LOL.....so Republicans dont understand science??!!!!

[mamooth]

adorable. instead of answering a science question, you posted an opinion poll. that's real science right there

I did answer. I pointed out you're lying about "ocean heat being trapped in the deep ocean."

Your masters don't even tell the lies you do. Your lies are totally original. On the bright side, you do get points for creative lying.

Here's a hint, liar. 700m - 2000m is not "deep ocean." You really should learn the basics before you make crap up.

 

[mamooth]

Once again mamooth lives in bizzaro world it is the AGW cult that wants people in jail

So you're saying Tobacco company execs should not have been jailed for organizing campaigns of deadly propaganda that they knew was all fake, by their own admission.

Our legal and moral system disagrees with you. In the USA, orchestrating a massive public fraud campaign to push deadly propaganda is a crime, no matter what the subject is.

Don't worry. Most deniers can use stupidity as an excuse, and the fact that they're beta wimps who were too scared to disobey cult orders. Only those at the top who deliberately organize massive fraud campaigns can be prosecuted.

In direct contrast to that, you deniers want to kill or imprison anyone who merely commits the purely political "crime" of opposing your political cult on any level.

That is, you're a Stalinist, while we rational people are all democracy supporters.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

adorable. instead of answering a science question, you posted an opinion poll. that's real science right there

I did answer. I pointed out you're lying about "ocean heat being trapped in the deep ocean."

Your masters don't even tell the lies you do. Your lies are totally original. On the bright side, you do get points for creative lying.

Here's a hint, liar. 700m - 2000m is not "deep ocean." You really should learn the basics before you make crap up.

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

Ocean Warming"

Knowing that the land values showed a 2 decade pause, the IPCC made up an entirely new and untracked data set -- "excess heat trapped -- like a rat! - in the oceans"

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

 

[mamooth]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Once again mamooth lives in bizzaro world it is the AGW cult that wants people in jail

So you're saying Tobacco company execs should not have been jailed for organizing campaigns of deadly propaganda that they knew was all fake, by their own admission.

Our legal and moral system disagrees with you. In the USA, orchestrating a massive public fraud campaign to push deadly propaganda is a crime, no matter what the subject is.

Don't worry. Most deniers can use stupidity as an excuse, and the fact that they're beta wimps who were too scared to disobey cult orders. Only those at the top who deliberately organize massive fraud campaigns can be prosecuted.

In direct contrast to that, you deniers want to kill or imprison anyone who merely commits the purely political "crime" of opposing your political cult on any level.

That is, you're a Stalinist, while we rational people are all democracy supporters.

So you went to.playing the victim to wanting to jail people ? Caught you I a lie and now you change it.

God damn smoking and man.made climate change. Is two different things you little cock sucker


You don't have proof you have junk science pure and simple.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

Lmfao met office?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Down to 2000 meters? Why not.

 

[mamooth]

So you went to.playing the victim to wanting to jail people ? Caught you I a lie and now you change it.

You didn't answer, little liar. Do you think it was improper to jail tobacco company execs for pushing a deliberate fraud after they admitted, in their own documents, that they knew they were pushing a fraud?

That's what Nye was speaking of. Your lied about it and pretended Nye wanted every denier jailed.

So why did you think you wouldn't get busted for lying? After all, you always get busted when you lie, because your cult feeds you such stupid lies, and you're not bright enough to understand how stupid they are.

My best guess? You want to get humiliated for lying, because it demonstrates to the other cultists how devoted you are to the cult.

 

[mamooth]

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

No. That's your big lie, one I've debunked directly several times before. You know you're lying here, you know everyone knows you're lying, but you lie anyways, because lying is all you do.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850????..



It wasnt till 1872 with the great Britain ship Challenger





135 Years of Records Reveals Deep Ocean Warming - Scientific American

From the link
Her Majesty's Ship Challenger set sail in 1872. Stripped of her guns and outfitted for science, her mission was to sail around the globe sampling as she went.

