I have in the past, linked several reliable articles on the issue, including material from the IPCC acknowledging soot has more radiative forcing than previously stated. I am not going to repeat my endeavors to find the material for you. You play this "prove it to me" game, well...
It's there, in past threads.
Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?
If you refuse to answer the question, I must assume the answer is no. You have no idea what the exact methodology used in the study is.
That means the only logical conclusion is that your dismissal of the study is baseless.
Ok, I think it is safe to assume then by your lack of answer for the 3rd or 4th time, you are unable to come up with a test for your overall hypothesis.
You should not have to look up past threads to tell me how you would go about testing your own hypothesis.
No, I am just flat out tired of you asking for the same things I have answered before, while showing no evidence to show your case.
In the case of the temperature study, I pointed out real reasons why the study is flawed. You cannot show why I am wrong, so you change the argument.
Bad form. Can we stick with that for now?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-09-2011 at 04:41 PM.
You claimed:
Your claim that the study did not consider other complicating factors is the one I am asking you to back up.
It is not my burden to "prove the article". Is is your burden to show me that the factors were not considered.
The only way to do that is to show the study methodology.
You are, I believe, attempting to shift the burden of proof, because you know you have not read the study that you are criticizing.
Yet another trait in common with 9-11 truthers.
No, you didn't actually. You stated some vague generalities about rivers.
If that is what counts as "refuting" an argument, then you are simply doing the same glib generalities that ol' Cosmored does when he thinks he has come up with some foil to "prove NASA was lying about landing on the moon".
"What about the USSR?"
"They could have been bribed".
"DO you have any proof of this bribery, like an actual do ent or confession?"
"Look at this video of the jacket"
-----------------------------------------------
R: "What about this study?"
W: "It didn't consider all these other factors that I think makes it false"
R: "Can you show me the methodology of this study, so I can see for myself?"
W: "Quit changing the subject, and prove the study"
R: "Have you actually read this study?"
W. "It isn't my job to tell you where the study is."
R. "Have you actually read this study?"
W. "Quit shifting the burden of proof."
Oh...
So you want me to take the time to give you geography lesson as well?
That study was about a specific location. If you aren't even going to look up the region, to understand what my remarks mean, then you are really lost on ignorance. Not my fault.
However, I'll throw a bone on the "soot" issue:
Black Carbon Global Warming
Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?
The actual study, NO. This is all I need, to know it's unreliable:
Have you access to the study? Please do link.Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, s ed protozoan organisms called foraminifera -- which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet -- as tiny thermometers.
In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera s s to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto.
Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?
You haven't actually read the study, yet you just know, using your knowlege of biology, it's wrong.
A quick google search of "foraminiferal studies" yields "About 208,000 results".
People with PhD's in biology and geology have been studying these creatures for the better part of 5 decades in pretty excrutiating detail.
Yet you claim this study, without having read it, is so totally useless that no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from it.
I would think the biologists and geologists who have put together a pretty extensive body of knowledge here would disagree.
Unless, of course you think the biologists and geologists are in on the conspiracy with the "climate scientists"?
Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?
I am using my knowledge of what affects proxy data, and the maunder minima cannot be left out, nor can they ever correctly account for it's effects.
So?
Do all 208,000+ agree?
Do you like making up arguments that don't apply?
If you understood proxy data, sampling times, etc., we wouldn't be having this argument. I find you moronically ignorant for insisting to believe in this study.
Think about this for a moment. i am not disputing the sciences used, just that these sciences are unreliable for what they are showing in this case. There were too many other factors to apply a science used in more stable waters to the Fram Straits. On top of that, the time slices are spaced too far apart.
I think one who read my concerns over the studies would agree with me.
Never said that. Maybe those doing this particular study though...
I am telling you the the mistakes are so blatant that I understand them.
Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?
... in the study you haven't actually read.
If the problems were so aparent that YOU can find them, do you think that someone with a PhD in biology might be able to find them during the peer review process?
Random, let me try to explain one factor that invalidates the study near glacier rivers. From wiki: Foraminifera
18O and 13C are also trapped in glacier ice. 18O is a temperature proxy and 13C is a more direct proxy to the biology of the plankton. The melting is historically changing. Never consistent, and never reliable. we have no way to determine how much glacier or floating ice, and at what age, contaminated the regions waters. Direct studies have only occurred a little more than a century.This is a huge factor. There simply is no way to account for these changes other than SWAGing it. (SWAG = scientific wild ass guess.)Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.
Then of course, the core samples are about 100 years apart, which was my first complaint. Nominal shorter trends would not be seen.
Oh...
The AGW crowd lives to SWAG it.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-09-2011 at 06:10 PM.
No, I read enough of it to know it's invalid because of the region the study was in, and time between data points.Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?
... in the study you haven't actually read.
Here it is:
Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water
Have at it.
They should have. However, was it an open peer review process, or closed to like minded individuals?
Was it even a peer review process? It was a paper, it i didn't see it. Did you?
You might find this useful, that is if you understand it:
Supporting Online Material for Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water
Random...
I shouldn't have to explain to a 3rd grade level what I am saying. If you do not understand my words or intent from the start, maybe you shout leave your ignorant mouth shut.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
To top it off, C13 samples by nominal methods use a 1 sigma statistical measurement. I learned long ago, for reliability, you want 3 sigma or better.
How can the critique be 2 years older than the article?Willie Soon... sounds like a knock knock joke.
Knock knock..
who's there?
Willie Soon
Willie Soon who?
Willie Soon be writing scientific papers?
FWIW, the scientific critique of Darrin's given article.
Seems the evidence Soon used was less suited to temperature, and more suited to determining moisture/drought.
Astonishing what the peer review process actually does.
Critiquing the right article, or not...
See, that's part of your problem. You latch on to an idea. Some time back, when I pointed out you kept interchanging smog and ozone, you kept running in circles with demanding other proofs, like you are now. It seems when you are confronted with showing you are wrong, you cannot accept it, and do all you can to change the argument.
As for the study itself. How did they account for the changing Thermohaline circulation? Please don't ask any of us to think the maunder minima didn't change any of that, since it is the only actual deep "strait" to the arctic ocean.
To assume this also didn't change the water chemistry would be in error. It would also be a part of any actual temperature changes.
It was an incorrect critique of the article. I will admit to occasionally making mistakes, and this was one of them.
I freely admit when I am wrong, and do no such thing to change the argument.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-09-2011 at 10:30 PM.
I am far more intelligent than you give me credit for here.
Sorry.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-10-2011 at 07:05 PM. Reason: removed snark.
So, how do you account for the physical inspection of the observed species?
These species live within narrow temperature ranges.
You may quibble over isotopes, but they sampled layers within the samples and stuck them under microscopes.
You still mis the point of my argument.
So, temperature is not the only thing that affects them.
I'm not quibbling over the measurements, but the unknown factors that lead to the measured results. There is no way to account for the unknowns.
Get a clue. Have you ignored everything I said, or are you really that daft?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
