Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It didn't "Fail," NASA 2020 Sensitivity of 2.6-3.9 is AFTER your Cherry Picked Graphs-from-Nowhere and NASA incorporated all the newest data.I find it very funny that i post up well-established science for the log of CO2 and the AGW zealots ignore it like the plague... They go right around it and ignore it.
NO.. That is the failed modeling number, not the empirically observed number
link.springer.com
I find it very funny that i post up well-established science for the log of CO2 and the AGW zealots ignore it like the plague... They go right around it and ignore it.
he's not referring to this log.No one debates the log function in CO2 climate sensitivity. I guess you are pleased you even know what a log is!
This is the same thing Crick claimed years ago.. Are you his sock puppet?I was fortunate enough to be a chem tech on an ocean cruise in the North Atlantic. We were measuring a point in the North Atlantic where currents dipped down carrying water from the surface where it absorbed various trace gases and then transported them down to the bottom of the North Atlantic. This is called the North Atlantic Deep Water. We measured the tracer gas to see when the water was last at the surface.
So, yeah, ocean currents move water up and down. Quite effectively.
Want to see it?
You're talking about the acoustic channel. Yes that is real. No, it doesn't mean water can't move up and down in the water column in the ocean.
Well, I've actually been out there, and measuring that data. I've had that water from the bottom of the Atlantic on my hands as I sampled it from a Rosette with NIskin bottles. So I think I'll trust my experience over someone who doesn't even have a science degree.
www.britannica.com
This is the same thing Crick claimed years ago.. Are you his sock puppet?
You're using a very deceptive graphing. But even being deceptive it disproves your hypothesis. The Deep-Water Cold Returns are only at surface in the polar regions. The thermoclines are many not just one or two. So, spare me your BS. Your cherry-picking data and ignoring other data which disproves your hypothesis. You're going to make me drag out the physics books to disprove your bull shit. But that might be entertaining.
There are major and minor thermoclines. But you knew that, or you should have.
Thermocline | Temperature Gradient, Stratification & Mixing
Thermocline, oceanic water layer in which water temperature decreases rapidly with increasing depth. A widespread permanent thermocline exists beneath the relatively warm, well-mixed surface layer, from depths of about 200 m (660 feet) to about 1,000 m (3,000 feet), in which interval temperatures
This is the same thing Crick claimed years ago.. Are you his sock puppet?
You're using a very deceptive graphing. But even being deceptive it disproves your hypothesis. The Deep-Water Cold Returns are only at surface in the polar regions. The thermoclines are many not just one or two. So, spare me your BS. Your cherry-picking data and ignoring other data which disproves your hypothesis. You're going to make me drag out the physics books to disprove your bull shit. But that might be entertaining.
There are major and minor thermoclines. But you knew that, or you should have.
Thermocline | Temperature Gradient, Stratification & Mixing
Thermocline, oceanic water layer in which water temperature decreases rapidly with increasing depth. A widespread permanent thermocline exists beneath the relatively warm, well-mixed surface layer, from depths of about 200 m (660 feet) to about 1,000 m (3,000 feet), in which interval temperatures
The log function is well established. The Cause/Effect relationship IS NOT. That is what is at issue here. Showing that our warming doesn't even meet base line log values shows that there is no enhancement. But you all ignore that... So your fantasy warming is nonexistant.No one debates the log function in CO2 climate sensitivity. I guess you are pleased you even know what a log is!
The log function is well established. The Cause/Effect relationship IS NOT. That is what is at issue here. Showing that our warming doesn't even meet base line log values shows that there is no enhancement. But you all ignore that... So your fantasy warming is nonexistant.
It didn't "Fail," NASA 2020 Sensitivity of 2.6-3.9 is AFTER your Cherry Picked Graphs-from-Nowhere and NASA incorporated all the newest data.
IOW..
YOU FAILED again.
You're a Conspiracist FRAUD/lowlife net scraper.
Billy Bob Misspelled "Psychic" or 'Psychotic" as "Physicist".
`
Both of you live in fantasy world. Both of the models you are touting show failure inside ten years when verified empirically. Come on... are you people this invested in the lie?Wow, you are wrong again! They were able to use Mt Pinatubo data directly.
"The observational value of the ratio signifying volcanic sensitivity is hereby estimated to correspond to an equilibrium climate sensitivity, i.e. equilibrium temperature increase due to a doubling of the CO2 concentration, between 1.7 and 4.1 K. Several sources of uncertainty reside in the method applied, and it is pointed out that additional model output, related to ocean heat storage and radiative forcing, could refine the analysis, as could reduced uncertainty in the observational record, of temperature as well as forcing."
Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models - Climate Dynamics
The radiative flux perturbations and subsequent temperature responses in relation to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 are studied in the ten general circulation models incorporated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, phase 3 (CMIP3), that include a parameterization of volcanic...
It must be hard being so ignorant of the science. You should take a science class.
cause you can prove your personal experience on a message board. LOL. you really have no sense of responsibility.No. And I doubt very highly anyone else had my personal experience. Just making up shit now?
which boat were you on?No, I don't ignore it. You are simply out of your depth.
Both of you live in fantasy world. Both of the models you are touting show failure inside ten years when verified empirically. Come on... are you people this invested in the lie?
View attachment 698890
Again empirical evidence shows your modeling failed.
LOL... You can't even be honest... They used some data then built a model that you are now claiming is good. and do not want that model verified... What a joke..
Just ask a simple geology question that you can't quickly Google and you see that this clod is a fraud.
Just ask a simple geology question that you can't quickly Google and you see that this clod is a fraud.
I don't know anything about geology
Mt. Pinatubo is not a model. It is a real volcano.
Do you know what a volcano is?
