Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[PMZ]

Deniers are going to deny until modeling can precisely emulate weather everywhere on earth for many years ahead and many past.

Of course by then mankind will have moved on from fossil fuel use and the climate will be whatever those final decades of use have created. In other words way too late.

That's why even discussions of climate science with deniers of it is a waste of time.
They are incapable of understanding it and prefer their mythology.

No... I disagree. I think they are perfectly capable of understanding it (at least most of them). I am convinced that they CHOOSE to go with their falsehoods.

And I disagree with you....most people on both sides of this debate are mathematically illiterate and therefore unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. they pick a side and a few ideas and then stonewall.

for example- konradv and PMZ have chosen the CAGW side and their cornerstone argument is that CO2 absorbs some longwave radiation and sends half of it back to the surface where it increases temperature in a substantial way. because their thinking is unsophisticated, they would rather dismiss anyone who brings up confounding issues as simply a 'denier' or 'conservative' who can be easily ignored.

wirebender and SSDD are the same type of one-trick-ponies who chose the other side and used a distorted (mis)understanding of the second law of thermodynamics as the bedrock of their argument.

itfitzme is perhaps one of the most dangerous types of posters because he offers up simple equations that are mathematically correct but conceptually wrong. time series analysis is much more than just picking out a correlation for a single factor.

polarbear on my side is prone to putting up a blizzard of numbers and equations that are irrelevent to the topic at hand. he is the only one on this board that I would accuse of deliberate deception but then I am harder on skeptics than warmers.


one of the most common mistakes here is the inflated credibility given to proxy studies and the seemingly careless acceptance of them being compared to recent direct readings. just because 'climate science' gets away with it in pal review, that doesnt mean it is correct. it baffles me that none of the warmers here seems to understand the flagrant abuse of science behind 'Hide the Decline'.

You certainly have been offered many chances to answer the admittedly simple question, where does the excess energy go? You keep chasing the energy around the globe and assume that after a while it gets tired and sneaks out the back door or just lays down and goes to sleep. But physics says it's conserved. It's here until warming sends it by the increasing every day atmospheric GHG concentrations into space.

The answer to where does it go and how does it get there is an amazing adventure and worthy of your self described superior intellect but in the end the answer must be it goes into warming until energy in and out get rebalanced.

 

[PMZ]

A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon. The worst storm ever there.

How much energy was consumed by it?

None. It's all still here. It was merely moving from where it was to where it is.

 

[Meister]

And you're a perfect idiot. Trying to solve science problems with politics.

Ridiculous.

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science". Big difference between the two.

 

[PMZ]

You even get THAT wrong. That's what the AGW cult is trying to do.

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science". Big difference between the two.

Fox invented climate politics, the IPCC, climate science.

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.

 

[Meister]

The IPCC pretty much invented climate science. Fox propaganda pretty much invented denialism. I know which side I'm on.

You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science". Big difference between the two.

Fox invented climate politics, the IPCC, climate science.

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.

So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.

 

[westwall]

A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon. The worst storm ever there.

How much energy was consumed by it?

None. It's all still here. It was merely moving from where it was to where it is.

"worst storm ever" What a laugh. While this most recent storm was terrible it is far, far from the worst ever.

You're a poor excuse for a propagandist, that's all I can say.

 

[PMZ]

You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science". Big difference between the two.

Fox invented climate politics, the IPCC, climate science.

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.

So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.

The answer to the question, who will spend the most moving to sustainable energy, is dead simple. Those who value energy the most. They have no option.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable. Do you know what that means? They are, and always have been, a temporary solution. That's why those that profit from them pay Fox to politicize their use. They want that to be a secret until the last carbon containing molecule has been profited from.

Smart countries won't, and aren't, waiting for that supply and demand debacle to materialize.

It's called proactive problem avoidance and it far and away the least expensive transition alternative.

 

[PMZ]

A good example is the recent grossly fatal Philippines typhoon. The worst storm ever there.

How much energy was consumed by it?

None. It's all still here. It was merely moving from where it was to where it is.

"worst storm ever" What a laugh. While this most recent storm was terrible it is far, far from the worst ever.

You're a poor excuse for a propagandist, that's all I can say.

That's why I said worst storm ever THERE, which it was.