Among other scientific triumphs, theChallenger gathered the first global set of ocean temperature readings, more than 260 in all. The British expedition measured from the surface to a depth beyond 900 meters.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850



It wasnt till 1872 with the grateful Britain ship Challenger





135 Years of Records Reveals Deep Ocean Warming - Scientific American

From the link
Her Majesty's Ship Challenger set sail in 1872. Stripped of her guns and outfitted for science, her mission was to sail around the globe sampling as she went.

Among other scientific triumphs, theChallenger gathered the first global set of ocean temperature readings, more than 260 in all. The British expedition measured from the surface to a depth beyond 900 meters.

But accurate to a tenth of a degree right

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll repeat my prior post, the one you ignore.

"Oops. This is what happens when you're uninformed and just spewing AGW Cult talking points. "Fucked yourself royally, you have," said Master Yoda.

"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

And again, that has nothing to do with the deep ocean, being that 700m-2000m is not the deep ocean.

Hence, you lied about anyone saying heat went into the deep ocean. Just admit it. Squealing about it over and over just makes you look butthurt.

What was the Indian Ocean temperature in 1932? Where's that data set? Or the Atlantic in 1901, where's that data set? Let's see how the fucking Poseur answers

I suggest you look at the HadSST2 data set, which has such data back to 1850.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

if you weren't an ignorant cultist, you would have known about such datasets. If you weren't such a worthless lazy shit, you would have tried looking for it yourself. And even though you now know the database exists, you're still going to tell the same lies, because you're pathologically dishonest. That's the point we always get back to, your pathological dishonesty.

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850



It wasnt till 1872 with the great Britain ship Challenger





135 Years of Records Reveals Deep Ocean Warming - Scientific American

From the link
Her Majesty's Ship Challenger set sail in 1872. Stripped of her guns and outfitted for science, her mission was to sail around the globe sampling as she went.

Among other scientific triumphs, theChallenger gathered the first global set of ocean temperature readings, more than 260 in all. The British expedition measured from the surface to a depth beyond 900 meters.

I got the data set open using 7zip but it was gibberish I'll have to retry

 

[mamooth]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

 

[hadit]

True. Republicans not only don't understand science, they think science is a "faith".

That's a stupid thing to say.

Although, when you think about it, most of the dolts who couldn't handle basic high school science, DO approach science in a faith based manner.

1. They don't understand much about science to begin with but insist they have superior understanding of anyone even questioning the tenets of any scientific sounding proclamation.
2. They take the "priest's" pronouncements as gospel truth.
3. They denounce any "heretics" who even question such pronouncements.
4. They insist that science has the answers to life, and anything that cannot be explained by science either doesn't exist or must be proven to ridiculous lengths.
5. They refuse to accept as reality anything that is not declared real and repeatable by the priests.

Thus, while science itself is not a faith, many treat it like it is one.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're telling us we had temperature readings in 1850 that were accurate to a tenth of a degree?

No. That's your big lie, one I've debunked directly several times before. You know you're lying here, you know everyone knows you're lying, but you lie anyways, because lying is all you do.

Get the fuck out of here you have been lying so has the met


1872 is when the Challenger set sail not 1850 records were here and there ...not untill world war I with u boats and torpedoes did they start recording regularly ocean temperature , then nothing much till WWII then nothing much till 2004 with Argo ..ocean temperatures records are worse then land temperature records you little fuck in the head liar .

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

You didn't give data you gave a lie by the met , a huge lie

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

From the met , lmfao ..


Thanks for the laughter of the day


Your link




After gridding the anomalies, bias corrections are applied to remove spurious trends caused by changes in SST measuring practices before 1942. The uncertainties due to under-sampling have been calculated for the gridded monthly data as have the uncertainties on the bias corrections following the procedures described in the paper.

For a detailed description of the dataset and its production process, see the paper cited in the references section.



