# Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 31, 2015)

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:


What is Excess Heat?
Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...



* increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.*


What was the temperature of all that water in 1971? What is it now?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 31, 2015)

Now frank, you know that is above their pay grades.

The excess heat is the heat that they are adjusting the normal temperature curve with so as to claim global warming.

Now that they have been caught lying they have to account for all that missing heat, sans another lie predicated on a lie.

The ocean ate it, kinda like the dog ate my homework

It's kinda like the hands up don't shoot shit .....................


----------



## defcon4 (Jul 31, 2015)

Excess heat is when their balls start sweating being caught lying to push their agenda.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 31, 2015)

Frank.....notice these days that the temperature is almost invariably reported with the "heat index" temperature!!!

Hmmm..........no agenda to see here!!!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 31, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> Frank.....notice these days that the temperature is almost invariably reported with the "heat index" temperature!!!
> 
> Hmmm..........no agenda to see here!!!




Come on now .....

Heat indexes simply take into account relative humidity.

The feels like temperature is a corrected relative temperature with an adjustment for relative humidity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 31, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Frank.....notice these days that the temperature is almost invariably reported with the "heat index" temperature!!!
> ...



hmmmmmm.. Feels LIKE.... (subjective to ones own estimation) Vs. Temperature is (which is a derived observation of a consistent method using calibrated devices)

Does any one else see the alarmists using subjective crap ?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 31, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> hmmmmmm.. Feels LIKE.... (subjective to ones own estimation) Vs. Temperature is (which is a derived observation of a consistent method using calibrated devices)
> 
> Does any one else see the alarmists using subjective crap ?



Oh another rocket scientist who fails to realize that "feels like" is just a dumbed down redneck way of stating relative temperature corrected for relative hunmidity.

A derived observation with those fancy calibrated devices and verifiable scientific methods  .................

Way too complicated of a process for dumb illiterate rednecks to understand....................


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Frank.....notice these days that the temperature is almost invariably reported with the "heat index" temperature!!!
> ...


And?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmmm.. Feels LIKE.... (subjective to ones own estimation) Vs. Temperature is (which is a derived observation of a consistent method using calibrated devices)
> ...


We knew you didn't get it. Mr. Redneck.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 1, 2015)

--LOL

good luck with that 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...



What are they measuring, when are they measuring it?


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

A little internecine hostility?



CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...



Frank, why do you have to work so hard to demonstrate the intractability of your ignorance?  Excess heat is a phrase.  It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.  However, in conversations about a system that is being warmed, it's obviously a term that's going to come up now and then.  In the context in which you've seen it most often, it is applied to the thermal energy accumulated by the greenhouse process in excess of the amount being radiated to space.  I've told you this before and I have to say it makes me suspicious of your claims to be a seeker after knowledge when so often you pretend no one has told you anything.

The excess heat was not hiding anywhere.  As usual, you've got the wrong picture.

The oceans are warmed by the absorption of SW and LW radiation and by conduction and convection from the air.  Don't be misled by the observation that all that light gets absorbed quickly.  Of course it does.  But what does that mean?  It means the ocean is good at absorbing energy.  And no one on my side of the argument has EVER claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by electromagnetic radiation.  That whole argument was what you'd call a red herring.  Aside from thermal vents and volcanoes and a tiny amount of heat coming through the ocean bottom from the Earth's core, the ocean is heated entirely betwee its surface and about the first 50 meters of depth.  That covers all conduction and pretty much all electromagnetic radiation (SW and LW light).  Heat below those depths gets there primarily by the motion of water. There are a number of vertically-oriented circulations in the oceans that very effectively move deep water up and shallow water down.

The Laurentian Abyss, Frank, is the fan of sediment at the mouth of the Ste Lawrence seaway.  It is a long way from being the deepest spot in the ocean.  It's not even the deepest spot in the Atlantic, the shallower of the two major bodies.  Check terms you're not familiar with and don't use science from children's action movies. The deepest spot in the world is the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench off Guam.


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They are measuring temperature and they measure it when they drop expendable bathythermographs or lower any of a variety of different probes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Now according to the AGWCult it takes either 4, 700 (1) or 3,000  (2) times the energy to heat the ocean than the air.

So it seems to me that the air had to be, in scientific terms, pretty fucking hot, for it to have been holding the heat now residing in the bowels of the oceans?

When did this happen? Where were we? Remember, no warming in the last 2 decades


(1) Crick

(2) mamooth


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

As I noted, you're just about pointless to talk to because you seem to pretend you heard nothing.  You don't seem to have absorbed ANYTHING I told you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Crick, long on insults, short on rational explanations, and apparently completely unfamiliar with AR5 and the OP. Crick, who alleges that "And no one on my side of the argument has EVER claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by electromagnetic radiation"  either never read AR5 or read it and didn't understand it, so I'll post it again:

"It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1}"

What's warming the oceans down to 3,000 m, magical beans?  Why is AR5 concerned with this warming and using it in their Manamde Global Climate Warming Change papers?

Apparently, Excess Heat is like "Iron poor tired blood" a fictional condition that you needed Geritol to correct.

The AGWCult crapped out on finding warming, no warming for 2 decades, so now they're adding in the deep oceans -- out of nowhere. The Heat, the "Excess" heat just magically appeared there.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> As I noted, you're just about pointless to talk to because you seem to pretend you heard nothing.  You don't seem to have absorbed ANYTHING I told you.



Right, because your points are like "excess heat" they don't exist and hence can't be absorbed


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??

Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................

*30 Mar 2015: Analysis*
*How Long Can Oceans Continue 
To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?*
*The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.*
by cheryl katz

For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence. 

But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal
*Enlarge*



_Nature Climate Change_
This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.
energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years. 

The ocean has been heating at a rate of around 0.5 to 1 watt of energy per square meter over the past decade, amassing more than 2 X 1023 joules of energy — the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990. Vast and slow to change temperature, the oceans have a huge capacity to sequester heat, especially the deep ocean, which is playing an increasingly large uptake and storage role. 

That is a major reason the planet’s surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The phenomenon, which some call the “hiatus,” has challenged scientists to explain its cause. But new studies indicate that the forces behind the supposed hiatus are natural Ocean heat accumulation is the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second since 1990. — and temporary — ocean processes that may already be changing course. 

Pacific trade winds, for instance, which have been unusually strong for the past two decades thanks to a 20- to 30-year cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, have been pumping atmospheric heat down into the western Pacific. The winds are powered up by the cycle’s current negative, or cool, phase. But scientists say that when the cycle eventually swings back to its positive, warm phase, which history suggests could occur within a decade, the winds will wind down, the pumping will let up, and buried heat will rise back into the atmosphere. 

“There’s a hint this might already be starting to happen,” said Matthew England, an ocean sciences professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Without the winds’ cooling action, atmospheric temperatures could surge as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, the last time the oscillation was positive. During the next positive phase, “it’s very much likely that [warming] will be as fast or even faster,” he said, “because those greenhouse gases are now more elevated.” 

Scientists are also learning that the ocean has gained more heat, and at greater depth, than they had realized. That means the entire climate is even more out-of-whack than is evident today. 

“If you want to measure the energy imbalance of the earth, the ocean temperature gives you nearly the whole story,” said Dean Roemmich, oceanography professor at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

The long-term heat gain in the top 700 meters (.43 miles) of the world’s oceans has likely been underestimated by as much as half, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory research scientist Paul Durack. Earlier measurements had lowballed heat accumulation due to historically sparse observations for large parts of the ocean. The figures were especially low for the Southern Hemisphere, which contains about 60 percent of the planet’s oceans but was very poorly sampled — until Argo, an array of Globally, the upper oceans may hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported. around 3,500 floating sensors, was deployed worldwide in 2005. 

An updated analysis by Durack and colleagues found that from 1970 to 2004, the upper 700 meters of oceans in the Southern Hemisphere had gained from 48 to 166 percent more heat than estimated from earlier observations. Globally, their findings suggest that the upper oceans hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported. 

“We have likely been missing a portion of the increasing heat,” said Durack. His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that “we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.” 

Excess energy is also penetrating deeper into the ocean and farther south, Roemmich and colleagues found, analyzing Argo data measuring heat down to 2,000 meters (1.24 miles). The network provides the first comprehensive measurements of the deeper ocean; most prior readings stopped at 700 meters. The researchers found that from two-thirds to 98 percent of the substantial ocean heat gain between 2006 and 2013 took place well south of the equator, where giant gyres drew it down. And half of the gain occurred from 500 to 2,000 meters deep. 

Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually. While that may not seem like a big temperature jump, it amounts to a staggering load of heat when multiplied throughout the depths of this immense system that covers 70 percent of the planet. 

Temperature gains are larger at the sea surface, which heats faster than the ocean as a whole. The top 75 meters have warmed an average of .01 degrees C per year since 1971. But forces like winds and currents have strong effects on the ocean surface, and temperature measurements there are highly More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere. variable. Still, they indicate that some areas of the ocean are heating up especially fast, such as the Arctic Ocean — which this year had its lowest winter ice year on record — and is absorbing much more solar energy as melting ice cover exposes new dark surfaces. Summer sea surface temperatures in some sections have risen around 1 degree C over the past two decades — nearly five times the global average. Parts of the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, and waters surrounding Antarctica are warming at nearly the same rate. 

More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere. 

“A couple of El Niño events will do the trick,” said England. The warm water and calm winds of this periodic Pacific tropical condition are “a big way to get subsurface heat back to the surface.” Meteorologists say a mild El Niño condition is underway this year. 

The oceans won’t eject all that excess heat in a giant gush, of course — seawater’s heat capacity is huge and a portion will be locked away for millennia. Some of that banked energy will discharge into air at the ocean
*Enlarge*



NOAA
This graph shows the increase in the global ocean heat content since 1955.
surface, however, and the atmosphere will heat up. Given the enormity of the ocean’s thermal load, even a tiny change has a big impact. 

“But the other thing I want to point out,” England added, “is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at such high concentrations compared to what they were 100 years ago that you don’t need to bring heat back up from the ocean to the surface to get future warming — you just need to slow down the heat uptake by the ocean, and greenhouse gases will do the rest.” 

Recent weather trends suggest that uptake mechanisms like subsurface heat burial in the tropical Pacific and vertical heat transfer to the ocean depths could already be declining. 

“And so this is why 2014 is now the warmest year on record,” said Trenberth. “In other words, the heat is no longer going deep into the ocean. The wind patterns have changed, the surface of the Pacific Ocean has warmed up. And that has consequences.” 

One of the major consequences is higher sea levels. Thermal expansion — water swells as it heats — accounts for a substantial portion of rising seas, so warmer oceans mean even worse news for already threatened islands and coasts. 

The effects on sea circulation patterns and weather are complex and difficult to tease out from natural variation, requiring long-term observation. But mounting evidence points to a variety of likely impacts. Among them: Rapidly warming Arctic waters could worsen summer heat waves in Europe and North America by lowering the temperature differential that drives mid-latitude circulation. And a recent rash of For marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. unusually intense cyclones may be linked to changes in the tropical Pacific. 

As for marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. Warmer water holds less oxygen and other gases. On top of that, warming increases ocean stratification, which blocks the movement of oxygen-rich surface waters to lower depths. The resulting low-oxygen zones are now spreading, and climate models predict they could be 50 percent larger by the end of this century. Not only are the zones inhospitable to most sea creatures, they squeeze critical upper ocean habitat as they enlarge, said Sarah Moffitt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis’ Bodega Marine Laboratory. 

“So you are losing this substantial habitat footprint for oxygen-respiring organisms,” she said. “We are seeing signals of oxygen loss in every ocean basin in the global ocean.” 

A recent study by Moffitt and colleagues of seafloor sediments from the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 to 17,000 years ago, revealed that Pacific Ocean ecosystems from the Arctic to Chile “extensively and abruptly lost oxygen when the planet warmed through deglaciation,” she said. The findings offer a glimpse of what may lie ahead. “It shows us that in a carbon-rich, warm future, ocean systems have the capacity to change in a way that has no analogue” in today’s world, Moffitt said. 

A further concern is that temperature increases could diminish the ocean’s vital role as a carbon sink. Absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is another way oceans mitigate greenhouse gas impacts, although marine waters are growing increasingly acidic as a result. Currently, up to nearly half of humanity’s carbon dioxide output ends up dissolved in seawater, with most landing in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, where wind-driven eddies bury it deeply. But warm waters also hold less CO2. And those cyclical winds likely will someday decrease. The outcome of rising ocean temperatures and decreasing winds would be faster ocean CO2 saturation
*ALSO FROM YALE e360*

Although the IPCC recently increased its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are too conservative. But, Nicola Jones reports, one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.
*READ MORE* and far more heat-trapping gas entering the atmosphere — a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age. 

There’s still time to turn things around, scientists say. 

“We have the technology today to make a positive impact on climate, and all we lack is the political will,” said John Abraham, a thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. But he and others worry that by covering up the effects of our long fossil fuel bender, oceans are keeping us from realizing just how off-kilter the earth’s climate system has become. 

“The ocean’s doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat,” Abraham said. “But it’s not going to do it forever.”

How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth s Excess Heat by Cheryl Katz Yale Environment 360


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> That is a major reason the planet’s surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The phenomenon, which some call the “hiatus,” has challenged scientists to explain its cause. But new studies indicate that the forces behind the supposed hiatus are natural Ocean heat accumulation is the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second since 1990. — and temporary — ocean processes that may already be changing course.




Fucking hilarious fear mongering, I want to watch the nuke show ................................


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thank you

\thread end


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
> 
> Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................
> 
> ...



It's such a total farce. The excess heat, which never was in the atmosphere, magically appears 700M deep in the oceans

Uh huh.  Sureeeeeeeeeeeeee.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


 Thank you, I am 150 lbs I like the heat, the hotter the better, while my 225 lb co worker is always crying like a little girl about it.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
> ...




Yesssssss Sirrrrrrrrrrr, the lefts favorite play right out the book, a lie predicated on a lie .................


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I grabbed Laurentian Abyss as the alleged final resting place of Red October. Glad to see you cut and paste from Wiki without attribution

You mentioned Guam, has it tipped over yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
> 
> Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................
> 
> ...



*Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually
*
Holy crap! What an incredibly precise wild ass guess.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 Just a question did they have that technology 40 years ago?

The answer is no......

So you want to base a 4.5 billion year old planet on just a few years of ocean data?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

More fine reading for those who need to discuss this :

* While scientists are cautious, deniers throw caution to the wind*

While the scientists themselves are suitably cautious (as seen in the paper's title), Anthony Watts is not. He seems keen to tempt NOAA into suing him for defamation. This time Anthony doesn't accuse the NOAA of fraud, he accuses it of lying, writing it is "_the most mendacious attempt yet_":
Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet. 
Anthony, who can't get his head around anomalies from a baseline, claims that "_WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper_". Notice that he stops short of claiming that it was he, Anthony, who found a fatal weakness. He probably didn't understand the paper, if he managed to read it. From the comments Anthony passed the buck to Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale. So you can expect a tedious, verbose, and dense article with lots of irrelevant charts of sea surface temperature in various oceans, mixed up with El Niño, sunlight-fueled water, complaints that climate models aren't weather forecasts, and greenhouse effect denial.

I'll be writing a separate article (probably two) on the "frenzy of denial" about the paper. This one is about the paper itself.

HotWhopper NOAA No pause in the global surface temperature


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They claim hundredths of degrees in accuracy using thermometers which had 1.0 deg C error margins... Their fraudulent ' accuracy ' is only eclipsed by their need of deception..


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

*The global warming hoax*

Posted on March 23, 2014 by Malcolm Shykles in Views // 15 Comments






There were three key individuals central to the advance of the Global Warming Hoax; Ken Lay of the Enron Corporation, Al Gore Vice President of the USA and his former University lecturer Professor Roger Revelle.

A former under-secretary general of the United Nations, Maurice Strong also aided the promotion of their efforts.

In 1957, Revelle suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a ‘greenhouse effect’ that would cause global warming over time.

Al Gore graduated from Harvard in 1969 and had been particularly impressed by Revelle’s class. From then on Al Gore was and still is, convinced of manmade global warming.

By 1991 Revelle had changed his mind and co-authored an article ‘What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap’ which stated: ‘We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.’  At this point Al Gore, who is still convinced of the Greenhouse effect, pronounced Roger Revelle as senile.

