Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists

[jc456]

I'm sorry I'd believe in climate change if A. There was good evidence of it.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for it. Did you try reading the abstract of AMETSOC's "State of the Climate 2014"? I posted above?

Satellites show us no warming trend for over 20 years

Satellites? The sum of our instruments show it is still warming. The lastest research says there has been no pause, no hiatus. The oceans have continued to warm. The radiative imbalance at the top of our atmosphere - as measured by satellites - has continued to grow.

as a matter of fact we seem to be heading in a cooling trend.

No, we are not.

B. if our own government was actually doing real things about it.

That's a completely meaningless criterion.

This administration shut down the hydrogen car program after the GM bailout.

Doesn't look particularly shut down to me.
DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Home Page

Hydrogen cars produce NO emissions, it's a car run off a gas that is just a proton and an electron!
Not to mention the most abundant element in the world and universe.

Are you suggesting that the harm in burning fossil fuels is all the fault of those noxious neutrons? Hydrogen combustion programs have pretty much all shut down for two seemingly insurmountable problems: the amount of energy one can get burning hydrogen with air and storing the amount of hydrogen that you'd need to carry with you to get an acceptable range. Almost all hydrogen propulsion research these days is centered around fuel cells. As I'm sure you know, several manufacturers have fuel cell prototypes on the roads today and are planning on going into production within the next two years.

And we've been using the same nuclear technology since the 70s, we have many more efficient ways to harness energy from nuclear sources, (including ways we could produce hydrogen as a byproduct for our hydrogen cars) but I guess the whole point is not to give us reusable and clean efficient energy. Can't have the serfs not needing us, right. Or piss off our best friends Saudi Arabia

We could make use of improved fission technology. But we'd just begin to get over Three Mile Island when we had Chernobyl and we'd just begin to get over that when we had Fukushima. I love nuclear energy, but it's a hard sell at the moment.

But what about the drought in California?? How is that not evidence of climate change.

It is evidence of climate change.

Well how about that California hasn't made a new reservoir since the 70s despite having a huge population explosion, and. 75% of their rainwater goes straight into the sea.

That certainly might have affected their ability to deal with the drought, but that does not change the FACT that they ARE undergoing a severe drought unprecedented in over a thousand years.

So they're not having a dust bowel like drought, but there isn't enough water to go around and the government needs to make sure you don't take a 6 minute shower

They most certainly ARE have a "dust bowel" (sic).

Crick, ahem.........how many times are you going to post bull crap about your evidence. I have and Frank and Ian, Billy, SSDD, Westwall, and on and on and you have never provided one bit of evidence that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures bubba!!!! let's start there. you present that one piece of evidence and then we'll read all your other garbage.

And you've been shown the cooling trend several times in the forum and we're all waiting for your temperature data.

 

[jc456]

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer

It is you that demands the defunding of all of our science insitutions that would do such science. The honest truth at least from where I sit is I don't have the numbers for 10 or 100 ppm increase in co2.

I am sure that those increases do in fact cause a increase in the greenhouse.

You should want more MONEY for the noaa, nasa and our institutions if you care about knowing those exact numbers.

it is I that wants these people to do their jobs with no strings attached by a politician. Let them, scientists, warmers and skeptics work together. You all are afraid of that and why we are where we are. Simply put, what are the warmer scientists so afraid of? Defunding. Let's take that off the table and let them do their work correctly with those who can't get funding and work together. again, not sure why you're against that.

 

[jc456]

We're funding it and we're not getting the numbers. Seems to me the money must be going into public outreach because it sure as fuck doesn't go into a lab.

I'd zero out all this climate "research"

Really? Who'd a thunk it?

Of course he wants to defund it, but most of the funds have been going into better understanding the process. People like him don't understand that our understanding of the climate isn't perfect and with each discovery it gets better. This is why we should give more money to earth science.

Today we understand far more about the magnitude of the warming. People like him want to do away with it as he hates science.

we do based on what? there are no experiments to learn from! you are talking about something that hasn't happened yet except for Herr Koch in 1901. Got that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Watt happened to Crick? Waiting on his joules of knowledge.

How does it work Crick?

You tell us, proudly, that it takes 700 times the energy to heat water than it does air.

Your AGW Experiments should show MASSIVE warming in an air only environment.

Watt happened? Where'd ya go?

Are you going to ask me to conjurgate French verbs?

 

[Crick]

What is a watt? Simple question. Just look it up. Parrot the answer, I don't care. I just want to know that you've seen the definition of a watt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is a watt? Simple question. Just look it up. Parrot the answer, I don't care. I just want to know that you've seen the definition of a watt.

