Despite @Barry Rathbone 's ignorant ramblings about "empirical" data and how he views CO2 from ice cores as the only way to measure global warming (notwithstanding repeated attempts by those here to point out that this reasoning is fallacious) we now have yet another peer-reviewed paper based on empirical evidence that does not rely on ice core temperatures and shows that the world's temperatures are getting warmer as registered in ocean temperatures. Note: ocean temperatures are especially important to measure--a cup of air cools off faster than a cup of water, so when ocean's heat up, they keep their heat for longer--though these simple thermodynamic issues are lost on Rathbone. This research also shows that the uptick in temperatures is not due to Milankovitch cycles and thus cannot be ascribed to "natural processes"--the lazy climate-change-denialist go-to statement when failing to understand how climate works.
The trigger words in the paper, which will set Rathbone off are the following: modeling, bias, simulation. In science, using a "model" is as routine as collecting data--every single statistical analysis is a model; to Barry a "model" is suspicious plot by an evil cabal of scientists. In science "bias" means that a statistical model is underfit and thus doesn't describe the data adequately; to Barry "bias" is likely to mean "hahahah, see you're wrong, because there is word that is used that I don't understand but sounds fishy...hahahah [insert idiotic emoji]." In science, "simulation" is a projection or approximation of a dynamic phenomenon; to Barry, "simulation" is likely to mean that he got the VR megapack for his Play Station.
Here is the paper:
And I'm quite certain that @Barry Rathbone will disengage the "ignore" function from time to time to check-in on this thread, if only to satisfy his Dunning-Kruger level of self-righteousness. He'll quickly "re-ignore" after reading over these posts. AmIright, Barry?
The trigger words in the paper, which will set Rathbone off are the following: modeling, bias, simulation. In science, using a "model" is as routine as collecting data--every single statistical analysis is a model; to Barry a "model" is suspicious plot by an evil cabal of scientists. In science "bias" means that a statistical model is underfit and thus doesn't describe the data adequately; to Barry "bias" is likely to mean "hahahah, see you're wrong, because there is word that is used that I don't understand but sounds fishy...hahahah [insert idiotic emoji]." In science, "simulation" is a projection or approximation of a dynamic phenomenon; to Barry, "simulation" is likely to mean that he got the VR megapack for his Play Station.
Here is the paper:
And I'm quite certain that @Barry Rathbone will disengage the "ignore" function from time to time to check-in on this thread, if only to satisfy his Dunning-Kruger level of self-righteousness. He'll quickly "re-ignore" after reading over these posts. AmIright, Barry?