In the 1980s, Lay was an energy company executive at Houston Natural Gas.  This company was bought out and its name changed to Enron in 1985.  The Enron Corporationgrew to become a commodities trading company in more than 30 products which included gas fired power stations and even broadband.  It was willing to exploit any commodity for maximum profit.  Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001 some 20,000 staff were employed.

California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW yet the demand was only 28GW.  A supply gap was purposely created by Enron in order to obtain artificial shortages.  In order to increase the price, power plants were taken offline for maintenance in days of peak demand.  Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times the normal value.  These manipulations brought about rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses and an 800% increase in the price of electricity by the December of 2000.  Enron had cost California between $40 and $45 billion.

The US 1990 Clean Air Act had forced controls on how much pollution a fossil fuel plant could emit.  Enron had then helped to create a market for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program.  As that market proved to be very profitable, the company next turned to creating a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, the forerunner of today’s carbon trading scam.  The only problem was that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Under the Clinton administration in 1993, Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, and Vice President Al Gore met in order to create an international regulatory system that would manage carbon dioxide.  At that time Al Gore claimed he had ‘not known that Ken Lay was a crook’.

In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community.  From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories.  Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.

In 1997, Enron was investing in the manufacture of of wind turbines and set about promoting an international treaty to impose cuts on CO2 emissions and to allow Carbon Credit trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and would help Enron’s growing commodity trading and wind turbine business.

In 2006 Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006.  The documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.  The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. and $26 million in the foreign box office, becoming the 9th highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.

When George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort.  Britain’s main parties were the recipients of Enron’s generosity.  Between 1997 and 2000, the Labour Party accepted £38,000 from Enron in sponsorship money for its events, whilst the Conservative Party received approximately £25,000.

This skulduggery has led to the closure of our cheaper coal fired powered stations, the wind turbine scandal and expensive fuel bills, and still continues.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because no gas can store energy (heat).  Solids and liquids can store heat but not gases unless they are enclosed.  The belief that CO2 raises the temperature of a gas system is based on the assumption of a closed system in which energy cannot escape.  The earth is an open system and hence it cannot accumulate heat in its atmosphere.  Due to convection currents warmed gases rise, and (if we ignore the adiabatic lapse rate because expanding gases cool anyway) any excess heat is radiated away through the atmosphere and into space, which is certainly apparent on cloudless nights.  Greenhouse gas theory seems to be the domain of mathematically dominated science, rather than empirical science.
The global warming hoax -


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> More fine reading for those who need to discuss this :
> 
> * While scientists are cautious, deniers throw caution to the wind*
> 
> ...



We know all about Miriam's HOTWHOPPER liar site.. They call her Slandering Sue... She has Zero credibility as does the author of that article.  You will note that they refuse to discuss the science and resort to defamation, adhominem,  and slander as the article you posted clearly demonstrates.  Just like many of the alarmists here, They will not discuss the science that Tisdale and Watts present because Miriam's position as with all alarmism is indefensible.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Data collection of sea temps vs time, you might want to make a read.

Thermometers with an accuracy of 1 degree and being hard to read are used at one point.

http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

*Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax*
By ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion





By Elmer Beauregard

*The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.*

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

*1. Record Ice*

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

*2. Record Snow*

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

*3. Record Cold*

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

*4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted


Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming


You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man


In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.


If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players


One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax Global Climate Scam*


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?





CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...





Crick said:


> Frank, why do you have to work so hard to demonstrate the intractability of your ignorance?  Excess heat is a phrase.  It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.  However, in conversations about a system that is being warmed, it's obviously a term that's going to come up now and then.  In the context in which you've seen it most often, it is applied to the thermal energy accumulated by the greenhouse process in excess of the amount being radiated to space.  I've told you this before and I have to say it makes me suspicious of your claims to be a seeker after knowledge when so often you pretend no one has told you anything.
> 
> The excess heat was not hiding anywhere.  As usual, you've got the wrong picture.
> 
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick, long on insults, short on rational explanations, and apparently completely unfamiliar with AR5 and the OP.



When you ask for information, receive, then ask for it again - or when you ask a question, receive an answer, then proceed as if the answer had been something else entirely, you are likely to receive insults from me.  I have given you more rational explanations than anyone here and, considering your response to them, far more than you've deserved.

I have NOT read the entirety of AR5 but I'm quite certain I've read more of it than you have and with a far higher level of understanding.  As far as the OP goes, when a thread gets started with a meaningless diatribe, I do not feel particularly bound to keep myself in a similar state. 



CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick, who alleges that "And no one on my side of the argument has EVER claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by electromagnetic radiation"  either never read AR5 or read it and didn't understand it, so I'll post it again:
> 
> "It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1}"
> 
> What's warming the oceans down to 3,000 m, magical beans?



I REPEAT, no one on my side of the argument has ever claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by EM radiation.  It is being warmed AS I STATED, by the vertical motion of water.  Water within 50 meters or so of the surface DOES get warmed by EM radiation and conduction from the air.  That warmed water gets MOVED into the depths.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Why is AR5 concerned with this warming and using it in their Manamde Global Climate Warming Change papers?



Why SHOULDN'T they be concerned with it Frank?  It's a very large portion of the Earth's heating.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Apparently, Excess Heat is like "Iron poor tired blood" a fictional condition that you needed Geritol to correct.



Apparently, you're every BIT as stupid as I've ever suspected.



CrusaderFrank said:


> The AGWCult crapped out on finding warming, no warming for 2 decades



No, we didn't.  Surface temperatures never stopped warming, they just seemed to have slowed.  It was known fairly quickly that the deep oceans were warming in an extraordinary manner - surely even you will remember Balamaseda, Trenberth and Kallen.  The thought for a good long while was that the heating had altered the tropical wind patters and were causing the subduction of greater amounts of warmed surface waters.  This tended to cool the surface and led to the false "hiatus".  Now, of course, we find improper treatment was being given to SST data collected via different means.  That and the use of poorly sampled Arctic temperature data was producing false results.  The truth is that there has been no hiatus, warming has continued at the same rate throughout this entire period.  I know you had all your hopes staked to that hiatus and it must be painful to see them dashed like this.  But, like they say around here, tough shit.



CrusaderFrank said:


> , so now they're adding in the deep oceans -- out of nowhere. The Heat, the "Excess" heat just magically appeared there.



We aren't responsible for your ignorance or you poor memory.  It's not our fault you can't seem to remember what you were told five minutes ago.  We aren't to blame for your apparent inability to use Google or Wikipedia or any other information reference.  So, you're on your own Frank.

PS, when are you going to provide a link to the post you claim to have seen in which I admit getting paid for posting here?


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax*
> By ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion
> 
> By Elmer Beauregard



A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.

*


DrDoomNGloom said:



			The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.
		
Click to expand...

*
You fail to note how the Senate vote went.  It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax.  And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now



Why would we think that?  The sun is going to go nova someday.  Today is the latest day there has ever been.  Should we think that the sun will go nova today?  Your statement is illogical and irrational.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> but instead the opposite is happening.



The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen".  That's interesting.  Let's see what you've got.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *1. Record Ice*
> 
> In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it.



There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold.  The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans.  Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic.  The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014.



And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.








DrDoomNGloom said:


> The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.



The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves.  Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream.  While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold.  That pattern was repeated around the world.  The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *2. Record Snow*
> 
> 2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.



Same effect.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *3. Record Cold*
> 
> In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”



Same effect



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted*
> 
> *Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.*


*
Bullshit



*



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
> 
> You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.*


*
Bulllshit





*
Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land.  Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.
*


DrDoomNGloom said:



			6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
		
Click to expand...




DrDoomNGloom said:



			A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.
		
Click to expand...


I'm glad the moose are okay.  They are not an indicator of global warming.
*


DrDoomNGloom said:


> *7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming*
> 
> *You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.*


*
Bullshit.  *The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit.  They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science.  Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:






To which we can add three additional studies:
*1)*  A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
*
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]

2)*  A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]
*
3)* James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]

*


DrDoomNGloom said:



			8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man
		
Click to expand...

*


DrDoomNGloom said:


> *In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.*



No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature.  That isn't the point.  The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2.  Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time.  During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half.  CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years.  It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame.  The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building.  The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural. 



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.
> 
> If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.*



Satellites are not the best source of temperature data.  They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present.  There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects.  Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case.  UHI is the hoax.  The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated.  The world continues to get warmer.  There has been no hiatus.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> *10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players*
> 
> *One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.*



The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires.  This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > *Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax*
> ...



ROFLMMFAO.....

Tl;dr


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A little internecine hostility?
> ...


Dude, 
You wouldn't know evidence if you ate it for lunch. Let's get this straight, you never answer a question that someone asks. You do the boogie woogie and dance. Insult the requesters and then claim you've answered the question. SORRY! WRONG


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > *Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax*
> ...





DrDoomNGloom said:


> ROFLMMFAO.....
> 
> Tl;dr



Do you have anything else to say?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...




Nope, loserterians really just oppose and think they know everything there is too know. They're a sad group of idiots that hate government.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A little internecine hostility?
> ...




1. Still no explanation of "excess heat"

2. Still clinging to the idea that AGW is heating the oceans down to the base of the abysses by "heat transfer"

3. Still not clued into the face that the AGWCult started "the ocean at me warming" meme because there's been no warming for 2 decades.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 1, 2015)

Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.

Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.

And as for DrGloom



> *in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.*




That's 100% wrong. Moose do much better in the cold years. It's the heat that kills them. If cold killed the moose, you wouldn't see them in northern Alaska, and you would see them in the southern USA.

Why is cold better for them? Brain worm parasite and ticks. Both are winter-killed by very cold temperatures. If winter temperatures never get too cold, the parasite populations explode and kill the mooses in a very gruesome manner.

With winters warming moose are devastated by exploding tick populations - The Washington Post


----------



## G.T. (Aug 1, 2015)

Frank is o-b-s-e-s-s-e-d


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

Nice job frank


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

Funny when the leftist feel the need to whimper in a thread together so they all feel good.  LOL


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

I think it's actually worse than that.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> I think it's actually worse than that.


I agree. First factual post you've made


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > *Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax*
> ...



Crick has hit every single alarmist excuse, yet he offers up no factual data to support his position.  

Just five years ago Satellite data was cream of the crop when it was agreeing with them. Now, because they can not infill and adjust it, it has become second rate to the heavily adjusted and made up land data set.  

Man it fun to see you guys squirm around a collapsing meme...


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2015)

Here, some of Dr Roy Spencer's tropospheric microwave sounding data.  Note the average of the first few years and the average of the last few years.  Which way's the trend going Billy Boy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.
> 
> Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.
> 
> ...





mamooth said:


> Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.
> 
> Basically, this thread is now just an illustration of how some deniers display a histrionic personality disorder. That is, they seek attention, and they don't care how badly they have to act to get it.
> 
> ...



Crick, just linked to article that mention Excess Heat as if it actually exists, so that's no explanation

Where was this "Excess Heat" before it was absorbed by the oceans?  It wasn't in the atmosphere, where was it?

How did the Excess Heat manage to get 800M deep in the oceans?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Frank is o-b-s-e-s-s-e-d



Frank had his BS meter pinned by "excess heat"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Here, some of Dr Roy Spencer's tropospheric microwave sounding data.  Note the average of the first few years and the average of the last few years.  Which way's the trend going Billy Boy?



Crick, where's the "Excess heat" that's since been absorbed by the oceans?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?



Where was this imaginary "excess heat" *BEFORE* it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick ?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?
> ...




It was emitted out of the sun, traveled in photons and entered our Atmosphere!!! hahaha...


After that it gets very complex as some of the heat from off the oceans, land or what ever was transferred back into the Atmosphere by Ir Radiation and readmitted off of the green house effect...Which some of it also was stored within our oceans.


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?
> ...



Matthew's pegged it.  Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons).  It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans.  The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads.  A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans).  Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated.  Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth.  Some goes up.  Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water.  Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below.  Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered?  It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere and are not evenly distributed, yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward? Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?






How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.

Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?

Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable say US scientists Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That's good old regular Heat, where's the "excess"?

So if the imaginary heat is GHG "Excess" why doesn't it show up in the atmosphere?  No warming 2 decades, remember?

Also, it take at least 4 times the heat to warm the oceans than it does the air (Crick said it takes 700 times the energy) You expect the atmosphere to be EXTREMELY hot in order to raise ocean temp as you allege. How come there's absolutely no evidence of the atmospheric heating require for your theory to be in the same galaxy as even remotely possible?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, Crick explained all that to you on this thread.. You're simply a liar. There's no point in speaking with you, given that no matter what anyone says, you'll simply lie in response.
> ...



Funny how they dance around physics and physical laws ignoring them when it is inconvenient.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Nice post! Shows their lying and deception quite nicely.  The ambient air would have to be four times what it is today to get the rise these people predict at the surface.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I'll proudly admit I'm not a scientist, I'm hoping people in the scientific community pick up on this obvious fraud


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



OMG......  Electromagnetic radiation..


LOL you lying sacks of crap..  The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....

You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!!  SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?

CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.

EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature.  0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring.  Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would have to, be shown by empirically observed occurrence, if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum. IT ISN'T HAPPENING!  And to top it off, Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The alarmist are now spreading huge lies and disinformation hip wader deep.  they are desperate to keep their lie alive.  This last one about EM is total bull shit. They are changing their talking points again. They are desperate!


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?





CrusaderFrank said:


> Where was this imaginary "excess heat" *BEFORE* it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?





Crick said:


> Matthew's pegged it.  Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons).  It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans.  The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads.  A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans).  Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated.  Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth.  Some goes up.  Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.
> 
> And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water.  Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below.  Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?
> 
> Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered?  It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.





CrusaderFrank said:


> GHG's account for a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere



That's a really ignorant comment Frank.  Their is enough CO2 to do what it's credited with doing.



CrusaderFrank said:


> and are not evenly distributed



They are sufficiently well distributed.  You need to give some thought to the actual scale that does along with that diagram.  You know, the one with the numbers.



CrusaderFrank said:


> yet you claim the reabsorb 100% of the energy radiated outward?



Yeah, how about that.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Did you just make that up? Is that a "Fact" like "excess energy"?



You're the last human still supporting Angstrom and Koch.  You tell me.



CrusaderFrank said:


> How is it that 70% of initial energy hits the oceans but 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is now absorbed by the ocean.



How is it that a simple process can be explained to you on multiple occasions by multiple different people and you still completely fail to understand it?  How can you be as dense as you seem to be?  Have you ever had a job?  How far did you make it through school?  This is ridiculous Frank.

Now, I think pretty much everyone here long ago figured out that you just keep asking questions because you don't have the balls to admit you've been so wrong.  That's certainly the only reason I keep talking to you.  Charity.

When I said 70% of that incoming solar radiation (the stuff coming directly from the sun) struck the ocean - how'd I know that Frank?  Where'd I get that number from?  Think REAL hard.  It's cause the oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface.  Right, Frank?  You knew that, didn't you Frank?

Now, that's just the EM radiation that comes directly from the sun and strikes the planet.  Is that the whole process Frank?  No.  There's stil the conduction and convection taking place between the air and the water and there's still all that backradiation from the GHGs in the atmosphere.  I don't know if you understood that water absorption coefficient diagram I posted yesterday, but water absorbs LW better than SW.  So it sucks up an even larger percentage of the back radiation than it did of the original.  So, the scientist could give you the details, but I trust their final numbers.  When you add it all up, 93% of the incoming energy ends up in the ocean.  No mystery.  No lies.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Once again, where is this imaginary "excess heat" showing up in the atmosphere prior to it being absorbed. Remember it takes at least 4 times the energy to heat the ocean, you said it takes 700 times the energy. Do you still stand by that?



Still stand by it?  It's basic physics Frank.  I don't question basic physics Frank and you shouldn't either.

I don't know what you're picturing Frank.  It's an ongoing process.  It has variables; it changes over time, but the ocean hasn't been heated by energy that's been hiding somewhere building up strength.  Frank, that's the ideation of a grade schooler.  Put on your thinking cap and put it to work.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Billy, so the question is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the last 20 years? It would have to be that amount that is causing excessive heat! Can anybody say what the ability of CO2 is at that low ppm?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OMG......  Electromagnetic radiation..
> 
> LOL you lying sacks of crap..  The IPCC and you stated not long ago that it was purely CO2 doing this now you tell me that its invisible magnetic fields from the sun....



Invisible magnetic fields from the sun?  Are you vying with Frank for the bottom of the intellectual orgchart?



