More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg

Yearly global ocean heat content compared to the 1958-65 average (dashed line at zero) for the past four decades for different layers of the ocean: from the surface to depths of 300 meters (grey) and 700 meters (blue), and total depth down to 2,000 meters (purple). Surface waters warmed more slowly (line is nearly flat since the mid-2000s) than deeper waters (steep increase). Since the core of the Argo fleet can only dive down to 2,000 meters, the amount of heat going into the deep ocean is unknown. Image adapted from Figure 1 of Balmaseda et al., 2013 (pdf).


Newer!

lyT3mMw.jpg

Cheng Et Al.. is more of the same adjusted bull shit without justification. They too the 0.0033deg c rise that NOAA and NODC twisted out of the data and they added almost double to the already over cooked data.. Love how these people keep torturing the data to get them to meet their failed models.. IF the model fails... fuck with the data until it matches the model...
 
Last edited:
oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg

Yearly global ocean heat content compared to the 1958-65 average (dashed line at zero) for the past four decades for different layers of the ocean: from the surface to depths of 300 meters (grey) and 700 meters (blue), and total depth down to 2,000 meters (purple). Surface waters warmed more slowly (line is nearly flat since the mid-2000s) than deeper waters (steep increase). Since the core of the Argo fleet can only dive down to 2,000 meters, the amount of heat going into the deep ocean is unknown. Image adapted from Figure 1 of Balmaseda et al., 2013 (pdf).

Yeah, you want to walk us through the math of how it's at all possible under the laws of physics that a wisp of CO2 is "Heating the oceans" you Rube, you tard, you sucker


Green house effect sucker that is backed by at least 3 equations of physics!!! Water takes up most of the energy in the same way as it takes it a hell of a lot longer for it to cool or warm then the land.

Tell me, what equation in physics allows you to push heat deep into the ocean with 14-16um IR ? Last time I checked IR was incapable of penetrating its wavelength in depth. So it is incapable of the warming you claim.
 
Cheng Et Al.. is more of the same adjusted bull shit without justification. They too the 0.0033deg c rise that NOAA and NODC twisted out of the data and they added almost double to the already over cooked data.. Love how these people keep torturing the data to get them to meet their failed models.. IF the model fails... fuck with the data until it matches the model...

You have the thesis now go out and support it Get your "real uncooked "data write a paper get it peer reviewed refute everybody get a Nobel price and just establish how much more scientific you are than all the Scientist ...its simple..
 
Cheng Et Al.. is more of the same adjusted bull shit without justification. They too the 0.0033deg c rise that NOAA and NODC twisted out of the data and they added almost double to the already over cooked data.. Love how these people keep torturing the data to get them to meet their failed models.. IF the model fails... fuck with the data until it matches the model...

You have the thesis now go out and support it Get your "real uncooked "data write a paper get it peer reviewed refute everybody get a Nobel price and just establish how much more scientific you are than all the Scientist ...its simple..

Why dont you justify their adjustments...
 
Cheng Et Al.. is more of the same adjusted bull shit without justification. They too the 0.0033deg c rise that NOAA and NODC twisted out of the data and they added almost double to the already over cooked data.. Love how these people keep torturing the data to get them to meet their failed models.. IF the model fails... fuck with the data until it matches the model...

You have the thesis now go out and support it Get your "real uncooked "data write a paper get it peer reviewed refute everybody get a Nobel price and just establish how much more scientific you are than all the Scientist ...its simple..



s0n.....equating drought to climate change is makey-uppey science. Only matrix zombies buy the drought/climate change thing.

Drought is up some years.........down some years. Like tis been since the beginning of time.

Historical drought maps posted within this thread make it very clear............linking drought to climate change is ghey.
 