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is a watt? Simple question. Just look it up. Parrot the answer, I don't care. I just want to know that you've seen the definition of a watt.

Watt are you doing, I mean besides avoiding the questions that destroy your theory

You're a Joule, Crick

 

[Politico]

What can YOU prove will happen?

Why do SO many deniers think science needs to PROVE shit? Wait! I got it! Because there is a strong correlation between denying AGW and science ignorance.

Hey Sheep

Hey, asshole

I never denied that the climate is warming slightly and I never said people have nothing to do with it

Big whoop. You're still a denier.

All I have ever said is that all the dire predictions that have been made have not come to pass.

The world is still getting warmer, the ice is still melting, sea level is still rising. How have YOUR predictions fared?

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer we'll be just fine.

No, we won't.

Yeah and the UN Climate change panel has been saying that we are at the "tipping point" for 25 years

Or that we only had 8 years to "save the planet"

Let me clue you in on something

The planet has been here long before us and will be here long after we go extinct

Good answer.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Over fishing and the widespread destruction of coral is the damage caused by man.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Drought Index, which is what is displayed in the graphs I posted, is calculated from temperature and rainfall. And droughts like the current one haven't happened in over 1,200 years. So, NOT often. As to Las Vegas and the drought, we most certainly do hear concerns expressed.

Region in jeopardy How we might beat Western drought - Las Vegas Sun News

Feds project Lake Mead below drought trigger point in 2017 - Las Vegas Sun News

Drought Information Statement Products for Las Vegas NV

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/18/...g-las-vegas-take-extreme-measures-258092.html

As Lake Mead Levels Drop The West Braces For Bigger Drought Impact NPR

and so forth

What "real renewable energy" do you believe "people in power" are "squashing"? The government has provided subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar PV, solar thermal and other alternative technologies. Please clarify.

Irrigating the desert is not a viable solution to global warming - certainly not by itself. Look at this graph of CO2 resulting from the deforestation just in the Amazon basin: In 2001, the loss of 1.6 million hectares (~4 million acres) added, in effect, 600 million tonnes of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere. Human combustion of fossil fuel in that same year, added about 25 billion tons. The deforestation of the Amazon was responsible for about 2.4% of added CO2. If you think you can irrigate and plant an area of desert equal to 42 times the area lost in the Amazon, more power to you.

 

[mamooth]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

 

[jc456]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

and for the warmer, can't seem to find that one experiment that they claim they have a thousand of. So tooth, where's that explanation of what 10 PPM of CO2 does to climate?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

But you didn't answer the question

 

[jc456]

If as you claim it takes 700 times the heat to warm the water then the air, please explain to us why we have not seen 700 times the heat in the air if your claims of water heating is correct?

The stupid, it burns us.

Most deniers are just dumb. As Dunning-Kruger poster children, they're not smart enough to understand they're not smart, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance from most of them.

On the bright side for them, they can't really be held responsible for their bad behavior. We can't really blame a mentally challenged person for shitting in public, so we can't really blame a denier for shitting on a discussion. They simply don't know how not to be morons.

But you didn't answer the question

he/ she's like a Charlie Chaplin silent movie, never says anything.

 

[mamooth]

Frank It was an invalid question, and I pointed out why. The proper response would be to thank me for the help.

And jc, try not to add "chronic asslicker" to your list of personality traits.

 

[jc456]

Frank It was an invalid question, and I pointed out why. The proper response would be to thank me for the help.

And jc, try not to add "chronic asslicker" to your list of personality traits.

still silent, thanks Charlie!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there actually were an experiment that proved warming the warmest would trot it out every time we asked, instead they shuck and jive and dance a lot. If the temps that are reported now were true we would not need the hiding of raw data, the refusal of most to admit they adjust said temperatures and the claim that satellite data is wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank It was an invalid question, and I pointed out why. The proper response would be to thank me for the help.

And jc, try not to add "chronic asslicker" to your list of personality traits.

It's a valid question. How come you never even make an effort to answer

 

[mamooth]

Frank, why is the world going to explode tomorrow?

Hey, it's a valid question. Because I say so.

The point is that simply declaring something is a valid question doesn't make it so. You have to show it's valid. So do so. In the other thread will be fine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, why is the world going to explode tomorrow?

Hey, it's a valid question. Because I say so.

The point is that simply declaring something is a valid question doesn't make it so. You have to show it's valid. So do so. In the other thread will be fine.

Water takes more energy to heat than air. So it would go a long way to proving your theory if you could show a significant increase in temperature in an air-only environment.

So, where's the experiment? Where's the temperature increase?