LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJosh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,"Originally Posted by Akrasia
Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,"
First some ice is melting whilst others are growing. Second temperature is by no means the only influence on ice melt, the albedo effect can be a major contributor.
Indeed.
Sea ic in Antarctic is at very high levels relative to historical data (limited)
Artctic is still low realtive t ohistorical data (limited), but recovering.
Other factors, especially in the Arctic include wind, which if it blows the ice south can increase summer melting cycle.
here is the graph from that Article I posted a few days ago.
The article was about Willis and how he was about to prepare a paper to show the oceans had actually cooled since the 70s but instead he presented his case that they had not cooled and were substantially warmer (based on the adjustments from the XBTs and the corrected ARGO measurements)
That graph shows a slight drop over the last few years, but that is well within decadal oscilation, and certainly does not show a cooling trend.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
[quote=Akrasia;2218626]
First: The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Firstly, whatever about the others, Einstein was certainly not a christian. He called organised religion a childish superstition, The only way he could be described as 'believing in god' was that he was open for some kind of unifying force that regulates the laws of the universe, but he never ascribed any motives or traits to such a being.
Now compare that to what I said, Scientists who are also creationists have abandoned the scientific method and their views on this subject are cracked. No proper scientist would conclude that there is more evidence to support young earth creationism than there is to support Darwinian evolution.
That's a terrible definition of religion,`All the definitions for religion that I have ever seen include at least some reference to a supernatural power. And AGW is not a 'belief' based system, it is an evidence based system. If anything the denialists are much closer to a religion, although that religion is usually something else (libertarianism, or conservativism) and denial of AGW is just one of the tenats of that faith.
I'm not sure why you are throwing the christian thing in. You wouldn't by any chance be trying to construct a strawman would you
Second: Anyone who believes in God in whatever shape or form is by definition a creationist.
Third:Except that is nothing like what you said.Now compare that to what I said, Scientists who are also creationists have abandoned the scientific method and their views on this subject are cracked. No proper scientist would conclude that there is more evidence to support young earth creationism than there is to support Darwinian evolution.
No one mentioned young earth creationism. This is simply another example of you creating a strawman argument rather than admit you were wrong.
You do know most folk on here are pretty clever and can see through your bluster don't you?
Last edited by SAT; 22nd October 2009 at 12:37 PM.
That's why I chose Willis to back up my assertion. Even he has to admit the Argo system has shown no warming since 2003here is the graph from that Article I posted a few days ago.
The article was about Willis and how he was about to prepare a paper to show the oceans had actually cooled since the 70s but instead he presented his case that they had not cooled and were substantially warmer (based on the adjustments from the XBTs and the corrected ARGO measurements)
That graph shows a slight drop over the last few years, but that is well within decadal oscilation, and certainly does not show a cooling trend.Are you going to contest your own source again???
Before you try to refute my information I suggest you check the time lines. The article you quoted is from 2007 whereas his admission there has been no heating (and indeed a slight cooling) comes from 2008 . Oops where has AGW gone?? Obviously not into the ocean as it was supposed to
Last edited by SAT; 22nd October 2009 at 12:30 PM.
[quote=SAT;2219067]Hold on a minute, I said scientists who are creationists have abandoned the scientific method, then you reply to accuse me of saying every scientist who believes in god is a nutjob. And you have the nerve to accuse me of engaging in straw man tactics.
First: The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I'm not sure why you are throwing the christian thing in. You wouldn't by any chance be trying to construct a strawman would you
Second: Anyone who believes in God in whatever shape or form is by definition a creationist.
When someone in this part of the world says creationist, it can be taken for granted that they usually mean Christian fundamentalist who believe that genesis is an accurate record of how the universe was created,
Most people would make that assumption, you instead choose to define creationist as everyone who expresses any religious belief? and then argue against that? Well that's definitely a straw man. Just like your previous ridiculous defiinition of religion that totally left out the principle property of all religion, the belief in something supernatural.
Young earth creationist or not, I was extrremely clear when I mentioned creationists specifically in opposition to Darwinian evolution. This does not include "Anyone who believes in God in whatever shape or form"No one mentioned young earth creationism. This is simply another example of you creating a strawman argument rather than admit you were wrong.
You do know most folk on here are pretty clever and can see through your bluster don't you?
How dare you accuse me of dishonesty when you are the one who appears to be deliberately misrepresenting my arguments.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
That's why I chose Willis to back up my assertion. Even he has to admit the Argo system has shown no warming since 2003
Before you try to refute my information I suggest you check the time lines. The article you quoted is from 2007 whereas his admission there has been no heating (and indeed a slight cooling) comes from 2008 . Oops where has AGW gone?? Obviously not into the ocean as it was supposed to
This is just a rehash of the "there has been no warming since 1998 lie that we have seen in the other threads.
Look at the graph, the short period of lower temperatures is well within the limits of the other decadal oscilations. These can most likely be explained through El Nino events, but the warming trend is absolutely upwards.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
I'll explain it simply for you; By definition God is the creator therefore anybody who believes in a God is a creationist therefore according to you a 'nutjob'.
What part of the world are you living in? The Peruvian jungle or Sarah Palin's guest room?? Not even the Roman Catholic Church preaches that Genesis should be taken literally.
Most people most certainly would not. The fashion amongst religious folk these days is for Intelligent Design which acknowledges Darwinian evolution but claims it is guided by God. And you and your ilk's unwavering belief in the supernatural power of mankind's CO2 emissions to noticeably affect the global climate adds another tick to the religious criteria box.
What you actually said, which was.....and what with hindsight you wish you had said are not the same thing. And yes it is dishonest of you to pretend to have said something you did not.Scientists can be nutjobs too ya know.
There are plenty of 'scientists' who are creationists, many even claim to be biologists.
Actually your problem is you assumed because they were religious and therefore creationists they could not believe in Darwinian evolution whereas the truth as I have pointed out is very different. Please try not to ascribe your ignorance to them
Last edited by SAT; 22nd October 2009 at 02:14 PM.
What an Orwellian world you live in where facts are lies and imaginations are truths
Nice to see you now accept you were wrong and concede there has been no ocean warming since Argo deployed in 2003. But what the temperature variations can't be explained by is CO2. I'll ask again; everybody - AGW proponents and sceptics alike, agree 80-90% of warming should be in the ocean so where is it?? On a related note not one of the 23 climate models predicted this hiatus, why not? Could their assumptions be just plain wrong? As in GIGO?
It's a hell of a coincidence that the temperature record just happens to correlate so neatly with solar activity don't you think. It also seems funny how there appears to be an almost inverse relationship between temperature and CO2 emissions these past few years but hey, don't let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory.
Last edited by SAT; 22nd October 2009 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote