Hockey Stick Revisited in Brand New Context

[waldo]

That was the original intent, but it seems to upset you so. Good!

not upset in the least... just simply willing to invest a few cycles into showcasing how, as you stated, "you troll"... into showcasing your insecurity as displayed by your one-trick dog&pony show (originating from Regina)... into showcasing another of your failed attempts to save face... and most particularly, showcasing your failed attempt to disparage the integrity of climate data and the organization within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for managing that data. If, as you now acknowledge, we've returned to your original intent - data - you'll have no difficulty in answering the following - hey?

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[bush_cheney2004]

not upset in the least...

Then why does it take you so many expletives and mangled quotes to communicate?

Even as a troll, I can maintain my dignity!

Edited November 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Then why does it take you so many expletives and mangled quotes to communicate?

Even as a troll, I can maintain my dignity!

I acknowledge your willingness to be viewed/known as a dignified troll. I've not issued one expletive... and my quotes are certainly not taken out of context, mismatched, distorted or otherwise manipulated. Oh wait... I did correct your stated, "how you troll" claim... but then, again, you've just now acknowledged your willingness to be viewed/known as a troll (a dignified troll), so that shouldn't be cause for your suggested mangled claim - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

I acknowledge your willingness to be viewed/known as a dignified troll.

Yes...if your tantrum is truly over (for now), then perhaps you will be more open to the idea of a differing opinion on such matters, regardless of dueling links from America. GH pointed this out early on....a mad dog will always be put down.

[waldo]

Yes...if your tantrum is truly over (for now), then perhaps you will be more open to the idea of a differing opinion on such matters, regardless of dueling links from America. GH pointed this out early on....a mad dog will always be put down.

hey buddy, I wasn't talking to myself - of course, from your perspective, your discussion input must have been calm, reserved, measured, qualified and justifiable comment - hey? Your attempts to marginalize won't work.

I am more than willing to accept, to entertain differing opinion - if that opinion can stand up to scrutiny. Your silly dance wasn't related and wasn't relevant to any presumption you might choose to make on the integrity of climate data and the area within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for climate data management. You wouldn't let it go... and neither would I... nor will I. In these most recent posts, you've acknowledged the discussion focus turned back to your original target intent - data. So... I'll (again) leave you with what your stated original intent focus was - data:

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

you can choose to continue to ignore the questions... to reaffirm your self-acknowledged dignified troll designation... it's your call. Don't let me down now - hey? I will also choose to throw you back on the ignore heap. Your pompous claim towards simply casting a differing opinion doesn't hold up in the face of your unrelated and irrelevant reference... yours wasn't a different opinion... yours was an unrelated and irrelevant opinion that had no foundation in what you presumed to 'attack' (i.e. the integrity of climate data and the organization within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for that climate data management). I have to get back to a project deadline so I won't be back till (probably) later tonight - don't let me down - hey?

[GostHacked]

hardly - he screwed up and hasn't the balls to acknowledge it...

Dude, he simply does not care. And since he does not care, he gets the best of people like you. Trust me, I've been there. I've had my frustrations with BC and his posting style, so I've had to change my posting style and what I post.

instead he plays the back-peddling save-face fool routine,

BC has no face to save. It's like the person who lost it all no longer cares what is said and how it's taken. No cares about who is offended and no cares about anyone else that cares.

Were you 'toyed' with... did you like it?

I was toyed with, and no I don't like it. I had to change my style to get the results I was looking for. Adjust, adapt, overcome or die.

nice try - it's an expression suggesting we'll engage in a long and winding path that will have you absolutely needing to precisely and contextually apply your assertion. As it stands now, you've simply expounded on your lapper idolizing for an irrelevant and unrelated disclaimer - one that has nothing to do with, none whatsoever, underlying climate data integrity and the appropriate organization (within NOAA) responsible for that climate data processing/management. You simply puffed up your earlier puffery... the same challenge offered to the 'tard' awaits you. If you feel so emboldened with your (for now) baseless assertion, spend some cycles and come back with something to actually question the data integrity/processing within NOAA's NCDC organization. Otherwise stfu - was that clear enough... too violent?

Sometimes you have to read the fine print in order to know what you are agreeing to. And if I have other data, if it's not sanctioned by NOAA, it won't mean squat.

great - thanks for acknowledging the multiple terms actually mean different things. Are they used the same way? By who? If they are used the same way, then that use is misunderstood usage, or improperly applied usage, or contextually incorrect usage, or... - ya, think?

They terms are used the same way that all CO2 is used to show that we human are the cause of global warming. There is little to no distinction really between the terms because of how they are used.

[jbg]

it's on the level of your denier arguments - the one's you continually make and later claim, when challenged, that your full time job doesn't allow you to properly vet your arguments for accuracy. It's just too bad you don't have the integrity to actually stand behind your arguments, as offered... or withdraw them when you fail to substantiate them. But instead, we get your half-assed best... like initiating this bullshit thread - the 'hockey stick' - really? Or like you playing the high & mighty offering sanctimonious /snarc into the mix ala your, "elevated, considered discussion of the merits" statement. Is that what you intended with this thread... elevated, considered discussion of the merits... is that what you intended with this, your bullshit thread?

