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

[flacaltenn]

Your misunderstanding of science is even more retarded than you are, fecalhead.

Your Dunning-Kruger Effect inspired assumption that you understand atmospheric physics better than the entire world scientific community is even more retarded still.

Your moronic assertions about subjects that you have no actual knowledge of are just worthless bullshit.

You are a bad joke to anyone with any intelligence, education or actual understanding of climate science.

If I say it in a public forum where I EXPECT anyone competent to correct me. You can be SURE that I understand it completely..

Unlike you, who is NOT that competent competition I'm looking for and has NOTHING to modify anything that I stated. Not much different between you and PMZ. Except that PMZ is more polite and actually makes a good approximation of a conversation..

((Don't get all swell headed troll -- you're still on ignore. But MAYBE your competition for that honor just got closer))

If it is competent competition you are truly looking for, it seems to me that a public forum is the last place you would go looking for it.

Dont worry --- I have plenty of other opportunities to press my luck with my betters..

 

[flacaltenn]

You remind me of a two-year-old trying to figure out something that is FAR beyond your comprehension. Or most likely just parroting what some other two-year-old told you...

I've tried to tell Junior (PMZ) that every atmos. physic textbook does the basic calculations for Earth surface warming due SOLELY to CO2. Assuming say a doubling from 250 to 500 ppm. It's a small number that gets even smaller when you factor in water vapor absorption eating into the overlapping absorption of CO2.

But that's not what he's defending and he doesn't really know it. There's a 4 or 6 times MIRACLE MULTIPLIER that's applied in AGW theory. And you have to hear the sermon and see the light to believe in that part..

Let's let him "keep it simple". He's happier that way...

Every time you make an argument from religiosity, you lose. Congratulations.

Would you have preferred Emaculate Multiplier or MAGIC Multiplier (flacaltenn like that one)? I'm being restrained here out of respect for my neighbors who are people of faith..

Got your attention.. You sensitive?

 

[tap4154]

Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.

From Portlandia?

Nothing more to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

Argument from complexity. And not a very good one at that.

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.

Well FINALLY -- it's about time tap4154 showed up.. No offense tap4XXX, but we're dreadfully short of QUALIFIED warmers..

And the tap-man was completely correct. NOT an argument from complexity..

It's clear all along that you shills have been programmed to believe that a complex system like planetary climate can only have the SIMPLEST linear descriptions. You all BELIEVE that the output temperature MUST LOOK EXACTLY like the input forcing function...

No reason on the planet that needs to be true. IN FACT, highly unlikely.. Climate science needs to add a few more Physics and Linear/Non-Linear/Stochastic Systems courses to its requirements. Before they embarrass themselves further and cost society an arm and leg.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually the combination of GH gases (water vapor being the largest in quantity by FAR), Sunspot cycles, Earth orbital cycles, rotational variances, ocean currents, air currents on and on is VERY complicated and no one on Earth has a grip on it all to date - and to claim otherwise is purely political, ignorant, and anti-science.

Argument from complexity. And not a very good one at that.

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

 

[orogenicman]

If I say it in a public forum where I EXPECT anyone competent to correct me. You can be SURE that I understand it completely..

Unlike you, who is NOT that competent competition I'm looking for and has NOTHING to modify anything that I stated. Not much different between you and PMZ. Except that PMZ is more polite and actually makes a good approximation of a conversation..

((Don't get all swell headed troll -- you're still on ignore. But MAYBE your competition for that honor just got closer))

If it is competent competition you are truly looking for, it seems to me that a public forum is the last place you would go looking for it.

Dont worry --- I have plenty of other opportunities to press my luck with my betters..

And yet here you are.

 

[orogenicman]

I've tried to tell Junior (PMZ) that every atmos. physic textbook does the basic calculations for Earth surface warming due SOLELY to CO2. Assuming say a doubling from 250 to 500 ppm. It's a small number that gets even smaller when you factor in water vapor absorption eating into the overlapping absorption of CO2.

But that's not what he's defending and he doesn't really know it. There's a 4 or 6 times MIRACLE MULTIPLIER that's applied in AGW theory. And you have to hear the sermon and see the light to believe in that part..

Let's let him "keep it simple". He's happier that way...

Every time you make an argument from religiosity, you lose. Congratulations.

Would you have preferred Emaculate Multiplier or MAGIC Multiplier (flacaltenn like that one)? I'm being restrained here out of respect for my neighbors who are people of faith..

Got your attention.. You sensitive?

No, what you are doing is pretending that you are anything other than an anti-science religious fruitcake. No one is buying it.

 

[orogenicman]

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.

Well FINALLY -- it's about time tap4154 showed up.. No offense tap4XXX, but we're dreadfully short of QUALIFIED warmers..