Jerry Brown: California Drought Shows 'Climate Change Is Not a Hoax'

The governor has issued new water restrictions that require state residents to cut usage by 25 percent.
You actually quoted moonbeam brown? He couldn't find his ass if he held it in both hands,, Your appeal to authority shows (especially that fruit cake) how desperate you people are..
"Moonbeam" though has California humming with huge state budget surplus ...how is Kansas doing LOL and Mississippi...LOl
 
We already know that you anti Science detached from reality climate truther know more than all the leading scientist we know that.. my question is how come you all do not write a paper with your data , get it peer reviewed and win the Nobel prize...you all are truly the all time stupid narcissistic morons of the Right wing ...Do try to re attach to reality...
 

Jerry Brown: California Drought Shows 'Climate Change Is Not a Hoax'

The governor has issued new water restrictions that require state residents to cut usage by 25 percent.
You actually quoted moonbeam brown? He couldn't find his ass if he held it in both hands,, Your appeal to authority shows (especially that fruit cake) how desperate you people are..
"Moonbeam" though has California humming with huge state budget surplus ...how is Kansas doing LOL and Mississippi...LOl



:2up:State of California Debt Clock:2up:
 
We already know that you anti Science detached from reality climate truther know more than all the leading scientist we know that.. my question is how come you all do not write a paper with your data , get it peer reviewed and win the Nobel prize...you all are truly the all time stupid narcissistic morons of the Right wing ...Do try to re attach to reality...




nobody cares about the sciecne asshole.......................:fu::funnyface::funnyface:


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]
 
nobody cares about the sciecne asshole.......................:fu::funnyface::funnyface:
Go Fk yourself shit for brains this is what educated people say...you are just a garden variety entitled wing nut :whip:

Confidence Ranges
Researchers do not expect their models to reproduce weather events or El Niño phases exactly when they happened in real life. They do expect the models to capture how the whole system behaves over long periods of time. For example, in 1998 there was a powerful El Niño, when the equatorial Pacific Ocean warms (we're in another one of that scale now). A simulation wouldn't necessarily reproduce an El Niño in 1998, but it should produce a realistic number of them over the course of many years.
The temperature lines represent the average of the model’s estimates. The uncertainty bands illustrate the outer range of reasonable estimates.
In short, the temperature lines in the modeled results might not line up exactly with observations. For any year, 95% of the simulations with that forcing will lie inside the band.
Data
The raw observational and model data can be downloaded here:
Observed land-ocean temperature
Responses to climate forcings
850 year Preindustrial control experiment
 
nobody cares about the sciecne asshole.......................:fu::funnyface::funnyface:
Go Fk yourself shit for brains this is what educated people say...you are just a garden variety entitled wing nut :whip:

Confidence Ranges
Researchers do not expect their models to reproduce weather events or El Niño phases exactly when they happened in real life. They do expect the models to capture how the whole system behaves over long periods of time. For example, in 1998 there was a powerful El Niño, when the equatorial Pacific Ocean warms (we're in another one of that scale now). A simulation wouldn't necessarily reproduce an El Niño in 1998, but it should produce a realistic number of them over the course of many years.
The temperature lines represent the average of the model’s estimates. The uncertainty bands illustrate the outer range of reasonable estimates.
In short, the temperature lines in the modeled results might not line up exactly with observations. For any year, 95% of the simulations with that forcing will lie inside the band.
Data
The raw observational and model data can be downloaded here:
Observed land-ocean temperature
Responses to climate forcings
850 year Preindustrial control experiment


lmao...........s0n...........20 years of bomb throwing fuckery has yielded progressives dick in terms of renewable energy. As such.........the science isn't mattering for dick. Too, its going to remain that way for decades still..........well.........at least according to the Obama EIA projections graphs. Solar is now...........ready for this.............providing a whopping 0.2% of our electricity needs.:coffee:

The AGW k00ks just keep on throwing up "their" science, which obviously isn't mattering. In fact, in 2015, this shit is nothing but an internet hobby!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/funny-chinese-bouncers-animated.gif.html][/URL]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top