No expletives? Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

hey buddy, I wasn't talking to myself - of course, from your perspective, your discussion input must have been calm, reserved, measured, qualified and justifiable comment - hey? Your attempts to marginalize won't work.

It already has "worked"....you chomped down so hard it broke the lure.

I am more than willing to accept, to entertain differing opinion - if that opinion can stand up to scrutiny. Your silly dance wasn't related and wasn't relevant to any presumption you might choose to make on the integrity of climate data and the area within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for climate data management.

The NCDC is on your agenda, not mine. You made an assumption...and paid for it.

You wouldn't let it go... and neither would I... nor will I. In these most recent posts, you've acknowledged the discussion focus turned back to your original target intent - data. So... I'll (again) leave you with what your stated original intent focus was - data:

I posted the NOAA data disclaimer verbatim without any comment....it stands as is. Deal with it.

you can choose to continue to ignore the questions... I have to get back to a project deadline so I won't be back till (probably) later tonight - don't let me down - hey?

Of course I can choose to ignore the questions....is there no limit to your global warming climate change arrogance?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sometimes you have to read the fine print in order to know what you are agreeing to. And if I have other data, if it's not sanctioned by NOAA, it won't mean squat.

Bingo! And that's why I took him down on this issue and his precious reliance on the NOAA or NASA or whatever "data". The sting was more painful than I anticipated. He not only wants to control the debate, but also control which data and conclusions are/are not acceptable.

[GostHacked]

Bingo! And that's why I took him down on this issue and his precious reliance on the NOAA or NASA or whatever "data". The sting was more painful than I anticipated. He not only wants to control the debate, but also control which data and conclusions are/are not acceptable.

It's not me you gotta convince here. I knew full well what you were getting at. But a few pages later, it's still lost on Waldo.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not me you gotta convince here. I knew full well what you were getting at. But a few pages later, it's still lost on Waldo.

I concur...his is a bunker mentality. Everybody else is wrong!

[Sir Bandelot]

Dude, he simply does not care. And since he does not care, he gets the best of people like you. Trust me, I've been there. I've had my frustrations with BC and his posting style, so I've had to change my posting style and what I post.

BC has no face to save. It's like the person who lost it all no longer cares what is said and how it's taken. No cares about who is offended and no cares about anyone else that cares.

I was toyed with, and no I don't like it. I had to change my style to get the results I was looking for. Adjust, adapt, overcome or die.

On a higher moral plane, move on, ignore, learn to let it go. Recognize when there's no point in continuing. Unless of course you have infinite time to argue pointlessly, while real life in the outside world passes you by. Remember, there is no "win" in any of these posts, unless one person concedes a loss.

Or my favorite method, drag it so deep into the gutter that even they can't be bothered with yet another answer. A lesson in absurdity

[waldo]

They terms are used the same way that all CO2 is used to show that we human are the cause of global warming. There is little to no distinction really between the terms because of how they are used.

of the terms previously mentioned, global warming and climate change are generic references that don't include an anthropogenic association... add the anthropogenic 'A' to each of those... 'AGW (anthropogenic global warming)' and 'ACC (anthropogenic climate change'... and you've got your human contribution.

[waldo]

No expletives? Really?

bullshit? Really?

Usage: This word was formerly considered to be taboo, and it was labeled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use

... which are you... older... or more conservative - perhaps... both?

in any case, I see you have the cycles to quibble... but not to take up the challenge to your Arctic warming snarc - hey? Nothing to say about that NOAA 2010 Arctic Report Card?

[waldo]

I posted the NOAA data disclaimer verbatim without any comment....it stands as is. Deal with it.

oh I dealt with it - big time. What you posted is an unrelated and irrelevant disclaimer from an organization within NOAA that has nothing to do with your target intent... that being to disparage the integrity of climate data and NOAA's management of that climate data. You play the fool well. Yes... in your zeal to presume to challenge the integrity of climate data and NOAA... you posted from and linked to a disclaimer from an organization within NOAA (OR&R) that has absolutely nothing to do with NOAA's management of climate data. I pointed you to the appropriate organization within NOAA (NCDC). On top of all that, you don't even recognize the distinction between website presentation and the integrity of data (separate and distinct from a website presentation)... all of that stands as is. Deal with it.

Of course I can choose to ignore the questions....is there no limit to your global warming climate change arrogance?

pressing you to acknowledge your screw-up by answering those questions... the questions you ignore... the questions you now acknowledge you purposely ignore... that, is not arrogance, of any kind. That is simply showcasing how, as you stated, "you troll (with dignity, no less)"... all of that stands as is. Deal with it.

[waldo]

Bingo! And that's why I took him down on this issue and his precious reliance on the NOAA or NASA or whatever "data". The sting was more painful than I anticipated. He not only wants to control the debate, but also control which data and conclusions are/are not acceptable.