And the tap-man was completely correct. NOT an argument from complexity..

It's clear all along that you shills have been programmed to believe that a complex system like planetary climate can only have the SIMPLEST linear descriptions. You all BELIEVE that the output temperature MUST LOOK EXACTLY like the input forcing function...

No reason on the planet that needs to be true. IN FACT, highly unlikely.. Climate science needs to add a few more Physics and Linear/Non-Linear/Stochastic Systems courses to its requirements. Before they embarrass themselves further and cost society an arm and leg.

If that were true, we wouldn't be wasting our time pointing out the logarithmic nature of both the global temperature and GHG concentrations over the past 100 years. Ever seen this equation before?

I = 0.1e^0.02t

Of course you haven't.

 

[tap4154]

Argument from complexity. And not a very good one at that.

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Yes, but IF you could read and comprehend I already said that Man added CO2 since the industrial age (red spike on far right of chart) BUT temps did not follow the spike. In the rest of the chart CO2 increases and decreases lag behind temp changes by 600-800 years, meaning CO2 is not a causal factor, it's a product of warming as it sinks in cold temps into oceans, and releases in warm temps.

And how do you explain (dismiss) all the past cycles?

 

[orogenicman]

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Yes, but IF you could read and comprehend I already said that Man added CO2 since the industrial age (red spike on far right of chart) BUT temps did not follow the spike. In the rest of the chart CO2 increases and decreases lag behind temp changes by 600-800 years, meaning CO2 is not a causal factor, it's a product of warming as it sinks in cold temps into oceans, and releases in warm temps.

First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements. Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic. That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale. Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale. The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.

 

[tap4154]

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Yes, but IF you could read and comprehend I already said that Man added CO2 since the industrial age (red spike on far right of chart) BUT temps did not follow the spike. In the rest of the chart CO2 increases and decreases lag behind temp changes by 600-800 years, meaning CO2 is not a causal factor, it's a product of warming as it sinks in cold temps into oceans, and releases in warm temps.

First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements. Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic. That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale. Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale. The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.

The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q]Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, but IF you could read and comprehend I already said that Man added CO2 since the industrial age (red spike on far right of chart) BUT temps did not follow the spike. In the rest of the chart CO2 increases and decreases lag behind temp changes by 600-800 years, meaning CO2 is not a causal factor, it's a product of warming as it sinks in cold temps into oceans, and releases in warm temps.

First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements. Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic. That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale. Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale. The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.

The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q"]Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube[/ame]

If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.

 

[tap4154]

First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements. Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic. That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale. Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale. The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.

The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q"]Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube[/ame]

If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.

I did discuss science.

The debate is over.

You lost.

PERIOD.

 

[orogenicman]

The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube

If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.

I did discuss science.

The debate is over.

You lost.

PERIOD.

Whining about Al Gore is not a scientific discussion. You lose.

 

[flacaltenn]

Argument from complexity. And not a very good one at that.

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Did you claim you were a geologist? Then you are either extremely weak in your field or you're trying to pull a fast one here. MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?

 

[PMZ]

All that is in your post has nothing at all to do with AGW, which is an easy to understand and inevitable artifact of atmospheric GHG concentrations only.

Energy is accumulating on earth as a result. The more fossil fuel we burn, the higher those concentrations are, the more energy is accumulating.

That energy will be trapped here until higher surface and atmospheric temperatures force it by the GHGs and out into space.

How that excess energy behaves here will be manifest by changes in weather, ocean temperature and depth, and life.

Nobody knows on what schedule.

You remind me of a two-year-old trying to figure out something that is FAR beyond your comprehension. Or most likely just parroting what some other two-year-old told you...

I've tried to tell Junior (PMZ) that every atmos. physic textbook does the basic calculations for Earth surface warming due SOLELY to CO2. Assuming say a doubling from 250 to 500 ppm. It's a small number that gets even smaller when you factor in water vapor absorption eating into the overlapping absorption of CO2.

But that's not what he's defending and he doesn't really know it. There's a 4 or 6 times MIRACLE MULTIPLIER that's applied in AGW theory. And you have to hear the sermon and see the light to believe in that part..

Let's let him "keep it simple". He's happier that way...

Please show the science that supports your argument that the predicted AGW temperature increase will not trigger subsequent events that multiply its effects.

That snow melt will not occur, changing earth's albedo.

That permafrost will not melt, releasing much more GHGs.

In fact, while you are at it, tell us what the GHG concentration will be when we stop burning fossil fuels that add to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sounds like the retard here is you. If fact, it appears as if ignorance is the only thing that you bring to the table. Flat, you have another peer on the board.