1850s owes much to the Brussels Maritime Conference of 1853 when representatives from several seafaring na-tions agreed the standardization of meteorological and oceanographic observations from ships at sea (Maury
1858, 1859). The useable data from before this time are few for SST and are generally less coherent. However,
not every detail of the method of taking measurements was standardized in 1853, which led to different coun-
tries using, for example, different types of buckets to collect seawater samples. In time, new standards were
adopted by individual countries, and this led to a chang-ing mixture of water-collection methods. The types of
ships providing measurements and hence their speedshave also diversified in time. Both sets of changes have
affected the measurements, introducing temporally and
geographically varying relative biases into the data.

the analyses presented here are based, is assembledfrom “decks” of observations. These decks were origi-
nally decks of punched cards on which the digitized ships’ records were exchanged and stored. The intro-
duction of a new deck into the database can cause sudden changes from one data source, with a certain ob-
servational practice, to another, with some slightly or significantly different practice. If data from different
sources are mixed together, then these relative biasesmay partly cancel out. However, if one data source
dominates, perhaps in a particularly data-sparse time,or a new source floods into the record, the change in
relative bias can be systematic.
From the 1950s onward, ICOADS contains datafrom the World Ocean database (Levitus et al. 1994;
2000), specifically from subsurface ocean profilers and ocean stations. From the late 1970s onward moored and drifting buoys are also included. Latterly these have made up a very large proportion of the total number of
observations in the database due, in part, to their much greater frequency of reporting relative to ships and also
to the often delayed reporting of ships’ data and the general decline in the numbers of reporting ships.
In addition, ships’ routes have changed over time for socioeconomic reasons, for example, the opening of the
Suez (1869) and Panama (1914) Canals. Also, despite recent efforts at digitization of previously unavailable
historical data, there remain large data gaps at times of large-scale conflict, for example, 1914–18 and 1939–45.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

From the met , lmfao ..


Thanks for the laughter of the day


Your link




After gridding the anomalies, bias corrections are applied to remove spurious trends caused by changes in SST measuring practices before 1942. The uncertainties due to under-sampling have been calculated for the gridded monthly data as have the uncertainties on the bias corrections following the procedures described in the paper.

For a detailed description of the dataset and its production process, see the paper cited in the references section.



1850s owes much to the Brussels Maritime Conference of 1853 when representatives from several seafaring na-tions agreed the standardization of meteorological and oceanographic observations from ships at sea (Maury
1858, 1859). The useable data from before this time are few for SST and are generally less coherent. However,
not every detail of the method of taking measurements was standardized in 1853, which led to different coun-
tries using, for example, different types of buckets to collect seawater samples. In time, new standards were
adopted by individual countries, and this led to a chang-ing mixture of water-collection methods. The types of
ships providing measurements and hence their speedshave also diversified in time. Both sets of changes have
affected the measurements, introducing temporally and
geographically varying relative biases into the data.

the analyses presented here are based, is assembledfrom “decks” of observations. These decks were origi-
nally decks of punched cards on which the digitized ships’ records were exchanged and stored. The intro-
duction of a new deck into the database can cause sudden changes from one data source, with a certain ob-
servational practice, to another, with some slightly or significantly different practice. If data from different
sources are mixed together, then these relative biasesmay partly cancel out. However, if one data source
dominates, perhaps in a particularly data-sparse time,or a new source floods into the record, the change in
relative bias can be systematic.
From the 1950s onward, ICOADS contains datafrom the World Ocean database (Levitus et al. 1994;
2000), specifically from subsurface ocean profilers and ocean stations. From the late 1970s onward moored and drifting buoys are also included. Latterly these have made up a very large proportion of the total number of
observations in the database due, in part, to their much greater frequency of reporting relative to ships and also
to the often delayed reporting of ships’ data and the general decline in the numbers of reporting ships.
In addition, ships’ routes have changed over time for socioeconomic reasons, for example, the opening of the
Suez (1869) and Panama (1914) Canals. Also, despite recent efforts at digitization of previously unavailable
historical data, there remain large data gaps at times of large-scale conflict, for example, 1914–18 and 1939–45.

All we know for certain is that atmospheric CO2 warmed the ocean by .2C since 1850

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "Excess" heat has been trapped there since 1955 too! It's tried every means of escape