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

[daveman]

Roy Spencer sucks. Try again.

No need. You saying Spencer sucks, no matter how hard you stamp your feet, is not a refutation.

Everyone knows that the models did not predict the current temporary hiatus warming OVER LAND. That Spencer cited the obvious doesn't make him special.

The models suck. But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.

 

[PMZ]

No need. You saying Spencer sucks, no matter how hard you stamp your feet, is not a refutation.

Everyone knows that the models did not predict the current temporary hiatus warming OVER LAND. That Spencer cited the obvious doesn't make him special.

The models suck. But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.

You suck. Math works.

 

[daveman]

Everyone knows that the models did not predict the current temporary hiatus warming OVER LAND. That Spencer cited the obvious doesn't make him special.

The models suck. But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

 

[orogenicman]

Really? Are they claiming the only thing that can save us is world socialism?

You mean you don't know what they are claiming? Oh dear.

I know what they're claiming.

Do you?

I also know they're investing in renewables research.

Until people stop looking, then they cancel those programs. It's a PR stunt, nothing more.

And why did you snip the bit about Hansen's profiteering from AGW? Get a little to uncomfortable for you?

I don't quote bullshite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

Yes, the evidence that warmers are getting desperate.

 

[orogenicman]

The models suck. But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

 

[daveman]

You mean you don't know what they are claiming? Oh dear.

I know what they're claiming.

Do you?

Yes.

I also know they're investing in renewables research.

Until people stop looking, then they cancel those programs. It's a PR stunt, nothing more.

And why did you snip the bit about Hansen's profiteering from AGW? Get a little to uncomfortable for you?

I don't quote bullshite.

You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".

You're dismissed.

 

[daveman]

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

 

[orogenicman]

I know what they're claiming.

Do you?

Yes.

Really?

And why did you snip the bit about Hansen's profiteering from AGW? Get a little to uncomfortable for you?

I don't quote bullshite.

You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".

You're dismissed.

No, it is not misspelled. It simply isn't the Americanized version of the word, mate.

 

[orogenicman]

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

 

[PMZ]

The models suck. But you guys just keep bitterly clinging to them.

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

Only if you believe that models should do long range predictions, of largely chaotic systems, precisely.

Science is much more attuned to using sophisticated statistics to pry useful trends from noisy data.

Way above your pay grade, and mine.

 

[Abraham3]

The models suck.

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. BEFORE 1975. After over 37 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The models suck.

Take a look at Spencer's graphic. Look where he starts the model runs. 1980. After 32 years he gets a fraction of a degree error.

Wow...

Reality says your models are way off

 

[westwall]

You suck. Math works.

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

No, the models give pre-determined ranges, all of which are high. There is no model that comes in with a low range. Furthermore ANY number you punch in results in a warming graph. That means that your computer models are totally and completely worthless. Any model that has a built in bias is not a model at all. It is a tool of propaganda and nothing else.

Science doesn't have pre-determined results. Politicians and frauds....do.

 

[westwall]

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" sounds like YOU think science is very static olfraud.

 

[orogenicman]

Not when it's applied incorrectly -- as in the climate models.

Did you see the graph? Did you see how far off they were from real-world observations?

Reality is the benchmark. If your models can't meet the benchmark, they've failed.

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

No, the models give pre-determined ranges, all of which are high. There is no model that comes in with a low range. Furthermore ANY number you punch in results in a warming graph. That means that your computer models are totally and completely worthless. Any model that has a built in bias is not a model at all. It is a tool of propaganda and nothing else.

Science doesn't have pre-determined results. Politicians and frauds....do.

What pre-determined ranges? Models pump out results based on the parameters they are modeling and the algorithms they are using. The results are not known before hand. If you believe there are no models on that graph with a low range, then you aren't looking at the same graph I am looking at. Any number one punches in results in a warming graph? Really? You've been drinking too much of this stuff:

That means that your argument is worthless.

 

[orogenicman]

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" sounds like YOU think science is very static olfraud.

Hundreds of scientists worked on the new IPCC report, so naturally you believe that former DJs and massage therapists trump hundreds of real scientists.

 

[daveman]

Do you?

Yes.

Really?

Yes. Really. Hint: It's not what you progressives tell each other.

You're stupid and gullible.

I don't quote bullshite.

You misspelled "things I hate but can't factually refute".

You're dismissed.

No, it is not misspelled. It simply isn't the Americanized version of the word, mate.

And yet, you have utterly failed to refute anything. Imagine that.

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier -- is "caveman" the best you've got? I've been hearing it for the 10 years I've been going my "daveman" on message boards.

And I bet you thought you were being original.

 

[PMZ]

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" sounds like YOU think science is very static olfraud.

It sounds like you believe that all science is either fixed or unknown.

There things that are fixed, things that are unknown and things everywhere in between.

 

[daveman]

The reality is that models give a range of possible futures. Spencer's graph plots the low end of what those models plot. You didn't notice that several of the model plots were close to his plots? Huh.

You didn't notice that most of them were far too high?

Huh.

Do you understand the concept of "range"? Right? Like not everyone on the planet is the height of Michael Jordan, right? You do understand that science is not static? Right?

Then perhaps you can provide some information showing the models are correct.

Good luck with that.