Well FINALLY -- it's about time tap4154 showed up.. No offense tap4XXX, but we're dreadfully short of QUALIFIED warmers..

And the tap-man was completely correct. NOT an argument from complexity..

It's clear all along that you shills have been programmed to believe that a complex system like planetary climate can only have the SIMPLEST linear descriptions. You all BELIEVE that the output temperature MUST LOOK EXACTLY like the input forcing function...

No reason on the planet that needs to be true. IN FACT, highly unlikely.. Climate science needs to add a few more Physics and Linear/Non-Linear/Stochastic Systems courses to its requirements. Before they embarrass themselves further and cost society an arm and leg.

If that were true, we wouldn't be wasting our time pointing out the logarithmic nature of both the global temperature and GHG concentrations over the past 100 years. Ever seen this equation before?

I = 0.1e^0.02t

Of course you haven't.

Is that supposed to cover all the gaps I just mentioned? Does that change my comment that it's virtually impossible for a climate system with the features I mentioned to have matching input/output shapes?

And WHERE EXACTLY is that relationship used that you posted? It's not the logarithmic CO2forcing function. It MIGHT be a curve fit to a GHGas concentration curve or temperature graph, but that has no modeling significance to climate or the variables you mentioned that i'm aware of.

Lemme ask you --- If a simple system contains thermal energy storage AND the input energy forcing is stepped up a constant amount ABOVE the natural cooling rate of the system ---- THen -----

What will the temperature do even if the input is static and does not climb any more??

 

[orogenicman]

Just like the tides, global climate cycles on Earth have occurred from the very beginning, and always will occur. Perhaps in a "cleansing" role like the tides and seasons offer? So singling out one of the minor GH gases (CO2) as THE culprit, pretending that if we tax and trade it - or even somehow halt all anthropogenic CO2 -- we can alter climate cycles, is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING IDEA I've heard in my life!

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Did you claim you were a geologist?

It isn't a claim.

Then you are either extremely weak in your field or you're trying to pull a fast one here.

Geology is a very wide-ranging field. I never said that climate science was my specialty. It certainly isn't yours, nor is any other geologic discipline. But my specialty (hydrogeology) has more to do with climate than ANY alleged specialty you might have.

MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?

At no time in the last million years has 1/2 of the globe EVER been covered in snow and ice. Lying for Jesus and Exxon isn't going to help you win any argument, bubba.

 

[flacaltenn]

First of all, the resolution necessary to determine whether your claim is valid is not available from that graph, particularly with regard to modern measurements, which are far more precise than the Vostok measurements. Secondly, when you look at the modern measurements, it is clear that the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not only strong, but dramatic. That being said, it is clear even with the Vostok measurements that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. The difference between the Vostok measurements and modern measurements is one of scale. Modern measurements provide more precision at a much smaller scale. The Vostok measurements give you the trend, but at a much larger scale, only.

The chart is VERY clear.

Algore is busted

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q"]Al Gore Busted. CO2 Lags Behind Temp. - YouTube[/ame]

If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.

He CAN'T be busted.. Because if you did bust him --- that MIRACLE MULTIPLIER you twerked on wouldn't work for AGW.. AGW itself (the weird and whacky part) DEPENDS on CO2 following temperature to OBTAIN the MIRACLE MULTIPLIERS.. Did you forget that part. The all powerful positive feedbacks making up the Miracle Multiplier --- the largest is increased CO2 generated NATURALLY by the warming..

If CO2 DOESN'T follow temperature -- you've lost a major positive feedback and you have no scary crisis..

Me thinks --- We thinks --- YOU'RE the busted one..

 

[flacaltenn]

What is retarded is to suggest that we haven't ALEADY altered the climate when the evidence is overwhelming that we have.

As for the Vostok ice core data:

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

Did you claim you were a geologist?

It isn't a claim.

Then you are either extremely weak in your field or you're trying to pull a fast one here.

Geology is a very wide-ranging field. I never said that climate science was my specialty. It certainly isn't yours, nor is any other geologic discipline. But my specialty (hydrogeology) has more to do with climate than ANY alleged specialty you might have.

MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?

At no time in the last million years has 1/2 of the globe EVER been covered in snow and ice. Lying for Jesus and Exxon isn't going to help you win any argument, bubba.

Lord you nailed me on a technicality.. Go fix that percentage for me will ya? The comment stands, my circumcison and Bar Mitzvah are matters of public record. Haven't belonged to a Congregation in over 20 years. BUT ----

You still missed the REAL reason that comparing to cyclical Ice Age climate to our climate today in terms of CO2 is rather stupid.. Hydrologists ought to know that you lock up a lot of CO2 in a couple million sq ft glacier --- Right?