Bingo! Really? Next time you feel like a 'take down'... at least make sure you're in the right organization responsible for the climate data integrity you so relished the thought of disparaging - hey? Make sure you're also referencing a disclaimer that actually speaks to the underlying climate data - hey? Otherwise... the only 'take down' is the one where you're left with your shorts at your ankles, spittle dripping from your mouth, with you rambling on about 'USA, USA, USA'!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[waldo]

On a higher moral plane, move on, ignore, learn to let it go. Recognize when there's no point in continuing. Unless of course you have infinite time to argue pointlessly, while real life in the outside world passes you by. Remember, there is no "win" in any of these posts, unless one person concedes a loss.

Or my favorite method, drag it so deep into the gutter that even they can't be bothered with yet another answer. A lesson in absurdity

ah, sage advice... will I decide to choose the 'red pill' or the 'blue pill'?

[lukin]

Waldo has sure been put in his place with this debate. You lost waldo. Bush/cheney destroyed the little credibility you had. Accept it and move on.

[waldo]

ah yes, an authoritative voice has been missing up till now... I see you're still smarting, hey lukin? What's wrong... are you all out of "ta da's"?

[waldo]

about that claim a short while back that geologists didn't formally accept the consensus position on AGW, this linked recent position release is a strong statement, one focused specifically on the geological evidence:

The Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record

Climate change is a defining issue for our time. The geological record contains abundant evidence of the ways in which Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That evidence is highly relevant to understanding how it may change in the future. The Council of the Society is issuing this statement as part of the Society’s work “to promote all forms of education, awareness and understanding of the Earth and their practical applications for the benefit of the public globally”. The statement is intended for non-specialists and Fellows of the Society. It is based on analysis of geological evidence, and not on analysis of recent temperature or satellite data, or climate model projections. It contains references to support key statements, indicated by superscript numbers, and a reading list for those who wish to explore the subject further.

.

.

In conclusion - what does the geological record tell us about the potential effect of continued emissions of CO2?

Over at least the last 200 million years the fossil and sedimentary record shows that the Earth has undergone many fluctuations in climate, from warmer than the present climate to much colder, on many different timescales. Several warming events can be associated with increases in the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2. There is evidence for sudden major injections of carbon to the atmosphere occurring at 55, 120 and 183 million years ago, perhaps from the sudden breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the seabed. At those times the associated warming would have increased the evaporation of water vapour from the ocean, making CO2 the trigger rather than the sole agent for change. During the Ice Age of the past two and a half million years or so, periodic warming of the Earth through changes in its position in relation to the sun also heated the oceans, releasing both CO2 and water vapour, which amplified the ongoing warming into warm interglacial periods. That process was magnified by the melting of sea ice and land ice, darkening the Earth’s surface and reducing the reflection of the Sun’s energy back into space.

While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun). This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation. In total, human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon (hence over 1850 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere since around 1750, some 65% of that being from the burning of fossil fuels. Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes, but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.

In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

[jbg]

about that claim a short while back that geologists didn't formally accept the consensus position on AGW, this linked recent position release is a strong statement, one focused specifically on the geological evidence:

The Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record

You've already killed debate with your insults.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11685516

And they've discovered that while increased carbon dioxide (CO2) is the biggest cause of global warming, it also makes some plants grow faster which builds new soil and helps the land keep pace with rising sea levels.

"That's the silver lining," says Patrick Megonigal, a senior biogeochemist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. "CO2 acts as a fertiliser on some plants, and in a marsh like this, a faster growing plant has some good characteristics.

"This marsh can actually build soil through root growth and more soil means this marsh can rise upwards and therefore keep pace with rising sea levels."

Hmmmm.

Edited November 4, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

You've already killed debate with your insults.

debate? That's what you yearn for? Really?... here's an easy string quote of the impressive complement of your posts within this thread. Clearly, one can quite readily see what passes for debate in 'jbg world'. You're welcome... carry on!

No, not time for mitigation or adaptation. Time for panic.

It's downright scary!!!We're all going to die fry.

I work full time. Do you nap during your lectures or in between posts?

GostHacked - You nailed why I don't always address certain posts. I don't like to get into sliming contests.

Even though we rarely agree with you, I do here.

If the Arctic is so warm let Waldo vacation in Tuktuyotok, in tennis clothes at Christmas time. Maybe he'll hug one of Santa's reindeer.

I thought of locales further north, but I figured that a place that's always buried under ice isn't a fair vacation destination, since it's never warm. By your logic at least Tuk could have tropical weather.

I guess you're not very "Alert" today, speaking of Ellesmere Island and Nunavut.

That's almost like using "mentally challenged" as opposed to "frickin' crazy". More politically correct lexicon.

Quite an elevated, considered discussion of the merits </sarcasm>

Very mature for a "bris" age boy or maybe for a Bar Mitzvah age boy.

No expletives? Really?

You've already killed debate with your insults.

[jbg]

You really have mastered the internal quote function, Waldo. Great work!!!

Too bad no one will pay you for that.

[GostHacked]

I'm still a little confused about the isotopes ratios.