how they are submitted and where they are published. It does kind of suck that the term is that loose, but it's one of those things you find out if you actually start studying, working, and or just conversing with those seeking Phd's and/or having a career in academia. It's not surprising to anyone that people smart enough to be living that life wouldn't be caught dead talking to you Jack.

You're just wrong, Jack. You first denied it was peer reviewed, then you tried to say it's not a paper, and now you're trying to say there is no new or old published research referred to in it. Stop doubling down on the stupid and wander off. Pretend you didn't read this and melt down in some other thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Regarding your specific claim - that this article was not peer reviewed - I believe you are incorrect.  Bent is likely correct.  Regarding the meta-claim that the peer review is terrible, I'm actually more sympathetic.

I don't disagree at all. Of course, Jack has planted his flag and will defend this hill unto meltdown. And you've now made sure he doubles down on the stupid in 3... 2... 1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2019/01/14/ice-loss-antarctica-has-sextupled-since-s-new-research-finds/

Ice loss from Antarctica has sextupled since the 1970s, new research finds

An alarming study shows massive East Antarctic ice sheet already is a significant contributor to sea-level rise

 

The really alarming thing here is how warm sea water can melt ice sheets on land in a climate that rarely extends past 0 degrees C.

It's gotta be worse then we thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

ntarctica without ice.  Not a lot of land there.

bAIyG.jpg

Step away from the Kool-Aid, bro. This is what it looks like when climate change alarmism isn't the objective...

Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's a peer-reviewed paper. Papers are not defined as free from commentary. Merely how they are submitted and where they are published. It does kind of suck that the term is that loose, but it's one of those things you find out if you actually start studying, working, and or just conversing with those seeking Phd's and/or having a career in academia. I

And that shows exactly how much you understand about the peer review process.

Double down time for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 8:32 PM, cmilliken said:

I'm glad it was helpful!

And it is weird.  There is an obvious answer - one of the mega-wealthy types - say a Tom Styer or even a Soros/Koch, could just pay for the research to get done.  Which brings up the obvious question - why haven't they?  The answer is that it comes down to control of information and sometimes you just really don't want to know.

Virtually every scientist/engineer goes through 'Engineering Ethics' at some point and is given the case study of the Ford Pinto - a car that had defective part that ultimately lead to fatalities.  The 'ethical dilemma' is balancing costs vs potential human suffering and death.  As an engineer, the answer is, of course, to bring it up, stop the presses, and make the fix.  Knowing that something is defective and allowing it to go forward is evil.  But there is another answer - don't play the game.  That doesn't mean lie.  That means do the necessary analysis, and that's it.  Don't push the 'what ifs' farther than you need too.  Don't ask - don't tell.

True story - I was in a meeting with half a dozen developers (all working on competing technologies) in the early 90's and some computer modeling folks from a company that would ultimately be folded into Ansys (i.e., the FLUENT guys), hosted by the Dept of Energy.  In essence, the modeling folks had come up with some simulations and wanted input from the industry folks to make it more accurate.  Their estimates/calculations weren't right and they wanted to know why.  I told them it would never happen - none of us would ever tell them.  Industry folks would use their software but would never tell them what was wrong with their setup.  And I was right.   The DOE ultimately had to issue a subcontract and do it's own research through ANL/PNNL to get the info.  

Why?  Because of control of information.  If that model showed that one particular design would 'never work' or had some sort of perceived flaw, then that design would get squashed.  And it didn't matter if the model was true.  That's not the way the research game works.  Even back then, the INTERNET lasts forever.  Research is hard enough and filled with failure.  The last thing you need is some borked model telling a funding agent you had a flaw.  Guess what the first couple of slides are going to be in EVERY PRESENTATION you ever give going froward?  Explaining why the model was wrong.  Yea, thanks but no thanks.  So, you run the model internally, make sure you've covered all your bases, then MAYBE share the results.

Long winded - what motivation does a theoretical physicist have in helping a climate change scientist fix their model?  Are they any closer to a nobel?  Do they get tenure?  And what happens if they happen to show there is NO issue?  Is anyone going to throw that physicist a parade?  Or is he just going to be slaughtered as a denier?  Who's gonna pay for a few thousand core-hours of processor time?  No physicist wants to be that guy.  

