Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

[TimG]

You seem to be saying that what is discussed on blogs isn't material to this discussion.

Don't get me wrong. Blogs are worth discussing but I am saying they are irrelevant to the point I am making about an error in Mann 2008. i.e. Mann 2008 is still wrong and the peer review process failed to correct this error even if blogs in 2012 can establish that Tiljander was wrong.

I'm really sorry TimG but I didn't get this from the descriptions I have read before. I need to press on with understanding this better.

OK. I did mention it before - you might have missed it. That I why I keep pushing you to explain exactly what you don't understand so I can respond to it. Your vague handwaving that presents no counter arguments means I cannot provide additional information that might be useful.

[dre]

And your response demonstrates, once again, that you are clueless ideologue that has no wish to understand things that undermine your ideology.

[waldo]

If you're talking about the 'flipped sign' question... I do support the peer process and I'm not yet through the example in question. At this rate, I'm wondering if I'll ever find a concise and clear explanation of those issues. If not, and if I end up 'getting it', then I vow to make a video for others.

and yet... you enable the TimG parroted McIntyre obsession... once again! You allow another thread to be side-tracked with the TimG nonsense... once again! You sir, are an aggressive enabler! As for your own display of pomposity, speaking to a possible "get it" moment, vowing to "make a video", is nothing short of your own failure to recognize your own personal limits. Unless you're prepared to get to the code level, unless you're prepared to fully re-create the multi-proxy reconstruction, unless you're prepared to follow and understand the methodology, unless you're in position to effectively follow the intricate details of the supplemental information, unless you're in position to speak to the level and understanding of career scientific professionals... unless you're prepared to do all that, and more - at the end of the day, you'll simply be echoing your interpretations, which more than likely will be nothing more than "interpretations of interpretations". At the end of the day, you will be no farther along and will have no more legitimacy than the loudest howling mad-dog McIntyre lappers (like TimG)... those that refuse to issue a formal challenge within the system you say you support - the Peer Review process.

[waldo]

And your response demonstrates, once again, that you are clueless ideologue that has no wish to understand things that undermine your ideology.

ah yes, it truly was a legitimate lol moment for me! Clearly, your statement was a most innocuous one... and yet when TimG gets even a whiff of perceived affront, he flails and thrashes wildly about. In any case, you were somewhat spared in that, as I said a few posts back, he's quite close to unleashing his religious fervour and zealot labeling.

[TimG]

lol

I guess the truth hurts.

[Michael Hardner]

That I why I keep pushing you to explain exactly what you don't understand so I can respond to it.

Ok... I will take you up on it.

[Michael Hardner]

and yet... you enable the TimG parroted McIntyre obsession... once again! You allow another thread to be side-tracked with the TimG nonsense... once again! You sir, are an aggressive enabler! As for your own display of pomposity, speaking to a possible "get it" moment, vowing to "make a video", is nothing short of your own failure to recognize your own personal limits.

One doesn't "recognize their limits" at the first steps... they recognize them when they can't proceed any further.

Unless you're prepared to get to the code level, unless you're prepared to fully re-create the multi-proxy reconstruction, unless you're prepared to follow and understand the methodology, unless you're in position to effectively follow the intricate details of the supplemental information, unless you're in position to speak to the level and understanding of career scientific professionals... unless you're prepared to do all that, and more - at the end of the day, you'll simply be echoing your interpretations, which more than likely will be nothing more than "interpretations of interpretations".

Well, ok. I will take this warning as a positive one.

[TimG]

Well, ok. I will take this warning as a positive one.

Waldo is blowing hot air. The issue here is the proxy selection criteria which is nothing but correlation against temperature. The mechanisms used to create the multi-proxy reconstruction from the selected proxies are irrelevant. Understanding the error does NOT require you to understand how multi-proxy reconstructions work. Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

I guess the truth hurts.

Nope not at all. Laughing at your dopey rant hurt my sides a bit though

[TimG]

Nope not at all. Laughing at your dopey rant hurt my sides a bit though

So my comment was a 'dopey rant' but your comment about Michael having incredible patience was "enlightened commentary"?

In any case, you being an ignorant self righteous hypocrite is no big deal. You probably can't help yourself. I only responded to expose the game you were playing.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

So my comment was a 'dopey rant' but your comment about Michael having incredible patience was "enlightened commentary"?

Yeah thats about exactly right. Iv been reading this stuff, and watching Mike doing his best to figure all this out with people berating him, dismissing his mental approach, his logic, and blabbing on about how people like him are the "reason people dont trust science" and all kinds of silly nonsense.

Your blathering on about how how my comment on Mikes patience somehow showed that Im an "ideolog that doesnt want to here conflicting views", was definately just plain goofy. I never even endorsed any particular view on this and I dont believe I have to date. Im pretty much a fence sitter on this particular issue, and I dont care enough about it to spend the time to figure it out.

Ill wait for Hardners video

Edited April 2, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

watching Mike doing his best to figure all this out with people berating him, dismissing his mental approach

If you had actually followed to discussion you would realize that he was not actually providing any counter arguments or explaining what he does not understand - he was simply insisting that 'he has to do more research' which, in the absence of any explanation, is nothing but a cop out. I think anyone presented will such hand waving would respond the same way I did.

