The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[Toddsterpatriot]

The usual way.

Tell me Todd, have you seen some data that shows the ocean below 700 meters to be cooling?

The usual way.

Which is?

 

[mamooth]

How did they determine the increase in heat content?

By measuring the temperature. How did you think they'd do it?

The Argo floats can adjust their depth, and regularly take dives down to 2000m. They measure temperatures at a range of depths, bob back up to the surface, and transmit results.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How did they determine the increase in heat content?

By measuring the temperature. How did you think they'd do it?

The Argo floats can adjust their depth, and regularly take dives down to 2000m. They measure temperatures at a range of depths, bob back up to the surface, and transmit results.

I asked Crick, how do you measure heat content without measuring temperature?

He said I missed the point.

So great, they measure temperature.

How much increase in temperature gives the result that was supposedly added to heat content?

 

[Crick]

Increasure?

English is hard, harder if your Todd.

Now show us some data that says ocean temperatures or ocean heat content have not risen significantly since 2000. Failing that (and you will fail that) you fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Increasure?

English is hard, harder if your Todd.

Now show us some data that says ocean temperatures or ocean heat content have not risen significantly since 2000. Failing that (and you will fail that) you fail.

Your?

English is hard, harder if you're Crick.

 

[Crick]

Bravo!

 

[Dot Com]

Don't be such a fucking idiot Frank. If you think it didn't, SHOW US THE GODDAMNED DATA THAT SAYS IT DIDN'T.

That chart doesn't say that it did...that chart shows 0 to 700m which is not the deep ocean...and considering the amount of data tampering going on in government climate science what makes you think that chart is accurate?

Three different studies have found the same ocean heating. And since the dependent variable is heat content and not temperature, the fact that the full ocean depth isn't included indicates this is very likely an understatement of actual ocean heating, Mr Science-Whiz.

In his defense, SSDD is a denier hive-mind drone.

 

[jc456]

So we're still waiting for the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

enter the theme for Jeopardy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

July 7, 2014

Number of Lab Experiments demonstrating how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers ocean pH is still zero.

Nevertheless, unthinking, unquestioning AGWCultists rave about "Consensus"

 

[Crick]

The number of blatant, willful liars grows with each denier post.

Let's talk about gas absorption spectrums. Do either of you two understand what those squiggly lines represent?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The number of blatant, willful liars grows with each denier post.

Let's talk about gas absorption spectrums. Do either of you two understand what those squiggly lines represent?

You know that chart has nothing about temperature increase or decrease in pH, right?

I know you're quite insane, but surely you see that your chart does not answer the question about CO2 impact on temperature or pH. Right?

 

[Crick]

No. What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level. Or lower.

 

[flacaltenn]

How did they determine the increase in heat content?

By measuring the temperature. How did you think they'd do it?

The Argo floats can adjust their depth, and regularly take dives down to 2000m. They measure temperatures at a range of depths, bob back up to the surface, and transmit results.

I asked Crick, how do you measure heat content without measuring temperature?

He said I missed the point.

So great, they measure temperature.

How much increase in temperature gives the result that was supposedly added to heat content?

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

 

[daveman]

No. What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level. Or lower.

You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1. More data is better. You don't purposefully eliminate data.

2. You don't alter the data to fit the model. You alter the model to fit the data.

3. If your models can't predict what's happened in the past, your models suck.

4. Replication. If other scientists can't reproduce your work and arrive at the same conclusions, your work is wrong.

5. Openness: You record and share everything. You don't keep anything hidden.

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.

 

[daveman]

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.

Thanks for confirming: If you want to know how a progressive feels, see what he accuses conservatives of.

 

[daveman]

Models aren't "data" idiot.

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

They really aren't.

Data are what you plug into a model. In the case of AGW "science", you have to cherry-pick the data to support the predetermined conclusion you wrote the model to spit out.

 

[daveman]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

Model OUTPUTS are data. The models themselves are not.

 

[SSDD]

Models aren't "data" idiot.

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

They really aren't.

Data are what you plug into a model. In the case of AGW "science", you have to cherry-pick the data to support the predetermined conclusion you wrote the model to spit out.

The fact that he claims to be an engineer and actually expects that people will believe him leaves me rolling on the floor in paroxysms of laughter sometimes. The first indication that warmers are not science based is the general consensus among them that models are data.

 

[SSDD]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

Model OUTPUTS are data. The models themselves are not.

In the case of GCM's, the output is shitty data as it bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[Crick]

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.