CrusaderFrank said:


> You guys have changed your dam story AGAIN!!!!



That's spelled "D A M N" and no, we have not.



CrusaderFrank said:


> SO which is it? the SUN or CO2?



Which is it: stupidity or ignorance?

For any third graders that were wondering about this question: CO2 does not produce heat.  It traps heat provided by the sun.



CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 would cause a hot spot in the mid troposphere, which DOESN'T EXIST! SO its not CO2 by your own theroy.



We all have our own quirks.  Have you noticed how often you spell theory "T H E R O Y"?  I have.  So, actually, you have a few misunderstandings about that hot spot business.  The hotspot appeared in a graphic in AR4 showing model simulations of historical forcing scenarios.  The hotspot was produced by a combination of rapid increase of GHG levels AND an increase in solar output over the same period of time.  It is NOT a mandatory observation of greenhouse warming.  An understanding of the mechanisms of greenhouse warming will make it clear that the key observation is, instead, stratospheric cooling.  That is widely observed in today's atmosphere.  So, check your facts BEFORE YOU GO ALL CAPS.



CrusaderFrank said:


> EM would cause warming all over the planet which would be most noticeable in the ambient air temperature.  0.02 deg C shows that this also is not occurring.



Neither I nor Matthew said anything about increasing EM.  We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Even Cricks post of UAH/HCN homogenized bull shit fails to show the 4 times higher rates of warming, that would empirically occur if the sun were increasing its output, in the EM spectrum.



Neither I nor Matthew said anything about inceasing EM.  We simply said that the sun was where it all originated.



CrusaderFrank said:


> And to top it off Solar wind is at an all time LOW output... showing that it is not, by empirical evidence, EM.



Solar WIND?  Jesus, you are completely off the rails.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OMG......  Electromagnetic radiation..
> ...


So Crickster, then we're back to the original question how much heat the CO2 hold got any evidence of that?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2015)

And guess what? That takes us back to Herr KOCH


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



JC

Here is the LOG plot of CO2.




The left axis is temperature the top axis is CO2 in ppm.  20ppm should result in about 0.08 deg C warming according to lab experiments. The last 20 years there has been no warming and infact  -0.12 deg C cooling.  There has been cooling despite the rise in CO2 showing a 37% reduction in the rise rate of CO2.  This indicates that cooler oceans are sequestering more CO2.


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Match  that against this and tell us what you get Billy.






Your chart only goes to 600.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Match  that against this and tell us what you get Billy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The IPCC hasn't figured out LOG functions and the rate of diminishing returns...   OR they have added water vapor to their equation which has been shown to be a NEGATIVE force not a positive one.

You posted the IPCC graph of CO2+water vapor used as a positive forcing...  Too funny.. Empirical evidence shows that there is no positive forcing from water vapor.. yet you post discredited information, by empirical evidence, as fact..  You really dont have a clue about what it is your posting.  Wow... no temperature justification or axis data..  Just the level of CO2 projected by your failed MODELS...  Epic FAIL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

I wonder if Crick realizes that even at 600ppm it is only 1/2 of 1 doubling. So even at those 'projected' rates of increase we will see just 0.5 to 1.0 deg C warming in 1,000 years...

Moron cant even read a LOG chart to save his ass..


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Per the function listed on the observed trace on your chart (one you have not identified and therefore one I do not currently accept as having any validity), a CO2 level of 1000 ppm, the top IPCC scenario level for 2100, would produce 3.05C warming.  And those are not equilibrium values, are they.


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The IPCC hasn't figured out LOG functions and the rate of diminishing returns



Do you realize what an idiot you sound with such a statement?



Billy_Bob said:


> OR they have added water vapor to their equation which has been shown to be a NEGATIVE force not a positive one.



Let's see a link 



Billy_Bob said:


> You posted the IPCC graph of CO2+water vapor used as a positive forcing...  Too funny



Too stupid.



Billy_Bob said:


> .. Empirical evidence shows that there is no positive forcing from water vapor.



Let us see such evidence Billy.  I've really grown quite sick of your unsubstantiated assertions.



Billy_Bob said:


> . yet you post discredited information, by empirical evidence, as fact.



I am posting facts.  You're the one spouting unsubstantiated bullshit.



Billy_Bob said:


> You really dont have a clue about what it is your posting.



Do you not recall earlier this morning when you went ape after IMAGINING that Matthew and I had said something about increased EM?  I can repost it all if you're having trouble remembering all the way back to earlier this morning.



Billy_Bob said:


> Wow... no temperature justification or axis data..  Just the level of CO2 projected by your failed MODELS...  Epic FAIL



You were unable to tell that the x-axis was YEAR?  And you've got the balls to suggest I can't read a graph?!?!?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between  EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere.  Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves..



Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?
> ...



Crick, if insult were explanations, you'd be Wikipedia.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Thanks, I know that chart well, I want Crickster to tell me and you and the rest of our side how temperatures increase when the scientific make up off CO2 is logarithmic. Been silent for over fifteen months.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between  EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere.  Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves..
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans...



Er, cuz IPCC said so?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick, You cant read a LOG function graph. You and Mathew dont know the difference between  EM and photon energy or how they react differently within our atmosphere.  Man you two should stop while your behind and you bury yourselves.



For starters, it wasn't a log graph, it was a lin/ln graph (linear on the independent axis, natural logarithm on the dependent axis).  If you want us to think I don't know how to read it, you need to point out where you think I demonstrated such a failing.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.

For both Matthew and I, the use of the term photon was nothing more than an exercise of literary license.  However, I am familiar with the physics of electromagnetic radiation and with photons and unless you're going to bring up the dual nature of light, I don't have the faintest idea what the fuck you're talking about.  However, nothing you've said has any bearing on the validity of our comments with regard to the topic under discussion (the heating of the oceans).  But just to further explore your apparent misunderstandings:
**********************************************************************************************************************************
PHOTON:
A *photon* is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at the microscopicand at the macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties ofwaves and of particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein in the first years of the 20th century to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black-body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using _semiclassical models_, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light do so in amounts of energy that are _quantized_ (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that _light itself_ is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name _photon_ for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and the term _photon_ for light quanta was accepted.

EM RADIATION
*Electromagnetic radiation* (*EM radiation* or *EMR*) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes. Visible light is one type of electromagnetic radiation, other familiar forms are invisible electromagnetic radiations such as X-rays and radio waves.

Classically, EMR consists of *electromagnetic waves*, which are synchronized oscillations of electric andmagnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light. The oscillations of the two fields are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation, forming a transverse wave. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by either the frequency or wavelength of their oscillations to form the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength: radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays.

Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles. EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. Quanta of EM waves are called photons, which aremassless, but they are still affected by gravity. Electromagnetic radiation is associated with those EM waves that are free to propagate themselves ("radiate") without the continuing influence of the moving charges that produced them, because they have achieved sufficient distance from those charges. Thus, EMR is sometimes referred to as the far field. In this jargon, the _near field_refers to EM fields near the charges and current that directly produced them, as (for example) with simple magnets, electromagnetic induction and static electricity phenomena.

All from Wikipedia
********************************************************************************************************************************


Billy_Bob said:


> Hell you dont even know why sea water can not absorb IR radiation at 12-16um.. And therefore can not warm the oceans..
> .



Here.  From someone you trust.  Dr Roy Spencer:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/

Your earlier comments about salt and sediment particles was silly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

Excess heat is like Bernie Madoff telling you, "I invested 93% of your money in Herkshire Bathaway, it's almost a real thing, but it's not"


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2015)

Frank, has the world gotten warmer over the last 150 years?


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 12, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> More fine reading for those who need to discuss this :
> 
> * While scientists are cautious, deniers throw caution to the wind*
> 
> ...


It has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the government was lying. Wikileaks fucked them in the ass.

If you cannot accept that fact then you are nothing but a brainwashed SADFI.

So fuck off Chicken Little. Global Warming doomsday cultists are weak-minded, unintelligent nitwits who do not have the capability to think logically.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 12, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > More fine reading for those who need to discuss this :
> ...




Dude, you are really getting fucking annoying.

Your COMPREHENSION SKILLS SUCK STUPID.

THIS IS SOURCE MATERIAL TO HELP DEBUNK THE FUCKING MORONS ARGUING WITH ME AND FRANK


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, has the world gotten warmer over the last 150 years?



....are we counting the 93% absorbed by the oceans

How accurately did we measure 150 years ago?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 12, 2015)

Even if you could get anyone to swallow this load of Bull Shit, how you reckon you gonna cool an ocean off??

What else you gonna do and what did you say we had to do with this??

Are we saying now the atmosphere is letting more heat in, that would clash with verifiable data that has not been skewed, now what??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, has the world gotten warmer over the last 150 years?



Short answer, probably no and certainly not to a statistically significant degree. I based this on the observation that an additional 120PPM of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature in a lab setting


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, has the world gotten warmer over the last 150 years?
> ...



Based on your knowledge of statistics, how much would it have to have changed to be statistically significant?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



What happened to that teaching moment you promised me?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



5% variation, but then you'd have to agree that we did not measure accurately out in decimal places 150 years ago. Say the average 150 years ago was 50 degrees, I know, it's stupid and not meaningful to talk about an average temperature on a planet, but this is your bizzaroland world, so a 5% variation would be 2.5 degrees and we're not there yet


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Even if you could get anyone to swallow this load of Bull Shit, how you reckon you gonna cool an ocean off??
> 
> What else you gonna do and what did you say we had to do with this??
> 
> Are we saying now the atmosphere is letting more heat in, that would clash with verifiable data that has not been skewed, now what??



Not to worry, Cricks gonna shuck and jive


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Where's your promise?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Where's your explanation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Crick's Theme


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2015)

Waiting on your promise, just as I initially stated.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Waiting on your promise, just as I initially stated.



Crick I promise I will repeat whatever explanation you concoct


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Waiting on your promise, just as I initially stated.



Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Come Crick, you gots some 'splaining to do.

Tell us why the 800,000 year data set got it wrong


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 13, 2015)

I have to laugh reading the dialogue on this thread. When I was a kid, there used to be a saying, "Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?".....said to those social invalids who would go off babbling about irrelevant stuff. The AGW climate crusaders fall all over themselves writing pseudo-thesis works about heat trying to make a point...........

Nobody cares........everywhere you look, this whole climate debate has become a comedy show in 2015. The AGW k00ks in here have posted up billions of posts in this forum and NOTHING has changed about how the science has affected how we generate energy. Its like a midget standing at home plate in Yankee Stadium for years and years swinging and trying to hit the ball over the fence but only reaching the pitchers mound!!!


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Gaedel.jpg.html']
	
[/URL]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick ?

Where'd ya go?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 13, 2015)

He must have been the abominable snow thing, global warming made him melt into a puddle, which has now run into the ocean offsetting the warming they speak of.

Hey Crick and the other moron, those oceans have been around since the dawn of time and the sun just as long.

I have to believe if this warming is occurring it is intended by the creater and not subject to mans influences.

I still haven't gotten a response to my last question.

What does man think he can do about this and how does he plan to accomplish this.

I mean what kind of fucking idiot states we need to cool an ocean,

Where is that bag of ice coming from and how many of em you reckon we gonna need to cool this hot bitch off.

So what are the detrimental effects from this warming??


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, has the world gotten warmer over the last 150 years?


yes and it has gotten cooler.  And again, you can't produce one iota of evidence that says how warm 10 PPM of CO2 is.  Can you?  you can't even give a definition in your own words what is 'excess heat'.  In fact, you never provide any body of work that suggest it agrees with anything you post as a warmist.  Nothing.

In case you didn't see that word it is N  O  T  H  I  N  G.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> I have to laugh reading the dialogue on this thread. When I was a kid, there used to be a saying, "Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?".....said to those social invalids who would go off babbling about irrelevant stuff. The AGW climate crusaders fall all over themselves writing pseudo-thesis works about heat trying to make a point...........
> 
> Nobody cares........everywhere you look, this whole climate debate has become a comedy show in 2015. The AGW k00ks in here have posted up billions of posts in this forum and NOTHING has changed about how the science has affected how we generate energy. Its like a midget standing at home plate in Yankee Stadium for years and years swinging and trying to hit the ball over the fence but only reaching the pitchers mound!!!


Hello Eddie Gaedel


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Waiting on your promise, just as I initially stated.




Running away, eh


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick how did the chart get it wrong?


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2015)

How did what chart get what wrong?

How much temperature change would it take be statistically significant?  And, just our of curiosity, how are you calculating significance?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> How did what chart get what wrong?
> 
> How much temperature change would it take be statistically significant?  And, just our of curiosity, how are you calculating significance?



I said 5% change, you're boring me


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> How did what chart get what wrong?
> 
> How much temperature change would it take be statistically significant?  And, just our of curiosity, how are you calculating significance?



What was it you were going to "explain" to me. It was right after I said the chart you posted showed CO2 lagging temperature for 800,000 years


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2015)

Don't play stupid, Frank.  There's no need.  No need at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Don't play stupid, Frank.  There's no need.  No need at all.



Crick what was it you were going to "Explain" to me?


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2015)

Pretending that you're unteachable is not likely to encourage me.  You are pretending, aren't you Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Pretending that you're unteachable is not likely to encourage me.  You are pretending, aren't you Frank?



There's our Crick, skating away again


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick, thanks for highlighting that AR5 is premised upon the imaginary concept of "excess heat" not a scientific term, just 2 words jumbled together


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick?

You gots some 'splaining to do


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Gentlemen, I write to take exception to the entire premise of AR5. In the AR5, you conclude that the ocean is absorbing excess heat -- the same heat that's been missing for 2 decades in the atmosphere. You base the reputation of the organization and all the climate scientists that serve as proud members on "Excess heat" a concept that has no scientific meaning and is just 2 random words strung together. Please cancel my subscription to the IPCC and Climate Change Quarterly and Climate Moonbat Monthly -- Crick


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

frank it looks like you simply do not understand 

the magical powers of global warming or whatever the term is these days 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Wow, my teachable moment must have came and went. Was waiting for Crickista explains it all


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Gentlemen, I write to take exception to the entire premise of AR5. In the AR5, you conclude that the ocean is absorbing excess heat -- the same heat that's been missing for 2 decades in the atmosphere. You base the reputation of the organization and all the climate scientists that serve as proud members on "Excess heat" a concept that has no scientific meaning and is just 2 random words strung together. Please cancel my subscription to the IPCC and Climate Change Quarterly and Climate Moonbat Monthly -- Crick



You make it quite obvious that you've never read one word of AR5.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Gentlemen, I write to take exception to the entire premise of AR5. In the AR5, you conclude that the ocean is absorbing excess heat -- the same heat that's been missing for 2 decades in the atmosphere. You base the reputation of the organization and all the climate scientists that serve as proud members on "Excess heat" a concept that has no scientific meaning and is just 2 random words strung together. Please cancel my subscription to the IPCC and Climate Change Quarterly and Climate Moonbat Monthly -- Crick
> ...



You're either a pathological liar or completely insane.  Read the OP again


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2015)

You are just too fucking stupid to talk to Frank.  It's like you don't speak English.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> You are just too fucking stupid to talk to Frank.  It's like you don't speak English.


What is excess heat? Answer the fnn question. Liar

BTW, ever post that being paid post? You said you would, haven't seen it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> You are just too fucking stupid to talk to Frank.  It's like you don't speak English.



Sure, Crick. That has to be it


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

Show us you're not as ignorant as you've led us to believe.  Tell us the reasoning I (and others) have _repeatedly_ given you as to why the historical record of temperature leading CO2 is not relevant to the current situation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2015)

Excess heat;

Wildfire Map Satellite Images Wildfire Disaster Interactive Map


----------



## Politico (Aug 15, 2015)

The tree huggers are hilarious.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2015)

Politico said:


> The tree huggers are hilarious.


Which has to do with what in this thread?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Show us you're not as ignorant as you've led us to believe.  Tell us the reasoning I (and others) have _repeatedly_ given you as to why the historical record of temperature leading CO2 is not relevant to the current situation.



Your "reasoning" is simply, "because we say so"

Is modern CO2 different? NO! CO2 never once drove temperature in 800,000 years, why start now


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Excess heat;
> 
> Wildfire Map Satellite Images Wildfire Disaster Interactive Map



Most forest fires are started by:


lightning
careless campers
poor land management
the .00000000000000000000000000001 PPM of CO2 you added to the nearby atmosphere when you drove up in your SUV
Pretty fucking funny that forest fires are heating the oceans


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Show us you're not as ignorant as you've led us to believe.  Tell us the reasoning I (and others) have _repeatedly_ given you as to why the historical record of temperature leading CO2 is not relevant to the current situation.



Holly fucking shit!!!----

This new CO2 is some how different to historical records?

 Crick are you going off the chain here?

CO2 is C02 when you have a method/a tool to divide up natural C02 from man made C02 I will listen


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

Are you trying to compete with Frank for general ignorance.

Tell me something Mr Bear.  We have a record that goes for almost 4.5 billion years in which no human EVER started a forest fire.  Based on that, can we say that no human CAN start a forest fire?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are you trying to compete with Frank for general ignorance.
> 
> Tell me something Mr Bear.  We have a record that goes for almost 4.5 billion years in which no human EVER started a forest fire.  Based on that, can we say that no human CAN start a forest fire?


 We have records now?

Tell me the exact temperature on this date in now liberty south Carolina in 1302? 

To a tenth of a degree


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Denier hyperbole. Come on deniers!!!
> 
> Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


Who are you talking to ?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Excess heat;
> ...


Well that heat had to go somewhere! LOL


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Show us you're not as ignorant as you've led us to believe.  Tell us the reasoning I (and others) have _repeatedly_ given you as to why the historical record of temperature leading CO2 is not relevant to the current situation.


Well it's obvious your information wasn't any good, or you're a poor communicator.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > The tree huggers are hilarious.
> ...


Your post.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

bear513 said:


> We have records now?



Yes, we have records.  Prior to ~200,000 years ago (ie, the first 4,542,800,000 years of the Earth), no homo sapiens ever started a forest fire.  Do you believe that indicates that no homo sapiens has started one since?  Simple question. Yes or no?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > We have records now?
> ...




Right and lightning did exist either correct??


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

You don't get the point?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

No, you have no point.

Stop with the mumbo jumbo and in as few words as possible make your point that is relevant to this thread.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.  No one has EVER disputed that point.  However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures.  Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago.  Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere.  This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
> ...



I don't know about any of this.

What I do know is that the sun transmits a certain amount of potential heat (in the form of light...probably not real scientific) to the earth.  It gets converted to heat.  

I would expect that the earth radiates that heat back to space at some rate (that would make the net heat absorbed almost zero).

Sounds like people are saying that instead of radiating, it is being stored in the oceans.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.



I am. what are those changes you speak of??

How does this change in solar output and orbital parameters affect Co2 exactly??



Crick said:


> No one has EVER disputed that point.


You got to be kidding, I am.



Crick said:


> However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures.  Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago.  Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere.  This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.



What does a meteor impact on earth have to do with global warming??

Those particles block the transmission of the suns electromagnetic radiation from ever reaching the earth, thus the cooling.

Has nothing to do with "excess heat", what was your point again??

So the earth burned for thousands of years but you state it had a cooling off period attributed to the same phenomena.

So which was it, did the impact put up a dust storm and blocked the sun light??

Or did the impact cause fires which lasted for many thousands of years.

So these thousand year fires, where is a fucking link on that shit bro, peeks the hell out of my curiosity.

I mean where do you get a fuel load for a thousand year fire??


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > We have records now?
> ...


Are you saying there weren't forest fires?


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.



Man, you're a project.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> I am. what are those changes you speak of?? How does this change in solar output and orbital parameters affect Co2 exactly??



I presume when you say "I am", you mean that you are disputing that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

If I want to dissolve the most sugar in a cup of tea, I want that tea to be hot.  As a liquid's temperature goes up, it's ability to take solids into solution increases.  Somewhat counter-intuitively, that's reversed for dissolving gases.  The colder a liquid, the more gas can be dissolved into it.  Think of all your experience with coke or other sodas.  The ocean contains, among other things, all the gases in the Earth's atmosphere, in solution.  The colder the Earth, the more of all those gases  the oceans can hold.  Raise the Earth's temperature; either by increasing the output of the sun or by altering the Earth's orbit so that it gets more sunshine, and some of those dissolved gases will come out of solution and re-enter the atmosphere..



Crick said:


> No one has EVER disputed that point.





DrDoomNGloom said:


> You got to be kidding, I am.



You were.  But now you know better.



Crick said:


> However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures.  Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago.  Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere.  This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.





DrDoomNGloom said:


> What does a meteor impact on earth have to do with global warming??



This is the impact that killed all the dinosaurs.  It first made the Earth cold by throwing enormous amounts of dust and smoke all the way up to the stratosphere - so much that very little sunlight could get through.  Temperatures dropped 2-9C.  That doesn't sound like much, but it is, and it happened virtually overnight.  From the cold and the lack of sunlight, plants died all over the planet.  The dinosaurs that hadn't been killed outright by the impact either froze and or starved to death.  These days we'd call this a "nuclear winter" as a full scale nuclear exchange is expected to produce similar results.  This lasted several decades.  Eventually, enough of the dust and aerosols were washed out of the atmosphere by rain that sunlight could make it through again and things began to warm up.  The level of CO2 in the atmosphere had been raised by two factors: a good portion of all the plant and wood on the planet had been burned by fires started by the impact and the meteor had struck directly into a basin of almost solid limestone: calcium carbonate.  The heat of the impact converted billions of tons of that rock into super-heated carbon dioxide.  The result of all that was that when the dust finally cleared, the greenhouse effect could finally take effect and temperatures climbed several degrees higher than they had been before the impacts and they stayed there for several thousand years.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> Those particles block the transmission of the suns electromagnetic radiation from ever reaching the earth, thus the cooling.



It's a little more complicated than that.  Particles in the atmosphere can do a couple of things.  Ash, from volcanoes and fires, is light in color and reflects more than it absorbs.  In the atmosphere, it has a tendency to reflect the sun's incoming light back to space, cooling the planet.  How much effect _that _has depends a great deal how high in the atmosphere it is.  Reflective material near the surface has much less effect than the same sort of material in the stratosphere at the edge of the atmosphere.  Dark material - carbon soot is the classic example, absorbs more than it reflects and increases the amount of solar radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere itself.  And if the soot falls to the ground - particularly to ice, it will be very effective at warming things up.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> Has nothing to do with "excess heat", what was your point again??



I think I've spent more than enough time explaining my point.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> So the earth burned for thousands of years



No.  The Earth burned for a few years.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> but you state it had a cooling off period attributed to the same phenomena.



It was as I explained above.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> So which was it, did the impact put up a dust storm and blocked the sun light??
> Or did the impact cause fires which lasted for many thousands of years.
> So these thousand year fires, where is a fucking link on that shit bro, peeks the hell out of my curiosity.
> I mean where do you get a fuel load for a thousand year fire??



You need to read more carefully.  You have made a number of mistakes about what I've said here and elsewhere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.  No one has EVER disputed that point.  However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures.  Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago.  Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere.  This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.



You're sticking with CO2 starts forest fires?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.  No one has EVER disputed that point.  However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures.  Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago.  Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere.  This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.
> ...




No he can't explain thousand year fires with the same meteor that caused an ice age first.

He has already been made a fool over this.

I didn't bother to rebutt his delusions, but CO2 comes from respiration, fires, decomposition, the ocean, etc.

He is going to tell you some how there is a difference between fossil fuel CO2 and natural CO2.


----------



## Politico (Aug 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > The tree huggers are hilarious.
> ...


That thinking you can stop nature by preventing cow farts is hilarious.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

Which has what to do with this thread?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

"About 93% of the _*excess heat*_ energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Crick?


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?



If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires.  Seems simple enough.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "About 93% of the _*excess heat*_ energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."
> 
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
> 
> Crick?



Yes?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?
> ...



Sorry, I thought it caused flooding too. Do different CO2 molecules have different functions?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "About 93% of the _*excess heat*_ energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."
> ...








The CO2 looks mostly concentrated on land over the equator, how it is warming the ocean down to 3,000m?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?
> ...



Are there left handed and right handed CO2 molecules, one causes Cat 5 hurricanes, the forest fires?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

CO2 causes more lightning?

"This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Old Rocks  will never show up in this thread again


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks  will never show up in this thread again


Crick's both in denial and hiding

Billy Bob and Crick both have promised to put me on ignore.

Every one's rants are getting extremely short and all those fancy $10 words have had to be thrashed.

Wonder if they can get a refund from some other warmer for those words .....................

So frank did circk just say forest fires come from drying out trees with non existent heat from non existent global warming.

The other loons forgot to meme him they had to change the rant to cooling ...................

This is going to be a very entertaining thread ...............


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks  will never show up in this thread again
> ...



Old Rocks was the first to suggest that CO2 is causing forest fires, Crick peer reviewed it and they had consensus


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



not to be confused with global warming 

but man made global warming is some pretty amazing stuff 

--LOL


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




The proverbial blind  leading the blind ..............

I will be glad to debunk that lie for him also.

Whenever he decides he has scientific proof of some cause and effect between the two that will hold water, he is more than welcome to trot it out and gitve us a show.

So far it has been the top 10 shuck and jive fest, I am still watitng on the main event as the warm up acts have all been bad.

So lets get the party started and trot that pretty little pony out here to see.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Frank,

He also suggested that there were never any forest fires until man showed up.  I'm still waiting on that answer from him, old socks.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2015)

BTW, still don't know what excess heat means with these k00ks.  There still is not a definition that was provided.  I believe Crickster has me on ignore so he won't reply to me.  But, his magic heat still hasn't been explained, nor a source from where it came.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BTW, still don't know what excess heat means with these k00ks.  There still is not definition that was provided.  I believe Crickster has me on ignore so he won't reply to me.  But, his magic heat still hasn't been explained, nor a source from where it came.




No he want come out as long as I am around because I see straight through his shit and make it where the rest can see how moronic his shit is.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, still don't know what excess heat means with these k00ks.  There still is not definition that was provided.  I believe Crickster has me on ignore so he won't reply to me.  But, his magic heat still hasn't been explained, nor a source from where it came.
> ...


but he will continue to post it up there though.  He ignores me because he couldn't debate. He couldn't post up that one experiment that would show validation to his claim.  Although he posted it over a thousand times. 

And then there's the thousand scientists, and no list.  Now it's excess heat and no definition.

For me he and the IPCC are stating that all of the missing heat went to the bottom of the ocean.  The 'Missing Heat'  Not excess heat, the missing heat, so the heat that never was in the atmosphere ended up on the bottom of the ocean.  It's classic.  Again, you don't need to be a scientist.  you just have to understand logic, and when weather in Chicago last year was the same as the 1980s, I call foul on climate change.  When the cycles repeat and repeat similarly, it's tough to argue that things are changing.  Instead the bright warmers state that North America doesn't count in the global numbers.  It's hysterical.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Topic for discussion:
> 
> What is Excess Heat?
> Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
> Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss


Answers:

1) Excess heat is the amount of heat required to raise the Earth's temperatures above the the Spring of 1900 idyllic values. It only exists when the surface temperatures RISE, If they FAIL to RISE --- then and only then do we see excess heat in "HIDING"...

2) It can only be HIDING or Warming the 100,000 thermometers in the HadleyCrut network of thermometers. Might NOT be detected by satellite because it's not Hiding in the lower Troposphere. When it stops warming the GISS temperature records, the records are changed because it was hiding in remote areas of the planet that are underserved by the 100,000 thermometer network. And to avoid appearances of racial and ethnic bias -- those areas are warmed a bit...

3) In the years in which the temperature fails to rise enough to make monthly Govt press releases, enough temperature is "redistributed" to the poorly covered areas. This entitlement eventually trickles down to oceans thru conventional water cycle and weather. Since a lot of the poorly serviced areas are in ice-bound regions, Increased activity of sea life and ship traffic thru those regions aid in the mixing process as the ice melts..

Seriously -- look at the classic (and never illuminated) Ocean ate my Warming paper by Trenberth et al. There was NEVER A NEED for excess heat to go into hiding until the 1960s.. And the RATE of deep ocean warming stayed constant or DECLINED during the "pause".. So someone obviously failed to call "alli alli oxen free" and release that hiding excess when they needed it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Topic for discussion:
> ...



So the excess heat is reallocated per the recent SCOTUS disparate impact ruling


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Exactly.. And you heard the Prez talking about Global Warming as a "social justice" issue -- did you not??  Yet another PSEUDO-enviro making political hay with a serious topic... 

Hey Frank -- What set of numbers comes out of Washington lately that ISN'T hiding something explosive.  Like all that excess heat?


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Seriously -- look at the classic (and never illuminated) Ocean ate my Warming paper by Trenberth et al. There was NEVER A NEED for excess heat to go into hiding until the 1960s.. And the RATE of deep ocean warming stayed constant or DECLINED during the "pause".. So someone obviously failed to call "alli alli oxen free" and release that hiding excess when they needed it



http:// 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Stayed constant or declined during the pause?  Let's bring back a few of those comments about reading graphs.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously -- look at the classic (and never illuminated) Ocean ate my Warming paper by Trenberth et al. There was NEVER A NEED for excess heat to go into hiding until the 1960s.. And the RATE of deep ocean warming stayed constant or DECLINED during the "pause".. So someone obviously failed to call "alli alli oxen free" and release that hiding excess when they needed it
> ...



Not gonna fudge --- you can't read a graph. Not a one. And your memory is lousy as well since we've had this EXACT conversion TWICE before..

When did the "pause" begin? Look at the graphs for THAT PERIOD of time (i'll cheat and tell you to look ONLY above 2000 to the end)) -- and NOTICE that the RATE OF STORAGE (the slope on those graphs) actually DECLINES during the pause. That is what I meant by "the RATE" of warming declined.. It is particularly apparent in the black Upper 300 graph, but it appears in ALL of them.

So if the oceans STOLE heat out of the surface/atmos interaction during the pause -- would you expect the ocean warming to ACCELERATE or DECELERATE?

I could be a toad and insist on using the NOAA version of these graphs. The ones that DONT have phoney "volcanic signatures" showing up 700 meters deep.. But I won't. You can keep thinking this BTK study is actual data.

And I COULD also SUPPORT this concept of deep ocean warming as very delayed (retarded would be better) reaction to a warming that MIGHT have occurred even 100 years prior. Because we know that once it's stored, it tends to be very complex thermal redistribution and could take DECADES to equalize..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The AGWCult screwed itself with its "the ocean ate my warming" excuse


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

Frank, scroll up three posts so that you can see the Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen graphic.  Tell us what the three temperature bands do on the right side of the green vertical bar (the 97/98 el Nino).


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



In the year 2000, the slope of those temperature trends INCREASE dramatically.  That increase eventually falls off, but if you want to say it decreases in 2000, then you have no issue with lying.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That perturbation right at 2000 is an artifact of their modeling.. Doesn't exist in the REAL MEASURED data from NOAA. No lying involved. The slope DECREASES over the period of the pause. 

Now tell us --- How did the oceans STEAL missing heat from the surface if it SLOWED the rate of it's EATING heat during the pause. ???


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

That BTW is just ONE of the good reasons why you nor I have seen a follow-up FULL SCALE paper to this BTK "work"... The other is that NOAA questioned their methods and results and couldn't agree with HOW "excess heat" in the infrared bands due to CO2 created any of this deep ocean heating...


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

FCT said:
			
		

> Nor have I see a follow-up, FULL SCALE paper...



92 articles have cited BTK 2013.  Here are the first 20


Thomas L. Delworth, Fanrong Zeng, Anthony Rosati, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Andrew T. Wittenberg, A Link between the Hiatus in Global Warming and North American Drought, Journal of Climate, 2015, 28, 9, 3834CrossRef
Torbjørn Lorentzen, A statistical analysis of sea temperature data, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2015, 119, 3-4, 585CrossRef
J.P. Morris, S. Thatje, J. Ravaux, B. Shillito, D. Fernando, C. Hauton, Acute combined pressure and temperature exposures on a shallow-water crustacean: Novel insights into the stress response and high pressure neurological syndrome, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 2015, 181, 9CrossRef
Joel Finnis, Atanu Sarkar, Mark C.J. Stoddart, Bridging science and community knowledge? The complicating role of natural variability in perceptions of climate change, Global Environmental Change, 2015, 32, 1CrossRef
Braddock K. Linsley, Henry C. Wu, Emilie P. Dassié, Daniel P. Schrag, Decadal changes in South Pacific sea surface temperatures and the relationship to the Pacific decadal oscillation and upper ocean heat content, Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42, 7, 2358Wiley Online Library
Aiguo Dai, John C. Fyfe, Shang-Ping Xie, Xingang Dai, Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability, Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 6, 555CrossRef
Doug M. Smith, Richard P. Allan, Andrew C. Coward, Rosie Eade, Patrick Hyder, Chunlei Liu, Norman G. Loeb, Matthew D. Palmer, Chris D. Roberts, Adam A. Scaife, Earth's energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models,Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42, 4, 1205Wiley Online Library
Daniel J. A. Johansson, Brian C. O’Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Olle Häggström, Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus, Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 5, 449CrossRef
Hua Su, Xiangbai Wu, Xiao-Hai Yan, Autumn Kidwell, Estimation of subsurface temperature anomaly in the Indian Ocean during recent global surface warming hiatus from satellite measurements: A support vector machine approach,Remote Sensing of Environment, 2015, 160, 63CrossRef
Rodrigo J. Bombardi, Jieshun Zhu, Lawrence Marx, Bohua Huang, Hua Chen, Jian Lu, Lakshmi Krishnamurthy, V. Krishnamurthy, Ioana Colfescu, James L. Kinter, Arun Kumar, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Shrinivas Moorthi, Patrick Tripp, Xingren Wu, Edwin K. Schneider, Evaluation of the CFSv2 CMIP5 decadal predictions, Climate Dynamics, 2015, 44, 1-2, 543CrossRef
Armin Köhl, Evaluation of the GECCO2 ocean synthesis: transports of volume, heat and freshwater in the Atlantic,Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 2015, 141, 686, 166Wiley Online Library
Sirpa Häkkinen, Peter B. Rhines, Denise L. Worthen, Heat content variability in the North Atlantic Ocean in ocean reanalyses, Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42, 8, 2901Wiley Online Library
Rui Xin Huang, Heaving modes in the world oceans, Climate Dynamics, 2015CrossRef
Hugo Beltrami, Gurpreet S. Matharoo, Jason E. Smerdon, Impact of borehole depths on reconstructed estimates of ground surface temperature histories and energy storage, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2015, 120, 5, 763Wiley Online Library
Steven J. Smith, James Edmonds, Corinne A. Hartin, Anupriya Mundra, Katherine Calvin, Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change, Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 4, 333CrossRef
C.M. Hall, B. Amelung, S. Cohen, E. Eijgelaar, S. Gössling, J. Higham, R. Leemans, P. Peeters, Y. Ram, D. Scott, On climate change skepticism and denial in tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015, 23, 1, 4CrossRef
C. D. Roberts, M. D. Palmer, D. McNeall, M. Collins, Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming,Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 4, 337CrossRef
Gengxin Chen, Weiqing Han, Yuanlong Li, Dongxiao Wang, Michael J. McPhaden, Seasonal-to-Interannual Time-Scale Dynamics of the Equatorial Undercurrent in the Indian Ocean*, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 2015, 45, 6, 1532CrossRef
Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, Michael Smithson, Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community, Global Environmental Change, 2015, 33, 1CrossRef
Julie Kalansky, Yair Rosenthal, Timothy Herbert, Samantha Bova, Mark Altabet, Southern Ocean contributions to the Eastern Equatorial Pacific heat content during the Holocene, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2015, 424, 158CrossRef
If you'd like to see the rest, visit: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, scroll up three posts so that you can see the Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen graphic.  Tell us what the three temperature bands do on the right side of the green vertical bar (the 97/98 el Nino).



Your guys monkeyed with the numbers.

BFD


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Let's see your data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

How did a wisp of atmospheric CO2 warm the ocean down to 700m?

http://


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, scroll up three posts so that you can see the Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen graphic.  Tell us what the three temperature bands do on the right side of the green vertical bar (the 97/98 el Nino).
> ...



I take it from this statement that you're unwilling to admit that they rise precipitously.  Unsurprising but good to know.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How did a wisp of atmospheric CO2 warm the ocean down to 700m?
> 
> http://



Has FCT spoken to you about staying on topic?


----------



## IanC (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




The correlations with the volcanoes didn't appear until the data was 'reanalysed' either.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



From "Excess heat"? LOL

Yeah where was it prior to heating the ocean?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How did a wisp of atmospheric CO2 warm the ocean down to 700m?
> ...



The topic you keep avoiding, where was the heat prior to heating the ocean


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

Frank, no one; not me nor anyone else, has ever suggested that any heat was hiding anywhere.  The Earth has been accumulating heat ever since CO2 levels began rising and the oceans have absorbed most of it.  There have been fluctuations due to wind and circulatory changes, ENSO and PDO changes, changes in the Meridional Overturning Current, things like that.  But no heat has been hiding and no hidden heat has suddenly warmed the oceans.  The warming of BTK 2013 was hypothesized to be due to circulation changes - warmed surface waters were subducted into the depths when altering wind patterns drove them against continental margins and forced them downward.

Do you understand?  Do us all a favor - most especially YOU - and stop asking stupid questions.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Still waiting to see that "REAL MEASURED data from NOAA".  Got any?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



WTF you talking about Wilbur ?? We're talking about reading an f-ing graph...  What data do you need? 

Do you know what the slope of a line is? Do you know the difference between DEcelerating and ACcelerating and what that looks like on a graph? Of course you don't. Or wouldn't have asked for "my data"...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> FCT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't care about Citations..  I care about a paper that reveals their methods and data.. And EXPLAINS the plausible mechanism for heating to 1000 meters in short periods of time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





Done this 3 times now BullWinkle. I can't keep feeding you.. You're not following much..


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How very convenient that AFTER you claim the slope decreases with the pause (which began in 1998) you suggest that you were actually talking about other data (which is the data I wanted to see since this data doesn't do what you say it does) and then you go on to claim its an artifact.

What crap.  Your NOAA/NESDIS data only contain one of the three sets BTK shows and it displays a similar launch upward between 2001 and 2004.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, no one; not me nor anyone else, has ever suggested that any heat was hiding anywhere.  The Earth has been accumulating heat ever since CO2 levels began rising and the oceans have absorbed most of it.  There have been fluctuations due to wind and circulatory changes, ENSO and PDO changes, changes in the Meridional Overturning Current, things like that.  But no heat has been hiding and no hidden heat has suddenly warmed the oceans.  The warming of BTK 2013 was hypothesized to be due to circulation changes - warmed surface waters were subducted into the depths when altering wind patterns drove them against continental margins and forced them downward.
> 
> Do you understand?  Do us all a favor - most especially YOU - and stop asking stupid questions.



So the must be coming from the interior of the Earth because, clearly this "Excess heat" was not registering in the atmosphere. Your Cult must be suggesting that CO2 is causing the Earth interior to run hotter or I just wonder why you'd include the oceans in your calculations


----------



## Votto (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...



You got it all wrong Frank, the Earth's battery is running low.

The Earth s Battery Is Running Low

When is the last time Mother Earth changed out the battery?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2015)

Jesus H Kee-Rist, Frank.  Will you take the fooking ear plugs out?

Since the beginning of the Earth, the oceans have absorbed the majority of the solar energy that strikes us.


----------



## Votto (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...



You got it all wrong Frank, the Earth's battery is running low.

The Earth s Battery Is Running Low

When is the last time Mother Earth changed out the battery?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Jesus H Kee-Rist, Frank.  Will you take the fooking ear plugs out?
> 
> Since the beginning of the Earth, the oceans have absorbed the majority of the solar energy that strikes us.



What does that have to do with your failed AGW Theory?


----------



## Politico (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?
> ...


No the treehugger Millennial environmentalists who won't let the forest service clear out underbrush cause forest fires.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



The slope DOES decrease during the pause. Can't help you with your complete inability to pull inferences out of visual data..* In order to "decrease during the pause" LOGICALLY it would have had to be LARGER going into the pause.* OMG.. Hopeless.   
IN EITHER data set.. And if you can't see how much more prevalent all those modeling artifacts are in BTK -- that's also a graph-reading problem..

If you can't answer the question...  

Is the SLOPE higher from 1992 to 2000 --- or from 2002 - 2010  -- you shouldn't be posting data and graphs..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2015)

Politico said:


> No the treehugger Millennial environmentalists who won't let the forest service clear out underbrush cause forest fires.



Which explains the record fires in Alaska. We used to clear the brush from all of Alaska, and now we don't.

Or wait, the Alaskan case kind of totally debunks the "liberals won't let us clear the brush!" kookery, being nobody ever cleared brush in Alaska.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Jesus H Kee-Rist, Frank.  Will you take the fooking ear plugs out?
> 
> Since the beginning of the Earth, the oceans have absorbed the majority of the solar energy that strikes us.



What's the "Average temperature" of the Atlantic Ocean?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > No the treehugger Millennial environmentalists who won't let the forest service clear out underbrush cause forest fires.
> ...


wow, you really have no thought process.  Logic escapes you badly.

So which is it, does man cause fires or does nature?  you're now all over the place.  Or are you saying that there were never fires before humans?

Which then trickles down to the thought, if no one is present when a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that apology liar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

Politico said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Enough of that God damned lie. The Forest Service cannot clear out underbrush and thin because every year, just as we are doing this week, the Forest Service runs out of money allotted to fighting fires, and has to pull out money from other budgets, the first being forest management.

All These Fires Are Burning Through Firefighters Budgets WIRED

THE WHOLE WEST is freckled with fires. And in between each fire, the land is dry and hot as hell. As of yesterday, six million acres of US land has caught fire in 2015. But it’s not the burning land that has firefighters anxious. It’s that the money we’re throwing at these fires is burning up, and will soon come out of the budget for preventing future fires.

The vicious cycle was outlined Wednesday in a report from the US Forest Service. In the past 20 years, the agency’s firefighting budget has more than tripled, which means less money for everything else the service does. And even that budget swell isn’t enough fuel for the firefighting: Many years—including the past three—fire suppression has gone over its already-inflated budget, burning through money for other programs.

*And the fire season has just begun.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


and who is starting all these fires?  Man?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

One of the effects of a warming climate is that the forests dry out. And we have longer and warmer summers. That equals a longer and more intense fire season. And bigger and more intense fires. All of which we are currently seeing. And this summer, we sure have hit the jackpot. 

But all you denier asses can do is sit and deny that it is happening, or try to blame the people that are doing their best to deal with a problem that you helped create.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


You stupid ass, man and nature. But if the West had not warmed up and dried out for the past two score years, i.e., climate change, these fires would not be as active or intense.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


how do you know?

Edit, are you saying again, there were never fires when man wasn't on earth yet?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Take the money we're wasting on Global Warming and use it to clear out the dead fall


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> One of the effects of a warming climate is that the forests dry out. And we have longer and warmer summers. That equals a longer and more intense fire season. And bigger and more intense fires. All of which we are currently seeing. And this summer, we sure have hit the jackpot.
> 
> But all you denier asses can do is sit and deny that it is happening, or try to blame the people that are doing their best to deal with a problem that you helped create.



Flood, droughts, is there anything that CO2 can't do?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








^ 2 decades, no warming

Oopsies


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 1. What is Excess Heat?
> 
> Heat that is above the historic norm for the global climate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One of the effects of a warming climate is that the forests dry out. And we have longer and warmer summers. That equals a longer and more intense fire season. And bigger and more intense fires. All of which we are currently seeing. And this summer, we sure have hit the jackpot.
> ...



Also, it is destroying life in our oceans:

Ocean Acidification -- National Geographic


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...








Yes, 100 years of forest mismanagement will certainly bite you in the ass.  Congratulations, you figured it out.  Now, where does a supposedly warming environment have anything to do with the current issue?  There have been tens of thousands of forest fires in California in the last 1000 years.  Many of those occurred when there were more severe droughts than that which is currently happening.  The difference is in the past the fires burned NATURALLY!

For someone who claims to be smart you sure have a problem adding 2+2.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Acidification is a lie.  Only true believers and morons give it any creedence.  the facts are we could burn every carbon bearing rock on this planet and the net effect would be to lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0.  Still very alkaline.

There have been numerous studies and in every single one the critters have grown thicker shells.  EVERY SINGLE ONE!  And this in the face of acid levels thousands of times higher than they could ever experience in the real world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That's hilarious!  LOL!!!

All that CO2, heating the oceans, melting the oysters


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









Bullshit you incompetent twerp.  It's the Forest Services policy of preventing ANY fire that has caused the fuel load to increase to the point that now instead of a fire that clears the underbrush, they now burn with an intensity (thanks to that fuel load I just mentioned) that incinerates everything.

"For instance, a furry, brown, well-intentioned bear named Smoky has encouraged the American public to put out their campfires for years: “Only you can prevent forest fires.” But the practice of putting out all small fires interrupts natural forest fire cycles, resulting in a buildup of underbrush that can cause more intense and frequent fires long-term, according to an article in _The Atlantic_. Research from the analysis branch of the Forest Service says the removal of surface fuel, like underbrush, is one of the most effective ways at stopping wide-spread forest fires"


WORLD Forestry mismanagement feeds fire danger Rachel Lynn Aldrich July 8 2013


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Feel free to cite the scientific articles that you get your information from.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...






Read and learn something....


CP - Abstract - Water pH and temperature in Lake Biwa from MBT CBT indices during the last 280 000 years

Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading and deliberately so Principia Scientific Intl

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corals_acidification.pdf


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Now there's an idea worth listening to.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One of the effects of a warming climate is that the forests dry out. And we have longer and warmer summers. That equals a longer and more intense fire season. And bigger and more intense fires. All of which we are currently seeing. And this summer, we sure have hit the jackpot.
> ...


fund itself.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What is Excess Heat?
> ...


In the atmosphere?  It was?  Where?  there's been a pause, that would mean that there are normal temperatures, so where might the oceans actually get the excess?  You do know what excess means right?


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



the first doesn't mention ocean water at all.

The second and third are climate denier websites (i.e. NOT AT ALL SCIENTIFIC)

So again we are back to you spouting political faith, that is devoid of any supporting scientific evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...


can you supply a link to an experiment that proves otherwise?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Er, um, well...no, DENIER!!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...


he'll say the oceans themselves, right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

Goldyrocks just can't help blaming EVERY natural event on Global Warming. Because James Hansen and the crazy lady from Rutgers told him to observe and SEE the daily damage.. ((When their actual scientific work says don't expect to see ANYTHING for decades)))


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Neptune 1,500 mph winds...global warming


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...








That's because it was an EXPERIMENT.  It wasn't based on computer models which is all that your precious sources present.  So here is a case where scientists actually DID an experiment in the real world and you, the clownboy, prefers science fiction to empirical data.

You're dismissed.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



Can tell what to consider.. 

1) Look to see exactly how much we currently know about NATURAL variation of PH in tidal basins and shallow ocean shelves.. Look to see how much know about they adapt to ever-changing PH.  It's not a lot. 

2) Warmer water doesn't absorb as much CO2. You really can't have warmer oceans AND fastly and largely increasing CO2 absorption from the atmosphere. Really got to pick one. 

3) The NW oyster scare that started all this fuss about seeing EFFECTS TODAY of ocean acidification was due to greedy oyster farmers trying to spawn oysters YEAR ROUND in waters that would NEVER NATURALLY support that kind of oyster procreation. Particularly not for a NON NATIVE specie they were using because the Feds REQUIRED them to use a specie that would not escape and be invasive.. 

NATURALLY -- oysters spawn  en masse on particular days of the year, when the temperature, PH, salinity, and everything else is JUST RIGHT. Not like the failed farming attempts that LED to these phoney stories.. 

Then NOAA really tried hard to PROVE it was CO2 and acidification and dosed baby oysters with MASSIVE amounts and failed to kill them. In fact, they found that a slightly RAISED PH is better than what PH was in the 1800s..


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



All it takes is a modicum of critical thinking.  Why are the websites that are paid for with petro-dollars at variance with the Academies of Science of every developed country in the world?  Oh right, it is because they are paid for by petroleum companies.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2015)

Carbonate solubility is a function of absolute temperature.  In the last 150 years, absolute temperature has risen roughly* 0.314%*.  The level of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is a function of the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Over the same period, that has risen by *42%*.