He has now indicated he will actually explain what he does not understand so I am basically retracting my comments made earlier.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

One doesn't "recognize their limits" at the first steps... they recognize them when they can't proceed any further.

recognize your limits? Hey, for now, I'd accept you keeping this bullshit constrained to a single thread... why not start there, hey?

Well, ok. I will take this warning as a positive one.

warning? My comments certainly weren't a warning... they were a statement of fact. You've carried facilitation to a new level - a ridiculous level that has you coddling engagement on this nothing issue. You have successfully trashed another thread - job well done!

[waldo]

He has now indicated he will actually explain what he does not understand.

and you're just the right McIntyre soldier to explain it all!

[waldo]

bringing this thread back on track... pressing the point that the TimG obsession does not belong in yet another thread, the following is a part of Nature's Education Knowledge Project: a reasonably detailed primer on Ocean Acidification.

... the Figure 4 graphic offers a comparative view between the geologic past and historical and future ocean acidification.

[bush_cheney2004]

a reasonably detailed primer on Ocean Acidification.

More American content...Ole!

Nature Education

25 First Street, Suite 104

Cambridge, MA 02141

USA

[Shady]

Another inconvenient truth!!!!

Oceans Started Warming 135 Years Ago, Study Suggests

The world's oceans have been warming for more than 100 years, twice as long as previously believed, new research suggests.

Live Science

The usual Waldo character assassination pointed towards the site, and the writer of the article starts in 3...2...1!

[bleeding heart]

What's with the tag-team, nettled-sounding attacks on Michael from both TimG and Waldo?

I believe these two gentlemen have found common ground at last.

[waldo]

Another inconvenient truth!!!!

The usual Waldo character assassination pointed towards the site, and the writer of the article starts in 3...2...1!

oh my! A ShadyCallOut! Care to actually say something... stretch yourself a bit... go beyond your standard cut/paste, sans commentary/interpretation?

What's with the tag-team

I'll repeat... there has been 'serial enabling' of a particular obsession over, quite literally, a half-dozen or so threads... and, yes, I've also bit a couple of times, one flogged to the nth degree. When it was done once again, in this thread, well...

[GostHacked]

The ocean sure as hell has been radiated over the last year. Fukushima is still pumping out as much radiation as it did just after the big quake.

[waldo]

*** ShadyBump ***

Another inconvenient truth!!!!

The usual Waldo character assassination pointed towards the site, and the writer of the article starts in 3...2...1!

oh my! A ShadyCallOut! Care to actually say something... stretch yourself a bit... go beyond your standard cut/paste, sans commentary/interpretation?

[Shady]

*** ShadyBump ***

I said what needed to be said. By the way, you're breaking forum rules with your reference to me. Just figured I'd point that out. I wouldn't want you to get suspended from posting. It's pretty fun having you around.

[waldo]

Shady... you, "said what needed to be said"? Really? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't/can't actually articulate an interpretation of the referenced article you linked to? I mean, you must think the article conveys something I might have concern/difficulty with... after all, you called me out over it, by simply offering a linked reference, a one sentence quote and a statement that you expected I would reply to your post with a, as you stated, "character assassination pointed towards the site, and the writer of the article".

is there a problem? Is there a reason you've put more effort into a pissant whine over forum rules and my posting suspension, than you have provided to offer any of your own commentary/interpretation of the article you link reference... that you presume to call me out on? Is there a problem?

[Keepitsimple]

.....and the Polar Bears are not being decimated. Another plank in the doomsayers' Global Warming alarmism is splintering. Doesn't mean the North is not warming - it just highlights how the activists go overboard in their claims.

IQALUIT, NUNAVUT—Nunavut says a new survey shows Canada’s polar bear population hasn’t significantly declined in the last seven years as predicted and that the iconic mammal has not been hurt by climate change.

An aerial survey done in August by the Nunavut government, in response to pressure from Inuit, estimated the western Hudson Bay bear population at around 1,000.

That’s about the same number of bears found in a more detailed study done in 2004. That study, which physically tagged the bears, predicted the number would decline to about 650 by 2011.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1156756--hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-defying-predictions-nunavut-survey-says

Edited April 5, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

.....and the Polar Bears are not being decimated. Another plank in the doomsayers' Global Warming alarmism is splintering. Doesn't mean the North is not warming - it just highlights how the activists go overboard in their claims.

as is your denial penchant, you would presume on a single isolated reference/review and extrapolate it, at large... there are 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears... the Western Hudson Bay area is but one of those 19.

an earlier related post:

- considerable

scientific research of polar bear population exists

, notwithstanding the anecdotal observances.

According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

from the previous linked polar bear status table, one of the notes associated with the Western Hudson Bay sub-population group identifies a possible northern shift in the distribution of polar bears... of course, relative to decreasing ice, earlier ice-breakup and resulting nutritionally-stressed polar bears. Clearly, unless one has a Simple agenda, given bear mobility and climate change ice impacts, no single polar bear sub-population grouping analysis/review, in isolation, can be presumed to offer a sweeping generalized commentary on overall polar bear status/population.

in any case, one comment coming forward on that recent Nunuvat aerial survey:

Andrew Derocher - research scientist - UofA Biological Sciences:

It’s premature to draw many conclusions... some details in the survey point to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population. This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.

the same Andrew Derocher... in the Western Hudson Bay/Churchill