 

[freedombecki]

Fox invented climate politics, the IPCC, climate science.

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.

So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.

The answer to the question, who will spend the most moving to sustainable energy, is dead simple. Those who value energy the most. They have no option.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable. Do you know what that means? They are, and always have been, a temporary solution. That's why those that profit from them pay Fox to politicize their use. They want that to be a secret until the last carbon containing molecule has been profited from.

Smart countries won't, and aren't, waiting for that supply and demand debacle to materialize.

It's called proactive problem avoidance and it far and away the least expensive transition alternative.

"proactive problem avoidance"

Project much?

 

[orogenicman]

You're almost there.....the IPCC invented "politicized climate science". Big difference between the two.

Fox invented climate politics, the IPCC, climate science.

"politicized climate science" is an oxymoron.

So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.

Redistribute to third world countries? Much of the world's oil is located in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. If there is anything that is politicized, it would be oil!

 

[polarbear]

For you ---- I will.. The TSI values are different from the zero baseline "sunspot activity" proxy for TSI.. When you look at the SORCE/TIM curve (for example, back one page in PBear's post) you can see the cyclic 22 yr solar cycles superimposed on top of the increased baseline. It's the AVERAGE of that TSI over more than 300 yrs that has increased by 1.2W/m2 --- NOT the latest yearly value wrt to 1750. The IPCC IGNORED EVERYTHING ABOUT the long term trend and baseline to derive a number that is MINISCULE in comparison to the actual AVERAGE increase. They did this by using the LATEST YEARLY VALUE (which coincides with a relative low solar period of time). The cyclical solar cycle portion of the curve is a large percentage of the ABSOLUTE --- and that's how they lied.

The thermal mass and inertia of the Earth is too large to equalize to new temperature in a few years. We know that now since your climate heroes JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the earth STORES heat. (bless their slow uptake on that "discovery" 20 yrs into the debate and MUCH after they declared "the science is settled" ).

As for needing more data --- of course we do.. There were ever only 2 or 3 REAL TIME sat measurement packages and 2 of those are now defunct. And we never even got data over a COMPLETE solar cycle.. You cannot accurately measure TSI from the earth surface. Because the atmos you're trying to study is in the way.

And you totally ignored my observation about SPECTRAL composition of the solar insolation which also needs to be measured from space. More data IS REQUIRED.

Here is what you are conveniently ignoring:

Don't throw skepticalscience shit at me.. At least pull that data from a reputable source. Note they cut the comparison halfway into the TSI runup since the 1700s.. That's dishonest.

I'm not ignoring anything.. In fact, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, that the earth's climate system contains elements that virtually guarantee that the resulting temperature DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH the shape of any particular input forcing function.. THe entire concept of looking for 2 curves that match is Sesame Street.

For example, Does your gas furnace get hotter the higher the thermo setting to outside temp ratio gets? Of course not.. The amount of additional heat/min stays the same. It just STAYS ON for longer. Any Linear system with an integral in it will CONTINUE TO RISE in response to an input imbalance.. Basic systems theory.

The climate models are tainted BECAUSE they expect the output shape to match the input forcing function shape. If you create a thermal imbalance by raising the source to a level that it is EXCESS to the thermal loss rates --- EVEN IF --- the input stalls and remains at that level --- the output temp curve will CONTINUE to increase.

Take another look at those curves you posted. WHEN did the TSI RISE and stall? About 35 or 40 years ago. You want a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the halt in observed surface temps? Whoooops ---- there it is.. Takes that long for a WHOLE GDam planet to reach a new thermal equilibrium. Only silly shit like AGW theory expects that to happen OVERNIGHT. Just so the output curve can be curve-fit to the input forcing function.

No matter what you show them they`ll keep quoting "skepticalscience.com" and none of them notice when they`ve been had yet again.
He pulled that idiotic graph of this web-page without listing the URL where they said it; hoping everybody is as stupid as he is...unable to track it down.
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
As usual their graph stops at 2000 after which their crap assertions turn out to be just that, CRAP...not just there but for the entire PMOD data set.

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.

According to that garbage web site solar irradiance has been "dropping" since 1980 from 1366 [w/m^2] by about 0.25 [w/m^2] ...and according to them stayed down there.