Impressive science work there dude.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...


why?  Did you answer that or not?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

*Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms Abstract Nature*

*Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms*
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

Ocean Acidification - Google Books

*Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification Abstract Nature*

*Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification*
Jason M. Hall-Spencer1, Riccardo Rodolfo-Metalpa1, Sophie Martin2, Emma Ransome1, Maoz Fine3,4, Suzanne M. Turner5, Sonia J. Rowley1, Dario Tedesco6,7 & Maria-Cristina Buia8

The atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide (_p_CO2) will almost certainly be double that of pre-industrial levels by 2100 and will be considerably higher than at any time during the past few million years1. The oceans are a principal sink for anthropogenic CO2 where it is estimated to have caused a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ in ocean surface waters since the early 1900s and may lead to a drop in seawater pH of up to 0.5 units by 2100 (refs 2, 3). Our understanding of how increased ocean acidity may affect marine ecosystems is at present very limited as almost all studies have been _in vitro_, short-term, rapid perturbation experiments on isolated elements of the ecosystem4, 5. Here we show the effects of acidification on benthic ecosystems at shallow coastal sites where volcanic CO2 vents lower the pH of the water column. Along gradients of normal pH (8.1–8.2) to lowered pH (mean 7.8–7.9, minimum 7.4–7.5), typical rocky shore communities with abundant calcareous organisms shifted to communities lacking scleractinian corals with significant reductions in sea urchin and coralline algal abundance. To our knowledge, this is the first ecosystem-scale validation of predictions that these important groups of organisms are susceptible to elevated amounts of _p_CO2. Sea-grass production was highest in an area at mean pH 7.6 (1,827 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




atm _p_CO2) where coralline algal biomass was significantly reduced and gastropod shells were dissolving due to periods of carbonate sub-saturation. The species populating the vent sites comprise a suite of organisms that are resilient to naturally high concentrations of _p_CO2 and indicate that ocean acidification may benefit highly invasive non-native algal species. Our results provide the first _in situ_ insights into how shallow water marine communities might change when susceptible organisms are removed owing to ocean acidification.

*Real information on ocean acidification at these three sites, not flap yapping of pretend scientists.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Carbonate solubility is a function of absolute temperature.  In the last 150 years, absolute temperature has risen roughly* 0.314%*.  The level of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is a function of the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Over the same period, that has risen by *42%*.
> 
> 
> Impressive science work there dude.



Lol

Roughly by .314%

Lol

We all know how accurate thermometers were 150 tears ago


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms Abstract Nature*
> 
> *Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms*
> James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18
> ...











The last paper actually had some good info.  And lo and behold it supports evolution!  Hurrah!  Some critters do better in certain areas than other critters do.  How totally unsurprising.  But the first one you provided is yet more science fiction....  

From the Abstract...

*Here we use 13 models of** the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.* 


In other words, more science fiction.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Just after 2001, the slope rises dramatically.  If you want to keep trying to hide that FACT, feel free.  You're the one that looks like an idiot for doing so.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Principia Scientifica Intl. 

*Stance on Climate Change*
PSI regularly publishes commentary which claims that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that it could actually cool the planet. For example, in an article published in November 2013, “PSI Staff” wrote:

Scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI), who peer-reviewed Nahle's paper, are currently advising colleagues that the most reliable data available now confirms that CO2 is shown to act as a coolant in earth's climate. As such, the notion of a so-called 'greenhouse gas' warming effect may be regarded as refuted, while environmental measures by governments and individuals to reduce “carbon emissions”  to combat climate change are, in turn, rendered pointless. 

In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.”

*Well, now we see the kind of 'science' that Mr. Westwall supports. Real kinky fruitloop idiocy.*


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It was a rhetorical question. No one with a brain would trust petroleum companies to tell them the truth about fossil fuel pollution. That would be like trusting police to tell us the truth about police brutality. Impossible.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms Abstract Nature*
> ...



If you're going to reject models in their entirety, you really need to give up all mainstream science.  Oh, I forgot, you have.
But first, if you EVER attempt to make a prediction or a projection of any natural process, we will beat you about the head and shoulders with this post.

The denier tactic of rejecting all models is just one more way you all make yourselves look stupid beyond belief.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...









Post a paper that supports AGW from any source that DOESN'T get their funding from the fraud of AGW.

Go ahead, I dare you.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








I reject shitty models.  I tell you what.  When you can present a model that can do an accurate hindcast of the weather that occurred a day ago, I will listen to you then.  Until then you have a computer modeling industry that produces shit, and nothing but shit.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...








So, by your metric, any company, university, or researcher who likewise receives funding based on their continued support of AGW "theory" is likewise tainted.

Correct?

Can't have it both ways now can we....


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

So now we have Mr. Westwall claiming that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are corrupt. And pray tell me what organization is the 'Fraud of AGW'?. Mr. Westwall, you are just as kooky as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Wonderful peer group you have there.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> So now we have Mr. Westwall claiming that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are corrupt. And pray tell me what organization is the 'Fraud of AGW'?. Mr. Westwall, you are just as kooky as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Wonderful peer group you have there.








Do they generate their funding based on supporting the fraud of AGW.  Yes or no?

C'mon olfraud.  It's an easy question to answer.  Funny how you jump all over the military industrial complex for doing the exact same thing yet are blind as the proverbial fucking bat when it is an industry that you support.


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The researcher has no skin in the game to taint their findings.  As long as they employ the scientific method, they are on steady footing.  When errors are made in science, they are corrected as new evidence becomes available.

Contrast this with the machinations of the stooges, who make things up to serve their monied masters, without applying due diligence to the scientific method--without anything like evidence to present to the dupes who read their fictions.  There are not always clear-cut "bad-guys" in the world, but when it comes to these fake scientists, there surely are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



After it rises "dramatically" in 2001 --------------------------
 from 2002 to 2010 --- is the slope HIGHER or LOWER than it was in 1992 to 2000?

EVEN IF those slopes were IDENTICAL.. You cannot HIDE "excess heat  in the ocean" if the ocean is storing at the SAME RATE it was PRIOR to the pause.  In fact, the whole period of analysis shows pretty much the same rate of storage overall. No substantial acceleration.. 

YOU --- can't read a graph..


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...








Are you fucking high?  the researcher generates his funding by presenting those papers to the various academies that they want.  If the researcher doesn't do as he's told, he gets no grants, nor does he get published.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

Poor old Mr. Westwall, cannot accept the reality of AGW. Calls everyone in the AGU and GSA frauds and whores. 

Well, we do have excess heat. California is still in the grip of a record drought. Oregon and Washington are in extreme drought, and we have already had 6 million acres burned, and the fire season looks to go on for at least another three months. And the temperature in Portland, Oregon, is 91 degrees F. And we have long passed the previous record of 90+ days in one summer. The fires in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are being measured in tens of square miles burned, and in the case of the Soda fire, hundreds of square miles burned.

But fruitloops want to blame everything on the government, and then defund the very people dealing with the fire situation.


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Again, you make implausible assertions without evidence to back them up.  Just use your brain.  What is more likely; a conspiracy within almost the entire scientific community, or that these few fringe scientists who cite no other published work than their own scribblings, are being paid by a few misanthropes who are reaping huge profits at the expense of all future generations.

It is beyond obvious that the latter is the true scenario, because that is where every shred of actual evidence points.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor old Mr. Westwall, cannot accept the reality of AGW. Calls everyone in the AGU and GSA frauds and whores.
> 
> Well, we do have excess heat. California is still in the grip of a record drought. Oregon and Washington are in extreme drought, and we have already had 6 million acres burned, and the fire season looks to go on for at least another three months. And the temperature in Portland, Oregon, is 91 degrees F. And we have long passed the previous record of 90+ days in one summer. The fires in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are being measured in tens of square miles burned, and in the case of the Soda fire, hundreds of square miles burned.
> 
> But fruitloops want to blame everything on the government, and then defund the very people dealing with the fire situation.







Show me a reality asshat.  The reality is the world is getting colder no matter how desperately your "researchers" go back and falsify the historical temperature record.  Based on MANY peer reviewed papers the current drought in California is nothing.  The drought in the 1980's was as bad or worse.  The droughts that have occurred over the last 1200 years are provably FAR worse than anything happening today.  The one difference today is there are 33 million people living in a fucking desert.

THAT is the reality, you dimwitted fool.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

Went thru PAGES of this crap on Ocean Acidification before..  We went thru MANY papers that folks "felt" were damning indictments of the imminent dangers. And what was found was most of the time -- almost comical..

Because the papers are frought with "we don't knows" and "they didn't study" comments. And any FIELD research admitted that isolating a deep sea squid in a 4 ft tank and studying "it's stress level" is a very iffy proposition.

The AUTHORS of these papers having been funded under Global Warming grants were OBLIGED to make comments to please their sponsors. But the WORK was extremely dissappointing and inconclusive..


Agit8er ---- If you want to review some papers. Check out this 3 year old thread...


Oceans will be drastically different by 2100 Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


EVERY ONE of those papers tossed out were actually ADMISSIONS of what has NOT been studied and what is NOT known -- but has a propaganda wrapper on it for the sponsor so that they would get paid under a Global Warming grant..


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I see. So what you are saying is that all the Scientific Societies in the world, in all the differant cultures, differant political systems, are in on a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to fool all the rest of us. 

Mr. Westwall, seek mental help.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...








No, it is your brain that is not working.  We all agree that it is a bad idea to have the fox watch the henhouse.  Except for climate science.  Somehow they are magically exempt from greed and corruption.

So, mr. agitator, how come the climate science field is the only one that ignores the scientific method by not releasing their raw data and methodology to other scientists so that their work can be checked?  Hmmm?  That is foundational principle of modern science.

Only religious nutcakes demand that you get the "WORD of GOD" from their high priests.

Well that and climate so called scientists.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...








Do they get their funding by supporting the fraud.  Yes or no?  Answer the question little silly person.  YES OR NO?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So now we have Mr. Westwall claiming that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are corrupt. And pray tell me what organization is the 'Fraud of AGW'?. Mr. Westwall, you are just as kooky as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Wonderful peer group you have there.
> ...



We can try that question another way.. How much funding do you think is out there to study tiny sea snails?? 

NOW --- how much funding is available if you can plausibly state that tiny sea snails are THREATENED BY GLOBAL WARMING??? 

C'mon..  It's not that they are dishonest.. They just to eat and avoid being an Uber Driver..


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.








When the canary in the coal mine has been catastrophically wrong for 30 years, yeah, you ignore the ignorant twat.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

Fig.1  Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present  is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the  monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

*Really?*


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Fig.1  Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present  is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the  monthly anomaly plotted once per year.
> 
> *Really?*








Yeah, really.  Care to present the sea ice graphs from before 1979?  You know the ones that show the Arctic sea ice at levels comparable to those of today?  No?  I didn't think so....fucks up your bullshit meme don't they....



Here, I did it for you...Wow...look at all that missing sea ice.  Wonder where it all went?  Wonder why it came back?  Wonder where it's going now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

Oh my, your graph ends at 1996. 

*Arctic Sea Ice Volume*

ArctischePinguin:


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2015)

SVS Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2014 with Area Graph










 








Sea ice extent trend for the Northern Hemisphere. From theNational Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Arctic Change Ice - Sea Ice

*Good reason not to post what happened past 2006.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...


Like government handing out money like candy to keep the masses at bay fudging temperatures and calling sky is falling


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SVS Annual Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2014 with Area Graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Oh?  Why is that?  Why gee whiz, lookey here, the sea ice is greater today than it was back in bad ol 2007 when it was at its all time record low.  Gosh golly mr beaver, I thought there was going to be NO ice at the north pole by 2013.  Here it is 2015 and lo and behold there's still ice here....


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2015)

For any natural parameter, when you hit a record, be it high or low, you can always expect to fail to meet that record for a bit.

You've never had statistics, have you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> For any natural parameter, when you hit a record, be it high or low, you can always expect to fail to meet that record for a bit.
> 
> You've never had statistics, have you.



What are the odds that you can post an experiment showing a temperature increase from adding 120PPM of CO2?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.


So, you can't answer. Hmmmm.  See our problem? When one can't answer simple questions others doubt the problem. See, you failed.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2015)

Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.

During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.

The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.
> 
> During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.
> 
> The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.



You've eliminated all the other variables? Soot? etc?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.




The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.
> 
> During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.
> 
> The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.


Curious your linky thingy.


----------



## Politico (Aug 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Nature and Progressives. Keep up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.
> ...


Grant from whom and where? You see, the findings of the scientists all over the world in all the different nations, cultures, and political systems, are the same. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So whom is orchestrating this great international conspiracy? Illumati? The Masons? Oh, I know, them thar dirty pinko commies!

Your logic is pretty silly.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And yet in seventeen months I've been on here you have presented one piece of evidence.  So friend, if it's so real, why don't you have any evidence?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



How is it a danger when life of Earth thrived in much much higher temperatures?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Alex -- I'll go with Dirty Pinko Commies for $300 please..

The UN is the Field Marshall for you movement. THEY are sponsoring the conferences and whinefests. Don't tell me you can't see any coordination here.. And like I said before..  There is NO money for researching small sea snails UNLESS you make some noise about how they might be affected by Global Warming.

You get the research you PAY for.. And the money is flowing to give control of energy to Central Planning and to validate Redistribution of Wealth amongst the nations.. If you're a climate researcher and you hate the oil companies and fossil fuels and want to provide cover for their demise -- why NOT spice up your work?

UN is biased starting with their Mission Statement. You know how it reads. I've quoted it a dozen times. IT IS NOT (by any stretch of the imagination) an OBJECTIVE body of work...

YOU are a HUGE opponent of the oil and fossil companies --- are you NOT? How objective does that make you?

And for once -- would you REPLY to these questions rather than posting those long lists of consensus that don't represent their membership opinions..


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2015)

How about you posting some evidence supporting the numerous unsubstantiated assertions you just made?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> How about you posting some evidence supporting the numerous unsubstantiated assertions you just made?



What?? You want me to post the IPCC Mission Statement for you a TWELVE time??  Get another hobby...


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2015)

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.








No you wouldn't.  It has been shown to you repeatedly.  Go waste your own time we're tired of wasting ours with a dirtbag like you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.



So you KNOW the Mission Statement of the IPCC is to research ONLY MAN-MADE Global Warming, but you don't think they are actually serious about their stated goal..

    They are an Emissions Conference... Not a Climate Science Conference..


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.





westwall said:


> No you wouldn't.  It has been shown to you repeatedly.  Go waste your own time we're tired of wasting ours with a dirtbag like you.



It's not a matter of would or wouldn't.  The comment was obviously rhetorical.  Sorry if you can't handle complex comments like that.  All we have ever seen on this and a hundred other similar issues is your CLAIMS that this will have that effect and that will have this effect.  FCT will put the mission statement up here and tell us that it obviously forces the IPCC to lean towards AGW as a conclusion.  "They're not allowed to study all the whack-job theories we want them to waste their time on so they have no time to discover the harm that petroleum and coal will do to us."  Problem is, I just don't take FCT's *WORD *or your *WORD *or SSDD's *WORD *or Crusader Frank's *WORD *or IanC's *WORD *or any of you denier idiots' *WORD *as evidence of jack shit.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.

And, BTW, go fuck yourself, asshole..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So AR5 is based on something that has "no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.
> ...



*BUT CRICK WILL TAKE THE WORD OF WHACK JOBS AND POLITICAL WHORES.*.. Over critically thinking people, who are scientists, who work in the field...  Who would of thunk it...


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2015)

Of what "whack jobs and political whores" do you speak?  And do you believe the hundreds of scientists involved in the production of AR5 are not critically thinking people working in the field?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2015)

You forget,    or dont know that there are 3 working groups behind IPCC Climate Change and only ONE of them is hired and approved by the body as a whole.  Infact the other working groups have editorial control over the ExecSummary and other aspects of the quote science unquote group. You asked who the whack jobs and political whores are?    HEEEELLOOOOO.  Start with other 2 working groups and the international parade of beggars and whiners that they ALL work for....   We can expand from there....


----------



## The Great Goose (Sep 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...


Wait, does that mean the water will shrink from being hot?


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...



The IPCC does not "allege" that 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory is accounted for my ocean warming.  It is a statement of fact.

I note that no where in your quotes does the IPCC use the term "excess heat".  Has your fever on this matter subsided or are you still suffering from this fixation?  Is this fixation due to the fact that the two words in thephrase "excess heat" are both terms you have actually used at one point or another?



