Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Mike Flynn

November 23, 2015, 8:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Vaughan Pratt,

It’s a good thing that gravity stops the Earth’s interior from going anywhere. Where pressure of unknown origin forces molten rock through the crust, gravity makes sure it doesn’t fly off into space.

I’m not sure about centrifugal volcanism. I assume you are joking, but If not you might explain how centrifugal force causes volcanoes in Antarctica. The oblate parts of the spheroid are at the poles, I believe, where centrifugal force is presumably least.

I’m always willing to learn. When and where are you publishing this novel theory?

Cheers.

---

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

November 23, 2015, 8:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by cap6097

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

The timing of the complaints, from the letter to NOAA, does not make sense. The paper was submitted in December 2014, so by April-May 2015 it was already in the final revision stage and it was accepted for publication on 21 May, and so the June complaints were even after that. Why were all the internal complaints only well after it would have been all-but-accepted, and why would they be complaining about an accepted paper in the first place?

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by cap6097

November 23, 2015, 8:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

$

0

0

Mosher, “sadly a bunch of people are fabricating crap about Karl’s science.”

You referring to the NOAA Whistleblowers Mosh?

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

November 23, 2015, 8:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by cap6097

$

0

0

There is a lot of good background information in there. This is particularly pertinent for those who yammer about fishing expeditions, yes you yimmy!:

“Additionally, your characterization that oversight should only be performed if evidence of misconduct, fraud, or abuse of discretion is found is mistaken. This Committee has a duty to “determine whether laws and programs addressing subjects within the jurisdiction of [this] committee are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated.”[26] The Rules of the House direct standing committees to conduct oversight on a continuing basis, regardless of whether wrongdoing is suspected. To that end, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to perform oversight, and that oversight may be far-reaching. In Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the “power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”[27]”

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

November 23, 2015, 8:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

$

0

0

“All the data might be available, but we want to know why they did what they did with the data. Why did they decide to take the fork in the road that led to the hyped up pause killing BS, rather than going in some other direction, or standing still? ”

Ask the people who did the original work.. long .. like 2007

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

November 23, 2015, 9:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Eddie Bernice Johnson was involved in a scholarship scandal a while back.

Scholarship checks for her out of district (ineligible) relatives were sent to their homes instead of the college.

It is interesting reading. She does not seem to be a paragon on virtue.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

November 23, 2015, 9:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

$

0

0

“And maybe some real scientist (i.e. one that conduct experiments rather than massaging inadequate data at their desk) will spend a year on a boat conducting experiments in different locations with various methods for measuring SSTs. Then maybe we have some solid information about engine intact, canvas buckets, and wooden buckets.”

You might want to read the literature on how bucket adjustments were decided.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

November 23, 2015, 9:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Somebody at NOAA was trying to quash, delay or slow-walk an already accepted paper that they knew would kill “the pause”. They are the ones that need investigating.

---

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

November 23, 2015, 9:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

$

0

0

Why didn’t somebody make the adjustments back in 2007? Or 08, 09, 10, 11,12,13,14?

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

November 23, 2015, 9:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by harkin1

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

$

0

0

You have sunk to a new low, yimmy. You better go back to the huffpo drone garage for repairs and reprogramming.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by harkin1

November 23, 2015, 9:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by richardswarthout

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Maybe Halley’s comet pumped the brakes.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by richardswarthout

November 23, 2015, 9:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by harkin1

$

0

0

Tony

Awhile back I suggested to Mosher that my granddaughter’s future catholic girls high school in Michigan would be a perfect place for a teacher with his English and Philosophy background. He answered that he did have fond memories of Michigan, I believe he said Cadillac Michigan. It is a rural area with a major ski resort, golf courses, snowmobile trails, and now dog sledding (mushing). Not far from there, about an hour farther north, is Petosky, Michigan, which overlooks Lake Michigan, and where Hemmingway sometimes sought peace.

Richard

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

November 24, 2015, 4:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by richardswarthout

$

0

0

Apparently, he says, it has already cooled by more than a degree since 1940, and the cooling continues even faster after 2000, and nobody but him has noticed this before. Hmmm… Where do they get these people?

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by John Carpenter

November 24, 2015, 4:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by tumbleweedstumbling

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe.” – Mike Flynn

You never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by tumbleweedstumbling

November 24, 2015, 4:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by John Carpenter

$

0

0

Oh no, you see we are going to have twice as much warming, twice as many wildfires, twice as many droughts and twice as many floods as anyplace else on earth plus we will lose our polar bears! We have to pay carbon tax and right now and lots of it!

---

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Wagathon

November 24, 2015, 5:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by tumbleweedstumbling

$

0

0

Maybe we should consider building cities on the bottom of the ocean where Trenberth said all that missing heat was hiding.

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

November 24, 2015, 5:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Wagathon

$

0

0

RiHo08, there’s very interesting and disturbing parallels to history occurring. Before I get scorched; I’m not saying today’s left is anything close to late 1930s National Socialism (in reality it was indeed a perverted form of socialism); however the dangers of collectivism are obviously a concern whenever any ideology begins to take on a life of its own while also having symbiotic alignment with higher institutions. But demonization of segments of culture is occurring, that’s simply a fact. Having said this, if another global depression were to occur, which it’s not out of the question with the current global economic and societal conditions, then things could get very ugly. The potential ingredients exist for extreme governmental perversions to globally occur if culture remains complacent.

I don’t see a dark future occurring, but it’s possible. The left naively is trying to force globalism and ever increasing social engineering today, western nations are becoming too weak because of it. Humanity is too young, not advanced enough technologically nor culturally to handle it IMO. I do see globalism occurring in the very, very distant future as a natural evolution of technology and culture almost certainly.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

November 24, 2015, 5:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

$

0

0

scraft1,

I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you! Only joking!

Speed also makes things shorter, as follows –

“There was a young fencer named Fisk,
With action exceedingly brisk,
So rapid his action,
Fitzgerald contraction,
Reduced his rapier to a disk.”

At the speed of light, it would take less “time” to proceed from one end to the other of an object compressed by the Fitzgerald contraction (more properly called something else, but wouldn’t fit the limerick nearly as well).

What might help is looking up Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction, and follow that up with a quick squiz at Time Dilation. Or the other way round. Sometimes you get to the same point by taking a different path.

I’ll warn you that contemplating such counter intuitive stuff can lead to your head hurting, or an attack of Koan belly!

Good luck!

Cheers.

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn

November 24, 2015, 5:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

John Carpenter,

You quoted me as saying –

“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe.”

With which part of that statement do you disagree and why? If you are merely trying to be gratuitously offensive, you have failed. I decline to take offence as a general rule. I see no reason to make an exception in your case.

You went on to write –

“You never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.”

I am surprised. This is new to me. I believe I have heard of those words before, so you can either back up your assertion, or not. If you can’t, then I must assume you are mentally disturbed, in which case you have my compassion, and I wish you well.

Cheers.

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D

November 24, 2015, 5:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

MF, typically a gas molecule needs 3 or more atoms to be classified as IR active. So, “every gas in the universe”, it is clearly not.