And if you go to see what PMOD lists from 1979 to 2009 you`ll get the picture how easy it is to fool the same idiots over and over again with blatant falsifications:

"Skepticalcience.com" is quite confident that none of the suckers who get their "information" from their web site would ever even bother to check up & verify their version with the original publication.

It`s a wonder they haven`t been slapped across the face with a defamation suit....then again why should any of the authors of the studies they falsify bother with an insignificant loony-web site which is feeding on the paranoia of their dimwitted clientele.

 

[PMZ]

So what you're saying is that the polluters just need to redistribute the wealth to third world countries, and that would make things right.
Fox invented nothing of the sort, PMZ
And, no, "politicized climate science" is not an oxymoron.
Now get back to your echo chamber for your next talking points.

The answer to the question, who will spend the most moving to sustainable energy, is dead simple. Those who value energy the most. They have no option.

Fossil fuels are unsustainable. Do you know what that means? They are, and always have been, a temporary solution. That's why those that profit from them pay Fox to politicize their use. They want that to be a secret until the last carbon containing molecule has been profited from.

Smart countries won't, and aren't, waiting for that supply and demand debacle to materialize.

It's called proactive problem avoidance and it far and away the least expensive transition alternative.

"proactive problem avoidance"

Project much?

Not at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Never seen a chart from skepticalscience that isn't obviously buggered.
But the IPCC number for solar forcing is sheer fraud.

There was a confrontation between ACRIM II engineering and support staff and the Climate Clowns. The clowns started to apply all manners of corrections to the instrument that were not in any way justified. They will do everything they can to bugger the measurements and the evidence.

 

[PMZ]

It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.

Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC. And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.

 

[orogenicman]

Odd that PD claims that the graph stops at 2,000, then posts the description of that graph (Figure 2) which shows that the graph stops at 2009, not 2000. Even stranger still is his claim that I didn't provide a link to the graph because I was trying to make it hard for people to find the source. The source was rather obvious, since all one has to do is right click on the graph and read its url under the properties dialogue, a fact of which I am certain he is aware. Strangest of all, he posts the link to skepticscience.com which is full of information that completely contradicts his own lame argument. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!

 

[flacaltenn]

Talk about dense.. That graph from the sphincter of skepticalscience is fraudulent in more than one way.. Why don't we address that first? THE DATA IS FORGED and cut-off at 1880 ON PURPOSE to obscure the bulk of the rise from the 1700s..


Satellites show no decline around 2010 anyway NEAR what your criminal clowns invented. You approve of MANUFACTURING data?
THAT'S what PBear pointed out.. Don't CARE what excuses and lies these creeps have at that webpage.. I've seen enough to impeach them forever.. Prove me wrong. What SOURCE did they quote for their phoney TSI graph?

 

[PMZ]

Talk about dense.. That graph from the sphincter of skepticalscience is fraudulent in more than one way.. Why don't we address that first? THE DATA IS FORGED and cut-off at 1880 ON PURPOSE to obscure the bulk of the rise from the 1700s..


Satellites show no decline around 2010 anyway NEAR what your criminal clowns invented. You approve of MANUFACTURING data?
THAT'S what PBear pointed out.. Don't CARE what excuses and lies these creeps have at that webpage.. I've seen enough to impeach them forever.. Prove me wrong. What SOURCE did they quote for their phoney TSI graph?

Your vendetta is the moral and intellectual equivalent of an old fashioned book burning.

Destroy that knowledge because it's counter to what authorities want people to believe.

IT'S HERESY I TELL YOU AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE IT ARE HERETICTS!

What a streaming, stinking pile.

 

[Meister]

It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.

Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC. And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.

You might be on to something if there wasn't the manipulation of the data.

 

[PMZ]

It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.

Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC. And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.

You might be on to something if there wasn't the manipulation of the data.

Here's your chance to present some evidence.

 

[Meister]

It's tough when you stake your reputation on something that proves to be false.

Skepticalscience merely reports on and explains the findings of the IPCC. And that creates all of this derision from people who were wishing for reality to be different.

You might be on to something if there wasn't the manipulation of the data.

Here's your chance to present some evidence.

Bone up on the leaked emails, dude. Just google it....