CrusaderFrank said:


> Topic for discussion:
> 
> What is Excess Heat?
> Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
> Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss



1) I have already explained "excess heat" and further attempts are simply going to confuse you.
2) The excess heat was not hiding.  It came from the sun and entered the Earth system where 93% of it ended up in the oceans.
3) The mechanism is known generically as "heat transfer". It takes place by three mechanisms: radiative, conductive and convective.  Radiative is transfer by the emission and absorption of photons.  Conductive is a transfer across atomic and molecular bonds and through intimate material contact.  Convective is really a special case of conductive; it is a transfer enhanced by fluid flow along a material boundary.  All three of these mechanisms are involved in the warming of the oceans.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

The Great Goose said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...



Not only that, but its turning into gastric juice AND making Guam tip over


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2015)

I see the level and aspect at which you choose to discuss these issues.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...



So, you still haven't bothered to read AR5. That's awesome "Science", there, Sparky

Since you won't, or can't read it, try Googling "IPCC AR5 Excess heat" and let me know if anything turns up for you.

LOL.  You expect us to take you seriously

LOL


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Spot on.  The next question would be where's the other 7%?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total."

Anther one I don't claim to understand.

How is atmospheric CO2 causing the deep ocean to absorb 1/3 of the warming?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> I see the level and aspect at which you choose to discuss these issues.



I only mock those who give me reason, like say the crazy EnviroMarxists known as the AGWCult


----------



## Antimatter (Sep 27, 2015)

The climate will always change. It's inevitable. You just have to adapt to it like our ansesters did. You know, if we had an Ice age people would be bitching there head off. Be happy that where going through a period of global warming and not a period of global cooling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...



That's odd. If' it's a fact, AR1 didn't mention it once

"Our judgement is that: • Global - mean surface air temperature has increased by 0 3°C to 0 6°C over the last 100 years, with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980s Over the same period global sea level has increased by 10-20cm These increases have not been smooth with time, nor uniform over the globe"

Page xxiv of the Summary doesn't even show any ocean "heat", it's all land based.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

So, there's a 2 decade pause and by AR5 you're alleging "the ocean ate my warming"

None dare call it science

"3.2.2 The Ocean The ocean also plays an essential role in the global climate system. Over half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistubuted by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere, largely as latent heat of evaporation, but also as long-wave radiation"

P.77

That's odd and very different than "the ocean ate my warming" per AR5


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...


statements of fact?  OMG.... you believe that shit! Yet there is no physical evidence of it every happening...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2015)

AR1 has the warming "first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistubuted by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere". In AR5, once its apparent, there's no warming in the atmosphere, the warming is eaten by the oceans, then slowly moved through the ocean intestines, moving downward, 700 1,500, 3,000m.

See the difference?

By AR7 they'll say the Earths core ate the warming


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> ...



*The IPCC does not "allege" that 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory is accounted for my ocean warming. It is a statement of fact.
*
93%? Sounds very precise. So what was the temperature before and after this terrible heating?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Sep 27, 2015)

The hubris of the AGW Faith-based Proclaimers is alarming.

Not only do they think that human-kind somehow has caused global warmering/coolering/changering(?)-if there is any change:

but they also seem to believe that human-kind somehow has the ability to alter that cooling/warming/changering(?) if there's been any change.

It's scary that these guys are in charge of anything in life.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> The hubris of the AGW Faith-based Proclaimers is alarming.
> 
> Not only do they think that human-kind somehow has caused global warmering/coolering/changering(?)-if there is any change:
> 
> ...



But just in case the changering moves us off of the current, "Best climate possible, ever", we should spend $80 trillion on less reliable "green energy". I'm sure there are plenty of Solyndras who will wisely spend the money.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> A little internecine hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Quoted for posterity....

"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition...."


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Frank, if you think you've caught me contradicting myself, please point out the specific text.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, if you think you've caught me contradicting myself, please point out the specific text.



Crick, it's obvious to anyone that you had no familiarity with AR5 when you said, "Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics..."

I just want to be *SURE* that you remember what you said and not flee behind the cloud of squid ink


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

So you're going to show us where AR5 gives it some official definition, exclusive of all other definitions?

And then you're going to show us what bearing it has on any question under discussion here Frank. Right?


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.



Read the thread numbnut, it's in there several times already

So, you still haven't read AR5?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence)"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

See the lengths they hod to go to to make the pause "Disappear"?  All of a sudden 93%, the vast majority of the "increase" in in fuzzy numbers land


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.




Pretty clear you never read it....or maybe read it and couldn't understand it....what a joke.  Here....excess heat in AR5

section 12.4.3.1  


			
				ipcc said:
			
		

> Arctic ampli cation (de ned as the 67.5 N° to 90°N warming compared to the global average warming for 2081–2100 versus 1986–2005) peaks in early winter (November to December) with a CMIP5 RCP4.5 multi-model mean warming for 67.5°N to 90°N exceeding the global average by a factor of more than 4. The warming is smallest in summer when* excess heat* at the Arctic surface goes into melting ice or is absorbed by the ocean, which has a relatively large thermal inertia.



Section 12.5.2


			
				ipcc said:
			
		

> Loss of excess heat from the ocean will lead to a positive surface air temperature anomaly for decades to centuries


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.
> ...



Asking him to read is like asking a blind man to solve a Rubik's cube.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So if the oceans eat 93% of the warming, why are we even bothering with land readings?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



But we have consensus.....consensus....consensus.....consensus....consensus...yeah, that's the ticket.....consensus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed the above post and find it 100% accurate.

Science = settled


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.



Got it, Crick? Need more?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for AR5's "excess heat" Frank.
> ...



You don't expect him to acknowledge having ever seen it do you?  In a few days he will be asking for it again....and he will still not have that empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A little internecine hostility?
> ...



it all hidden in the ocean 

--snicker


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



There's been no warming for 2 decades, then AR5 backdates the records to magically include "excess heat" retained by the ocean, and we learn that 93% of the energy budget is now in this brand new X factor and VIOLA! No Pause

It just ain't science


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



it certainly is odd how libtard science works

--LOL

noteworthy does CO2 increase/decreases lag behind  warming/cooling

CO2 levels have been leveling off/dropping last two years also

--LOL


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Quoted for posterity....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And I stick by this Frank.  I see you managed a text search in AR5.  But did your search find you that "official scientific definition" you seem to think it has?  Now, if you had read AR5 and had comprehended even a little bit of it, you'd have dropped this nonsensical argument Frank.  As apparently ALWAYS, all you done is demonstrate your ignorance and your dishonesty.

The world has been warming since the Industrial Revolution, most dramatically over the last 60 years or so.  1998 was an exceptionally warm year, as will be 2015 and 2016 (for the same reason).  There has been no pause.  The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and methane that human activities have added to the atmosphere at rates and levels that haven't been seen in millions of years.  The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists in general accept the IPCC's central conclusion.  There is no controversy.  There is no debate over the major points.  AGW deniers who base their views on actual science are become a vanishing minority.  The rest hold the position because they're ignorant, anti-science Republican conservatives who've been taken in (like their political leaders) by the fossil fuel industry's well-financed propaganda.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There's been no warming for 2 decades, then AR5 backdates the records to magically include "excess heat" retained by the ocean, and we learn that 93% of the energy budget is now in this brand new X factor and VIOLA! No Pause
> 
> It just ain't science



What is the official scientific definition of "excess heat" Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's been no warming for 2 decades, then AR5 backdates the records to magically include "excess heat" retained by the ocean, and we learn that 93% of the energy budget is now in this brand new X factor and VIOLA! No Pause
> ...



It's the amount of heat needed to make the pause disappear


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Care to show me that in AR5 Frank?  I didn't ask for you to make one up.  You've been trying to shit on me for half the day now Frank, claiming that because you found those two words in AR5, that they have some huge scientific significance.  What is it Frank?  Can't you find them in the AR5 glossary Frank?

Or you could grow a set of balls and tell us the truth for once Frank.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's been no warming for 2 decades, then AR5 backdates the records to magically include "excess heat" retained by the ocean, and we learn that 93% of the energy budget is now in this brand new X factor and VIOLA! No Pause
> ...



How about a description of the mechanism that caused the heat to shift from warming the atmosphere up till 1998 to moving to the deep ocean ever after?  What sort of over the rainbow physics might account for that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Quoted for posterity....
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Doubling down on stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Care to show me that in AR5 Frank?  I didn't ask for you to make one up.  You've been trying to shit on me for half the day now Frank, claiming that because you found those two words in AR5, that they have some huge scientific significance.  What is it Frank?  Can't you find them in the AR5 glossary Frank?
> 
> Or you could grow a set of balls and tell us the truth for once Frank.



Crick are you ESL? Find someone to read the OP to you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Care to show me that in AR5 Frank?  I didn't ask for you to make one up.  You've been trying to shit on me for half the day now Frank, claiming that because you found those two words in AR5, that they have some huge scientific significance.  What is it Frank?  Can't you find them in the AR5 glossary Frank?
> 
> Or you could grow a set of balls and tell us the truth for once Frank.



Crick, start with reading the Title of the thread you're in "*Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat"*


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Trenberth's 'reanalysis' of Ocean Heat Content filled in the gaps for the 'travesty'. it also fixed the discrepancies of the measured effects (or lack of) for volcanoes in the modeled results.

a 2012 paper on OHC claimed that the 20th century increase was the 'highest rate of change evah'. what no one seemed to pay any attention to was that OHC was at a very low level, that OHC was higher 1000 years ago, and higher still 2000 years ago, etc.

Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise.   ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling  ****


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise.   ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling  ****



Link please Ian

or did you mean this one
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
*Abstract*

Abstract•
References•
Author information•
Supplementary information•
Comments
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.











The CO2 rise to which Shakun refers goes from 180 to 260 ppm, a 67% increase.  The rise to which you refer goes from 260 to 280 ppm, a rise of less than 8%.

And then you could explain why you're surprised that a study of the Pleistocene would not provide data going to the present day.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

So, Ian, are you rejecting the greenhouse effect, rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas or simply accusing Jeremy Shakun of deceptive practices?

And, of course, your buddies here would choose "All Three"


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> So, Ian, are you rejecting the greenhouse effect, rejecting CO2 as a greenhouse gas or simply accusing Jeremy Shakun of deceptive practices?
> 
> And, of course, your buddies here would choose "All Three"




Deceptive practice, of course.

As well as the less than perfect correlation of temp to CO2.

I have stated my beliefs many times on the subject of the greenhouse effect and GHGs. Why are you misrepresenting me? I would prefer you to actually quote me, but then you couldn't make outlandish statements like the above, eh?


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

Well, you're certainly better than most of the deniers here at CYA.

So, you think Shakun was being deceptive when, in a paper on the Pleistocene, he failed to point out that less than one-eighth the CO2 rise during the rest of the Holocene failed to produce warming?  Your threshold is certainly at _least_ as low as one that would accuse you of attempting to throw doubt on the greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Shakun's paper on how CO2 caused the end of the last ice age was very odd in that it stopped showing CO2 levels about 8000 years ago. why is that important? because temperatures have been dropping since then but (you guessed it) CO2 levels have continued to rise.   ****for the last 8000 years (except the most recent 65) the relationship between CO2 and temperature was a negative one, CO2 apparently caused cooling  ****
> ...




you dont seem to understand how easy it is to present things in a way to support just about any hypothesis.

use Marcott's thesis diagram, from page 40 diagram C







Taylor dome ice core CO2






flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like. 

dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.

cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that. you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.

hahahahaha, you are a gullible fool who believes what he is told, until he is told to believe something different. 'Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'. Crick, you would have been right at home with Lysenko. hahahaha


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.



Except Shakun's data makes use of an eight-fold greater increase in CO2 and a far more dramatic temperature change than you'd be working with over the period that you seem to think significant.



IanC said:


> dont get me wrong...I am not saying that I believe that increasing CO2 causes lower temps. I also dont believe CO2 causes higher temps in any catastrophic, runaway fashion. the last 10,000 years is obviously equivical.



Shakuns data has many times the correlation that anything you could produce; his results are not the least equivocal.



IanC said:


> cherrypicking, you say? well yes, so what? Shakun picked HIS proxies, they dont match the average for either temperature or the timing of events, but you have no problem with that.



I have no problem with it because the lag is a major point in his thesis and it is thoroughly discussed.



IanC said:


> you have no problem with him cutting off the last 6 or 8 thousand years of CO2 numbers because they were inconvenient. no problem with Mann's hide the decline.. no problem with upsidedown proxies.



There is no upside down to the proxy to which McIntyre has brought that charge - its values are absolutes.  And thinking you've got a case because Shakun doesn't speak about the present only shows that you truly have no case.  Shakun made no comments about the present.  He is not, therefore, obliged to present data from the present.  Personally, I think you're a fucking dick for trying to say he is.



IanC said:


> hahahahaha, you are a gullible fool who believes what he is told



Go fuck yourself Ian. Then rinse, later, REPEAT.



IanC said:


> until he is told to believe something different.



I have stated repeatedly that I follow mainstream science.  If someone around here is being a fool, it's far more likely to be the one rejecting the view of better than 97% of the world's experts.



IanC said:


> 'Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'.



Babbling nonsense



IanC said:


> Crick, you would have been right at home with Lysenko. hahahaha



If you think the situation re climate science today has any resemblance to Lysenko's biology in the USSR, you're a raving fool with a LOT less intellectual capability than I once thought you possessed.

You've seen what came out of Paris.  You've lost.  You've helped hold things up years longer than they should have been and you have seriously fucked with the lives of my children and theirs for many generation.  I will never forgive any of your for that.  Ignorance has a cost and in this instance it has been very high indeed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.
> ...


*
You've seen what came out of Paris. You've lost.*

Lost what?
*
You've helped hold things up years longer than they should have been and you have seriously fucked with the lives of my children and theirs for many generation.
*
Darn that Ian, getting China to burn so much coal. It's good Obama and Paris will make them stop. Wait, what?

*I will never forgive any of your for that.*

Gosh, I hope Ian can carry that heavy burden.
*
Ignorance has a cost and in this instance it has been very high indeed.*

I think you should cut back on the estrogen you're taking.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flip the x axis on one or the other. maybe trim off the end of the CO2 record just to make things match up better (variation of 'hide the decline' perhaps), and Voila!......a perfectly serviceable eight or ten thousand year study on how CO2 has a negative correlation with temperature. CO2 up, temps down, 8000 years worth of data. make no mistake, for a reasonably sized funding grant you can argue any point you like.
> ...



okay, here we go again. here are Shakun's proxies























> The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, theyre all vaguely alike  but thats about all.
> The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.



these are the wildly varying proxies that produced the green line in Shakun's global temp graph -






is the green shading +/- 2 SD? or only 1SD? hahahahahahahahahaha

interesting....it's good to go back and look at things again. I never noticed that the two Greenland ice cores are claiming 32C and 27C warming.  should he have been using such obvious outliers? remember YAD061, the wonderous 5 sigma outlier that gave the hockey stick shape to Mann's graph and many of the subsequent spaghetti graphs?






undoubtedly the most influential tree that has ever lived


anyways...so you think Im a fucking dick, eh? well, I do enjoy screwing with your head by making you think up new ways to avoid answering my questions and rationalizations to ignore my ideas.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> You've seen what came out of Paris.  You've lost.



Clearly, you have not seen what came out of paris...here is what your high priest had to say about what came out of paris.



> Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.
> 
> “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
> 
> ...



The fact is, crick, that you and yours have lost and continue to lose and will continue to lose....with every day that passes, more people wake up to the pseudoscience and decide that it just isn't worth it to spend theirs, their children's and their grandchildren's legacy on what might be a reduction of warming of a small fraction of a degree if you believe the pseudoscience and no change at all if you are a realist and realize that you and yours don't even have empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> You've seen what came out of Paris.  You've lost.





SSDD said:


> Clearly, you have not seen what came out of paris...here is what your high priest had to say about what came out of paris.



I don't have a high priest, a low priest or a priest out in left field.  That would be for those among you who choose to believe in the supernatural.



SSDD said:


> Unidentified denier story about Hansen comments said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> The fact is, crick, that you and yours have lost and continue to lose and will continue to lose



You're probably correct.  But let's be clear that "you and yours" is all of humanity and the reason we will lose is due in no small part to greedy, ignorant, bitter right-wing assholes like you.



SSDD said:


> ....with every day that passes, more people wake up to the pseudoscience



Show us a survey or poll or study that supports that claim you lying fucking idiot.



SSDD said:


> and decide that it just isn't worth it to spend theirs, their children's and their grandchildren's legacy on what might be a reduction of warming of a small fraction of a degree if you believe the pseudoscience and no change at all if you are a realist and realize that you and yours don't even have empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.



Again, here, as with so many other topics, you appear to be WRONG.  Support for action among humanity and its leadership is growing. The reality of AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt.  Feel free to continue to sputter and yell but you have no science, you have no evidence, you have no models, you have NOTHING supporting your claims.  NOTHING.  The only reason you continue to make them is that you're all too cowardly to admit you've been wrong all along.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Again, here, as with so many other topics, you appear to be WRONG. Support for action among humanity and its leadership is growing. The reality of AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Feel free to continue to sputter and yell but you have no science, you have no evidence, you have no models, you have NOTHING supporting your claims. NOTHING. The only reason you continue to make them is that you're all too cowardly to admit you've been wrong all along.



By "support" you mean the toothless agreements that come out of those wastes of time like paris?  And if AGW has been established beyond reasonable doubt, then lets see the empirical evidence that proves just the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis?  What's that?  You have none because it doesn't exist...and yet, you claim that AGW is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?  Tell me crick...where is the proof that the warming we saw at the end of the 20th century was anything other than natural? Where is the proof that establishes how much, if any of it was due to man's activity?  Where is any proof of anything you claim?

And it's true...I don't have any epically failing computer models to establish that my claims are wrong...you have them proving you are wrong in spades...and since I am claiming that you are wrong...and the comparison of the models to reality bear me out...I must be right.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.

I don't claim proof.  I claim overwhelming evidence.  Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections.  Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models.  Again, your problem.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.



And yet, you don't seem to be able to cut it out and paste it here...and what you do bring here certainly does not prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...it is clear that you believe you have seen proof, but what you have done is nothing more than fool yourself.  There is no such evidence, you have never seen it, and your claim that it is in AR5 is a blatant lie.



Crick said:


> I don't claim proof.  I claim overwhelming evidence.  Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.



What you have is correlation...and no amount of correlation proves causation...and even your correlation only looks convincing if you restrict the time frame to an eye blink...the first look at the larger picture sends all your claims based on correlation right down the drain.



Crick said:


> You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections.  Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models.  Again, your problem.



I have been making projections all along...and what do you know...mine have been right and yours have been wrong...I have said all along that adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming and what has happened...for the past 2 decades plenty of additional CO2 has been added to the atmosphere but no warming has happened... because the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong...

And I already gave you a model...sorry you didn't like it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.
> ...


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

I see you're having trouble with quotations.


Crick said:


> Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.





SSDD said:


> And yet, you don't seem to be able to cut it out and paste it here.. and what was hit you said about people who claim that evidence exists somewhere and then just send you off hoping that they will find something....you said that they are just talking out of their asses....guess you are just talking out of your ass again because you certainly haven't brought anything that could be construed as empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming from any source....and what you do bring here calling it proof certainly does not prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...it is clear that you believe you have seen proof, but what you have done is nothing more than fool yourself.  There is no such evidence, you have never seen it, and your claim that it is in AR5 is a blatant lie.



As I promised, so you perform



Crick said:


> I don't claim proof.  I claim overwhelming evidence.  Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.





SSDD said:


> What you have is correlation...and no amount of correlation proves causation.



And, once more you demonstrate a complete failing in the absolute basics of natural science.



SSDD said:


> ..and even your correlation only looks convincing if you restrict the time frame to an eye blink...the first look at the larger picture sends all your claims based on correlation right down the drain.



My timeframe is the span of human history.  You're going to have to explain why you think it needful to go further when looking for the impact of current changes on human civilization.



Crick said:


> You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections.  Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models.  Again, your problem.





SSDD said:


> I have been making projections all along...and what do you know...mine have been right and yours have been wrong



Liar.



SSDD said:


> ..I have said all along that adding CO2 to the atmosphere won't cause warming and what has happened...for the past 2 decades plenty of additional CO2 has been added to the atmosphere but no warming has happened... because the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong...



And what caused this warming?






and this warming






if, as you claim, it was NOT this:


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

The rightwingnut fruitloops started out stating that there was no warming going on at all. When the warming became evident enough that all could see that they were totally wrong, they changed over to 'but it's all natural'. Now that they have been called out on the fact that there are no natural forcing to account for the increase in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean, they have gone to a two pronged attack. 

One, well, who are those scientists to tell us what temperature is best, in any case. Total admission that AGW is a fact, and only saying that 'Try it, you might like it'. Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.

Two. All these scientists from all the different nations and cultures are in on a gigantic conspiracy, one so tightly knit that no one has come forward to reveal the nature or purpose of this conspiracy. The old tin hat stuff that the rightwingnutjobs thrive on. And the rest of us find amazingly humorous. The same way a drunk harmless old uncle is humored in his nonsensical ramblings.

As the agreement in Paris has demonstrated, the nut jobs have lost, and the President's budget, including the funds for meeting the agreed targets, passed. One more time you fruitloops lose.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.
> 
> I don't claim proof.  I claim overwhelming evidence.  Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.
> 
> You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections.  Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models.  Again, your problem.


so as others have stated previously, post the excerpts from the document that is this empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

 A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

 We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1. 

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions. 

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

*Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The rightwingnut fruitloops started out stating that there was no warming going on at all. When the warming became evident enough that all could see that they were totally wrong, they changed over to 'but it's all natural'. Now that they have been called out on the fact that there are no natural forcing to account for the increase in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean, they have gone to a two pronged attack.
> 
> One, well, who are those scientists to tell us what temperature is best, in any case. Total admission that AGW is a fact, and only saying that 'Try it, you might like it'. Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.
> 
> ...



*Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.*


When was this magical period in history when we had no extreme weather?
How exactly did we determine the proper number of extreme weather events, so we'd know that the number we have now is abnormally high?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

National Climate Assessment

*Just one point at this site.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

Heavy precipitation

Are heavy rain events becoming more frequent due to climate change? That is a difficult question to answer, since reliable records are not available at all in many parts of the world, and extend back only a few decades elsewhere. However, we do have a fairly good set of precipitation records for many parts of the globe, and those records show that the heaviest types of rains--those likely to cause flooding--have increased in recent years. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, "The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas". Indeed, global warming theory has long predicted an increase in heavy precipitation events. As the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 IPCC report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. Satellite measurements (Trenberth _et al._, 2005) have shown a 1.3% per decade increase in water vapor over the global oceans since 1988. Santer _et al._ (2007) used a climate model to study the relative contribution of natural and human-caused effects on increasing water vapor, and concluded that this increase was "primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases". This was also the conclusion of Willet _et al._ (2007).

*More water vapor equals more precipitation*
This increase in water vapor has very likely led to an increase in global precipitation. For instance, over the U.S., where we have very good precipitation records, annual average precipitation has increased 7% over the past century (Groisman _et al.,_ 2004). The same study also found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events over the U.S. in the past century. Kunkel _et al._ (2003) also found an increase in heavy precipitation events over the U.S. in recent decades, but noted that heavy precipitation events were nearly as frequent at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, though the data is not as reliable back then. Thus, there is a large natural variation in extreme precipitation events.

Extreme Weather | Weather Underground

*More points.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

*Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial. *


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991
> 
> A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres
> 
> ...


highlight the empirical part of that excerpt.  The one that says CO2 causes warming.  That is what I asked for.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Heavy precipitation
> 
> Are heavy rain events becoming more frequent due to climate change? That is a difficult question to answer, since reliable records are not available at all in many parts of the world, and extend back only a few decades elsewhere. However, we do have a fairly good set of precipitation records for many parts of the globe, and those records show that the heaviest types of rains--those likely to cause flooding--have increased in recent years. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, "The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas". Indeed, global warming theory has long predicted an increase in heavy precipitation events. As the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 IPCC report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. Satellite measurements (Trenberth _et al._, 2005) have shown a 1.3% per decade increase in water vapor over the global oceans since 1988. Santer _et al._ (2007) used a climate model to study the relative contribution of natural and human-caused effects on increasing water vapor, and concluded that this increase was "primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases". This was also the conclusion of Willet _et al._ (2007).
> 
> ...


so why haven't there been more incidents of extreme weather, like Hurricanes ?  The link here seems to say the opposite.

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991
> 
> A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres
> 
> ...



And which part of that do you believe represents empirical proof that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991
> ...


I hate it when facts get in the way of a good story


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 17, 2015)

Wonder if underwater volcanic activity might not be a factor.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

9thIDdoc said:


> Wonder if underwater volcanic activity might not be a factor.


Not according to the geologists at the USGS, and the equivelent services of other nations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991
> ...


You have what you asked for. That you are too ignorant to understand it is not my problem.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps.  I get it, you choose to be ignorant.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> highlight the empirical part of that excerpt.  The one that says CO2 causes warming.  That is what I asked for.


You have what you asked for. That you are too ignorant to understand it is not my problem.[/QUOTE]

Either you know as well as we do that there is nothing there that even approaches being empirical evidence to prove anything and you are a lying sack....or you are an idiot child who actually believes that there is some empirical evidence there but are to afraid to point it out for the very reasonable fear that you will be laughed at.  Which is it because there is no other alternative...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps.  I get it, you choose to be ignorant.



You didn't actually expect for him to highlight what he thinks is empirical evidence of anything there did you?  He is constantly talking out of his ass...making claims that this evidence exists or that evidence exists when he either knows full well that it doesn't exist and he is just a lying sack...or he is just so stupid that he believes that someone making a claim that he likes represents empirical evidence.

When you back them up against the wall and demand specific evidence that they claim to have at their disposal, they start sounding like young earth bible thumpers when you ask them about fossils...the faithful make all the claims they care to make but when you ask for evidence, they act just like rocks, crick and company....


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps.  I get it, you choose to be ignorant.
> ...


nope, I knew he wouldn't.  He has no idea what it is.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial. *











No.  What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation.  Nor does it take into account the population increases etc.  In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Empirical evidence may be found in AR5.  You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there.  Well, that would be YOUR problem.
> 
> I don't claim proof.  I claim overwhelming evidence.  Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.
> 
> You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections.  Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models.  Again, your problem.



Where's the "EMPERICAL evidence" that the oceans absorbed 93% of the "excess heat"

The EMPERICAL has no clothes


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial. *
> ...


LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991
> 
> A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres
> 
> ...



I'll have to read the article oldrocks didn't bother to read before posting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


*
LOL. Inflation?*

Wow, you are even dumber than I thought.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...











In 1862 the ENTIRE California Central Valley was a lake (Sacramento was 23 feet below water) thanks to a atmospheric river.  Where do you think that would stack up against the puny floods of today?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


OK, dear little ignorant corksmoker, point out which graph involves inflation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


One event. In one place.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...













One event, in one place, (actually not really, it was western US wide affecting Washington to Arizona and all the way into Colorado, but that would be a fact and we all know you don't do facts) that DWARFS anything we have seen in the last 100 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



"Billion dollar" you fucking retard. LOL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It's only warming when its one event in one place that fits the AGWCult narrative.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if underwater volcanic activity might not be a factor.
> ...



Then they are either a bunch of idiots or you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.










No, it doesn't.  it shows an increased cost while completely ignoring the inflation that has occurred.  There are MANY storms that have occurred in the past that absolutely crush any of the storms we have experienced.  The 1862 storm I reference is but one of them.  olfrauds post is a fraud, and propaganda piece and nothing more.

When it comes to lying the AGW cult and their political operatives, like you and olfraud, are the poster children for that particular tactic.


----------



## Crick (Dec 18, 2015)

So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph.  What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph.  What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?











Remove climatological events to begin.  Then, you can argue whether there is a 30 year trend.  We have no idea what they used as a criteria to generate their numbers.  What we do know is they wish to charge people for insurance that they will never need.  That is the wet dream of insurance companies everywhere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.


The boards leading liar accusing me? That's rich. 

All we know for certain is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in...what are you calling it today, is it climate warming? Global change?

The posted chart is not evidence that CO2 does anything. If you were able to post even one experiment showing how a rounding error worth of CO2 raises temperature I'm sure you would have posted it in the years we've been requesting your evidence.

You can't even show you've eliminated ANY variable much less ALL variable save for a hiccup of an atmospheric trace elements.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.



To be clear: you're a clown. I'm confident in my understanding of the science, CO2 does not drive climate on planet Earth and never did for 800,000 years, if ever.

You can post all the settled science consensus charts and models you want, its not evidence. You and your fellow clowns were effectively ordered to wear your big red noses and try to convince people like me, who think for themselves, that I should abandon skepticism and common sense so I too could wear the big red nose and oversized shoes

You're a clown


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph.  What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?



If your dollars aren't adjusted for inflation, who cares what the vertical axis represents?
Further proof that liberals are economically illiterate.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.
> ...


exactly


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

let's say for one minute that indeed the data in the graphs is collected data.  What tools were used to collect the data in 1980 and what tools in 200x.  I would bet my entire salary that the tool in 200x was much more likely to count more lightning strikes, upper level disturbances and intensity.  So basically all the graphs prove is that the technology in the 200x years is much much more advanced, hell they now have 3D models they use to show the size of a storm. So the information tells us nothing about actual storms, as it does the advances made in meteorology.  Thanks!  And that funding to upgrade all of those tools must be quite high.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.





CrusaderFrank said:


> To be clear: you're a clown.



Then I'm a clown whose won a lot of arguments around here



CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm confident in my understanding of the science



Hahaahahahaaaa... I'm sorry Frank, but that is really sad. Because you really, really, really shouldn't be.



CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 does not drive climate on planet Earth and never did for 800,000 years, if ever.



Sad, Frank.



CrusaderFrank said:


> You can post all the settled science consensus charts and models you want, its not evidence.



Consensus charts aren't direct evidence, but they are evidence that other evidence exists - the evidence that sold all those scientists.  Model results actually are evidence but your side would have us believe otherwise because the models all show them to be wrong and the inability to create a working model without AGW show them to be stupid. If you want evidence, all you need do is examine the published climate studies of the last 20 years.  Or you could read the IPCC's assessment reports which do an excellent job of summarizing the conclusions of those studies.



CrusaderFrank said:


> You and your fellow clowns were effectively ordered to wear your big red noses and try to convince people like me



Ordered by whom?  Looks like that paranoia has spread.



CrusaderFrank said:


> who think for themselves



I'm afraid you have no evidence whatsoever that you think for yourself Frank; at least on this topic.



CrusaderFrank said:


> that I should abandon skepticism



Oh no.  Skepticism is a wonderful thing.  That's why deniers - under the command of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign - have strenuously encouraged that fantasy.  What you and your denier buddies are doing is NOT skepticism Frank.



CrusaderFrank said:


> and common sense



No, as well.  Common sense is a good thing but you and yours haven't exhibited that either



CrusaderFrank said:


> so I too could wear the big red nose and oversized shoes
> 
> You're a clown



The evidence says that AGW is the most likely explanation for the observations.  The evidence says that global warming is a serious threat to human culture for many generations to come.  The evidence says that opposition is being enabled by large cash and PR support from the fossil fuel industry.  You aren't being skeptical and you aren't displaying common sense.  I truly wish you were.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented.  Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes.  There's no two ways around it.  Unless you want to lie.





CrusaderFrank said:


> The boards leading liar accusing me? That's rich.



But I didn't accuse you of lying.  I said that was the only way to reject what Old Rocks' data show.



CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in...what are you calling it today, is it climate warming? Global change?



Hundreds of billions of dollars where?  Have you given any real thought to the actual cost of dealing with, say, a one meter rise in sea level?



CrusaderFrank said:


> The posted chart is not evidence that CO2 does anything.



No one said that it was.  It's is evidence that storms are growing in intensity.  But do you have another explanation?



CrusaderFrank said:


> If you were able to post even one experiment showing how a rounding error worth of CO2 raises temperature I'm sure you would have posted it in the years we've been requesting your evidence.



Shall I repost Evans 2006 and his direct measurement of greenhouse gas backradiation.  How about the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide?  Do you think those lies?  You cannot point me to a single study since Angstrom and Koch that even suggests CO2 has no effect.  Not one. That is not being skeptical and that is not using common sense.



CrusaderFrank said:


> You can't even show you've eliminated ANY variable much less ALL variable save for a hiccup of an atmospheric trace elements.



That's nonsense Frank.  Climate scientists have examined dozens of possible causes for global warming.  Except for the greenhouse effect acting on human emissions, they all failed as the primary causative factor.  No other potential causes were of sufficient magnitude.  No other potential causes had the right trend histories.


----------