The billionaire club could pay and solve the issue - but they don't.  Don't ask don't tell. Cause they don't really want to know either.

I haven’t kept up with this thread, so apologies for jumping in the middle half cocked.   We could explore problems with the scientific method and universities      But as is usually the case with human nature, problems are usually a matter of power (my link), money  or a desperate effort to maintain one’s beliefs and behaviors however irrational (religion opposing evolution).    Climate change isn’t a power issue, the deniers have the power including the senate and White House.   It isn’t a money issue,   the safe money is always preserving harmful income streams, not exploring potential new ones.   Some of the usual crowd here have called climate change a religion,    The easy path is the one that allows me to fly on vacation next month, drag the boat around with a SUV and, and ramble around in my inefficiently large house.   What is the motivation to fake or create a crises?   Human nature is to avoid change, or absolve oneself of responsibility when things go wrong,   We’ve all seen it in our bosses.   Surely there were easier ways to publish paper in the first decade, before it became settled science?    Now that it’s settled science, what’s the incentive to publish a new paper?     It took a long time for tectonic drift to get past skeptical scientists .   Once it became mainstream it became harder and harder to find new stuff to write about.    Since it didn’t interfere with corporate profits or make us feel guilty about our lifestyle, it faced less scrutiny.

This is still on the NASA website.   Has reality changed?   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Thanks for that, explains two things, why a reasonable exchange on this topic is impossible, & why posters that aren't usually seen in PA suddenly show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, toecutter said:

Step away from the Kool-Aid, bro. This is what it looks like when climate change alarmism isn't the objective...

Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet.png

You might want to check the timeframes on the two images.

The one I posted is based on current elevations.  The one you posted is based on uplift of the mantle with the weight of the glaciers removed.  The difference in time; 35 million years.  That's the thing about climate.  Timescales are important and you need to think about them.

You can see both and a couple of others at https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18757/what-would-an-antarctica-without-ice-look-like-compared-to-other-continents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

You might want to check the timeframes on the two images.

The one I posted is based on current elevations.  The one you posted is based on uplift of the mantle with the weight of the glaciers removed.  The difference in time; 35 million years.  That's the thing about climate.  Timescales are important and you need to think about them.

You can see both and a couple of others at https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18757/what-would-an-antarctica-without-ice-look-like-compared-to-other-continents

Ah. So in typical alarmist smoke and mirror fashion, Antarctica will defy physics and resist all attempts at isostatic rebound as it's vast ice sheets slide  into the ocean like ice cubes onto the floor from a kitchen bench. Then, to add the cherry on top for additional dramatic effect, make sure to include the sea level rise that would occur from such an even in order to ensure that you can present a continent as an archipelago.

That's the thing about alarmists. Made up doomsayer fantasies are important and you need to think about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday saw the second hottest temperature recorded in Australia. The hottest was recorded in 1960 - but the science wasn’t settled back then so it does not count. Still, pretty hot in Europe this week as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, toecutter said:

Ah. So in typical alarmist smoke and mirror fashion, Antarctica will defy physics and resist all attempts at isostatic rebound as it's vast ice sheets slide  into the ocean like ice cubes onto the floor from a kitchen bench. Then, to add the cherry on top for additional dramatic effect, make sure to include the sea level rise that would occur from such an even in order to ensure that you can present a continent as an archipelago.

That's the thing about alarmists. Made up doomsayer fantasies are important and you need to think about them.

35 MILLION YEARS between the pretty pictures.  That's a really linear representation of very dynamic events.  The only thing that links them is being in the same article.

That is roughly 100 times longer than Homo Sapiens has existed.  You might want to read the History of Ice on Earth from the New Scientist.

Then again, perhaps not.

 

900px-GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidetracking the subject by bringing in millions or even thousands of years is only helpful in understanding what is now occurring in years and decades, not centuries and millennium. Tonight my threshold for half educated, short sighted, opinionated assholes is pretty low. 

The oceans are warming, the ice is melting, temperature records are being broken every year, droughts and floods are increasing, the strength of storms is increasing and this summer it will again be hot in my truck.  Nanny - RIP you stupid fuker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites