Are we done?
| Are we done?31-12-2014 23:50 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
No one has posted anywhere on this board for several days now. I suppose that means the question is settled. Excellent! |
| 01-01-2015 10:14 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
you didn't convince or enlighten anybody..the science is about as settled as your sexual preference happy new years douchebag |
| 01-01-2015 14:23 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
And a happy new year to you as well. I would assume you've been drinking, though it's a little early in the day. Perhaps just hung over. On what points do you still have questions? CO2 absorbs IR Humans have been emitting gigatonnes of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution The Earth has been and continues warming primarily because of it That warming presents a significant threat to human infrastructure, food and drinking water supplies Edited on 01-01-2015 15:13 |
| 01-01-2015 16:12 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
whether anything is settled has nothing to do with your opinion. any theory is never truly "settled." Your inflated sense of self importance on this issue is grandiose and delusional as is your understanding of it. That is why nobody want s to debate you. You are the common denominator in that. Scientists don't know how if any infared radiation is being trapped by the extra co2. Recent studies of upper atmosphere point to no extra co2 absorbtion. It's a myth that scientists even know how much extra co2 is contributed by humans. The 4% figure is an overestimate. There are many other sources that could attribute ti the slight increase which is miniscule..but nice use of the buzzword "gigatonnes." The warming of the last century..which is overestimated can be attributed to the warming form the last ice age nothing alarming about it..The 30s were warmer then the 90s before they changed the data. The ground temperature data uses readings from spots like airports that became increasingly more urban through this time span which can cause the reading to be completely useless yet they continued to use that data. The satellite temperature data since 1998 shows no warming at regardless of the fraudulent graphs you show. The global sea temperature hasn't risen since 2003 when they started measuring it regardless of the fraud you spew on that as well. There is no evidence that such a slight warming even if it wasn't fabricated causes such a horrendous threat. The medieval warm period is known by scientists and historians to be an era of prosperity in Europe. There was an improvement in agriculture, infrastructure and the quality of life in general. Your opinion might be based on the fact that you think you are a better person that wnats to save the world from the impending doom which is beyond ridicuolus. you are willing to sacrifice the integrity of science for your ideological standpoint. The study of climate science is in it's infancy. You don't know what you are talking about scientifically on this issue despite you inflated ego and your love for fanny packs and the use of the most fraudulent graphs out there on this issue. I'm assuming the biggest contributer to your standpoint is the consensus studies that are complete nonsense propaganda. You either cannot see that or refuse to. In reality there is "NO" valid evidence of agw. I don't know how far you want to go with your preaching campaign but this issue is going to fall on it's face in a few years when the scientific community refuses to put of with the bullshit anymore. At that point people like you will crawl back int their holes never to apologize for being arrogant douchebags or to admit that they were wrong. They simply will find another environmental scam to fight for. Edited on 01-01-2015 16:29 |
| 01-01-2015 17:19 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
and another thing..nobody has questions for you specifically. You really are an arrogant son of a bitch. You are not an expert on climate. Do you realize what you sound like? You sound like someone who thinks their shit doesn't stink. There are many good scientific websites that hold this debate. On these websites usually half of the accredited scientists don't believe in agw. They are real scientists unlike you. I'm assuming you go to those sites but somehow you feel you need to come here. Maybe you think they are fraud because according to you 99% of all scientists on earth believe the world is going to end and that the Ipcc and their projections are valid. I can get a much better debate and information elsewhere. I wouldn't trust someone like you to change the oil in my car let alone for information on this issue. That is a settled fact on this website too. 97% of posters think you are a flake and that is why nobody wants to debate you.
Edited on 01-01-2015 17:20 |
| 01-01-2015 18:58 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Still hung over? |
| 02-01-2015 00:43 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: Of course not. I'm not a climate scientist. It has everything to do, though, with the opinion of practicing climate scientists and the vast majority of them believe AGW to be settled science. mywifesatan wrote: Of course, but the odds of a major upset can grow less and less with time. mywifesatan wrote: Really? My habit has been to accept the opinion of the scientific consensus. Do you believe the world's climate scientists are grandiose and delusional? mywifesatan wrote: Perhaps that is why you don't want to debate me (and perhaps it is other reasons) but lots of people debate me on global warming. Just not here. This board, I'm afraid, has just never taken off. mywifesatan wrote: We are the common denominator in our conversations. mywifesatan wrote: They most certainly do. Common instruments measure the amount of carbon dioxide in a gas sample by how much infrared light it absorbs. It all comes down to this familiar graph:  mywifesatan wrote: Tell us about it. You could start with a link. mywifesatan wrote: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts and so forth... That's a very well documented myth. It turns out there are two ways to estimate/measure the amount of human emitted CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. You can simply make a bookkeeping estimate from the records showing how much fossil fuel we have burned over the years OR you can measure the mixture of isotopes in the atmosphere and in samples trapped in ice cores going in to the past. Both give numbers in rough agreement. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. From 116 to 120 ppm of that (ie, essentially every bit of it) comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. mywifesatan wrote: Four percent?!? 120 ppm/400 ppm is 30% Perhaps you meant annually. mywifesatan wrote: How about some links to the sources that tell you the amount is miniscule? To give it some scale, that "miniscule" human portion is 29 billion tons (29 gigatonnes) in to the Earth's atmosphere every year. That amount is still increasing. mywifesatan wrote: Link? mywifesatan wrote: Why would the last ice age cause sudden, dramatically rapid warming during the last century? It's been over for thousands of years and temperatures have been creeping upward. What would make them suddenly accelerate? mywifesatan wrote: A vast majority of scientists believed AGW to be a valid description of the behavior of the climate before those corrections were made. Why do you folks now seem to believe showing the corrections unjustified (which has not been accomplished) would refute AGW? mywifesatan wrote: Are you just now discovering UHI? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island http://berkeleyearth.org/faq#heat-island mywifesatan wrote: Let's see them. And let's see your proof that the data I've posted is fraudulent. There has been very little surface warming since 1998. I've never denied that point. Neither have the world's climate scientists. There has been a concurrent acceleration of warming in the deep ocean (>700m) and the measure of the radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere (the ToA) has been steadily increasing. That is a direct measurement of the Earth warming via trapped radiation. mywifesatan wrote: Let's see your data and your proof that what I posed was a fraud. mywifesatan wrote: The warming that has taken place over the last 150 years is not slight and a majority of scientists believe it is going to accelerate and that the results will be catastrophic. mywifesatan wrote: The geometric center of continental Europe, NOT counting the British Isles or Scandinavia, is at the same latitude as Maine and New Brunswick. That the place is even readily inhabitable is solely due to warming from the Gulf Stream. That their situation should improve from increasing temperatures, particularly in a pre-industrial culture, is unsuprising. mywifesatan wrote: I've told you repeatedly now that my opinion is based on the opinion of a majority of climate scientists. That's the sort of thing ALL my scientific opinions are based on. I trust science and scientists. I am ACTING to attempt to save the world my children and theirs will have to grow up in. In that regard, it's easy for me to view you and other deniers as a threat to their well being. However, I am trying to keep myself in check and am doing a better job than I usually do and a distinctly better job than you've managed here lately. mywifesatan wrote: I am neither willing to do so nor am I doing so. You, on the other hand, do not have a good grasp on science basics and, likely for political reasons, have allowed yourself to be taken in by the denier disinformation campaign. mywifesatan wrote: Compared to many other branches of science, that may be so. But neither the physics, nor the chemistry, nor the meteorology, nor the thermodynamics on which it is based are immature and at the level of technical details at which we chat, there is no uncertainty or ignorance in the field. mywifesatan wrote: My love for fanny packs ? ? ? My ego is just fine and is not responsible for your scientific ignorance. You have yet to put up an acceptable piece of evidence for anything and no variety of evidence for most of your outrageous assertions. You have certainly not shown anything I've ever put up to be fraudulent, despite having made the accusation three times now in this post alone. mywifesatan wrote: That a very large majority of active climate scientists and their works published in peer reviewed media support and accept AGW as valid is certainly a major component of my belief. So, of course, is the science. mywifesatan wrote: I certainly cannot see what has never been demonstrated - to me or anyone else. And I certainly refuse to take a position based on prejudices, political positions or religious beliefs. mywifesatan wrote: It seems your statements experience no reality-based restraints. mywifesatan wrote: I imagine I will go for as long as the ignorant and the biased of our species choose the path of least wisdom. mywifesatan wrote: Would you care to parameterize that and place a bet? mywifesatan wrote: Hmmm... YOU SAID: Edited on 02-01-2015 00:50 |
| 02-01-2015 03:00 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: The only one here - and certainly the only one you know anything about - is you. That you should have no questions for me is unsurprising; the inquiry was rhetorical. mywifesatan wrote: And you lied when you stated you would not fall to making personal attacks. mywifesatan wrote: I never said I was. You, on the other hand, claimed to have completely read all the IPCC assessment reports, to have analyzed a global temperature dataset and and to have come up with your own averages. You claimed to have had "personal" conversations with some unnamed, Princeton climate scientist of global standing. My apologies, but based on the rest of our conversation, I cannot believe ANY of these points to be true. mywifesatan wrote: I can guarantee you that it does. mywifesatan wrote: There are. Which ones are you thinking about? mywifesatan wrote: There are denier sites out there where virtually every member rejects AGW. That does not mean anything about the views of active climate scientists. If you're hoping to refute the surveys I've listed here with "observations" like that... mywifesatan wrote: Or you. mywifesatan wrote: I think you should worry more about the arguments being presented here and less about what you imagine motivates me to do anything. mywifesatan wrote: I've never said any such thing. mywifesatan wrote: I have almost said that and it is essentially correct. If you have a reputable source saying otherwise, we'd all very much like to see it. mywifesatan wrote: No one is stopping you. mywifesatan wrote: This debate might have moved a little further forward had you followed the evidence rather than this childish need to spout personal insults. mywifesatan wrote: Don't be foolish. You know nothing about anyone else here. mywifesatan wrote: I think anyone who has read our conversations here fully understands why you might not want to debate me further. Edited on 02-01-2015 03:09 |
| 02-01-2015 17:02 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
The vast majority of scientists don''t believe agw to be settled science. The false consensus reports don't even express that. You believe that propaganda. You are not a climate scientists or anything near one. So the one thing your opinion stands on is completely false. i'm guessing you are someone you takes Bill Nye for his useless opinion. There is no major upset in the consensus of scientitfic opinion as that propaganda is completely fabricated. you are are sheep to mindless reporting on this issue and have no valid source for any of the consensus reports. you have claimed that 99% of all world scientists believe agw is causing all the supposed warming but now you want to back out on that. Your inflated sense of self importance come from attitude of superior knowledge and understanding of the subject and somehow you have a calling to explain the h issue to the masses of people that would have to be less intelligent then you. That is how you come off. You have talked down to everyone on this site with an opposing view that way..It has nothing to do with the false consensus that those people know to be fabricated. Everybody on this board that has debated you has taken off for that reason not because they couldn't debate you any further. A graph doesn't show how they can't account for negative feedbacks. They also don't know how much co2 stays in the atmosphere that is emitted. You probably know that they estimated that humans should be putting more co2 in the atmosphere then is sampled. So in effect it has to be going somewhere. The consensus of that is that it is fueling plant and forest growth but you will never hear that on CNN. They don't know how much radiation is being absorbed as in relation to the excess co2 Labratory conditions cannot mimic the earths atmosphere with valid accuracy. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/ How much extra co2 can be attributed by humans is simply not known The warming since the lat ice age could account for our current warming which has been measured using ground temperature data. thanks for being condescending as usual but i know about UHI as I have for a long time now since I was in elementary school. i don't need links for that. You can't however dispute that the data they were using is not valid because of that warming effect. The investigation into these ground station showed that 30-50% were effected by UHI. They haven't changed the data for that factor though nor could they with any accuracy. The catastrophic effects of warming have been overestimated for a reason. That reason is not in the science. Side argument like the "tipping point" are lose theories that are highly disputed if you see me as a threat to your children's future planet .I will put you ease because whether I buy this agw theory has nothing to do with the planets future climate as does your belief in it. if the powers of world government want to tax me to death and tell me I can't drive a car I will have no power over that and both you and me have now power over that policy regardless of what you think. Most scientists know that driving electric cars or implementing carbon taxes and regulations in first world countries is futile. Your opinion of me on forming my viewpoint for political reasons is false. I am not a political guy. I am certainly not a conservative or a Republican. The left controls this debate. They are not ethical. You view any opposing information as an evil campaign funded by big oil or republican which is a politically skewed view The study of climate science is in it's infancy and here in lies the problem with that...The global warming theory was taken on by the Ipcc in the early 90s to sustain the theory that co2 was the main driver in temperature increase..They were not in the buisiness of considering other major factors like cosmic rays. the earth magnetic field..and many others. They don't study other influences with integrity because findings contrary to their theory wouldn't support the mission. There are so many things scientists don't know about our past and present climate. Their projections have proven to not be valid yet they still hold on to this theory that co2 is driving temperature and will continue to do so. The debate really hasn't even started yet because all these studies that show other major drivers of climate are not reported by mainstream media because of the Ipcc and liberal-environmental bias of this campiagn You have no idea what your are posting is fraudulent. You assume that studies to support agw and their graphs are correct. that is ideology based as you are not working on these studies the evidence of agw would have to lie in controlled labratory studies and observation of climate..both of which have proven to be invalid. I can't place a bet on climate change because i have already won..you see no observed evidence in climate can refute this theory. That is how they set it up and that is why it is a scam..Nothing will ever fall out of the perimeters of climate change. The climate is always changing and there is no agw pusher that will tell you how exactly..only that however it is changing is due to agw...there will always be people that believe in this theory in our lifetime and you will be one of those Edited on 02-01-2015 17:07 |
| 02-01-2015 21:31 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Nice work, Abraham! It's a shame there aren't more people reading this board. I don't think I've ever seen an AGW denier so meticulously reduced by reasoned argument to a heap of spluttering indignation and abuse. You deserve a bigger audience. Oh, and well done mywifesatan for learning how to use paragraphs by your last post. Now you need to work on posting links that actually support what you are claiming, if you can find any. Edited on 02-01-2015 21:38 |
| 03-01-2015 06:31 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: So you've said, but you've posted nothing in the way of evidence or supporting opinions. Wikipedia identifies nine different surveys showing a very high majority of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid. mywifesatan wrote: You keep saying they're false but you've posted nothing in the way of evidence or supporting opinions for that assertion either. mywifesatan wrote: Yes, I believe those surveys. I am also quite certain they are not propaganda. I'm not certain you understand what the term means. mywifesatan wrote: For at least the third time, I've never claimed that I was. You, however, keep failing to include yourself in these comments. Do you hope to leave some sort of suspicion among the vast readership here that you are? Answer this outright: do you claim to be a climate scientist? mywifesatan wrote: As I've also said now repeatedly, my opinion stands on that of the world's active climate scientists. mywifesatan wrote: What opinion, specifically and what makes you think it is "useless"? mywifesatan wrote: There is no major upset there because it is true and it is common knowledge among active climate scientists. You have not produced one shred of evidence casting the slightest doubt on any of the surveys noted here. Not one. mywifesatan wrote: Incredible. Just incredible. mywifesatan wrote: You really have some difficult hanging on to facts, don't you. I have claimed that, based on numerous polls, surveys and studies, at least 97% of the world's active climate scientists accept the theory of AGW which states that human activity is the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. I haven't the faintest desire to back out of ANYTHING I've said. I can't say so much for you. Would you care to go over your list of unsubstantiated assertions once more? mywifesatan wrote: I haven't the faintest idea where you get the idea that I think of myself as important. I obviously do understand the topic better than you do - that's why you've made so many mistakes and why I've had to explain so much to you. Other have made similar mistakes. What is important is that humanity respond to this problem as promptly and effectively as possible. The primary enemy of that response is ignorance. So I do what I can. mywifesatan wrote: I don't care how you think I come off or what you think of me as long as you're made aware of how all this crap actually works. Once that's accomplished, you can make any choices you want. I assume you're a grownup. I just want to be certain that at some point in the future, you're not able to (honestly) say "Well, no one explained that to me" or "No one ever told me that". mywifesatan wrote: I have been quite polite for an internet conversation. At my last message board, a post didn't go by without the word "idiot" in it. I haven't called anyone names - as have you. I am not going to allow someone to walk away with a mistaken impression because I think it just too rude to correct them. You certainly haven't hesitated to attempt to correct me - and insult me bluntly. I've done nothing deserving of the way you've treated me. If you'd like to play a game of the dozens, I'd be glad to oblige. I was a sailor and have spent most of my professional career working with sailors. I guarantee you I know how to cuss. mywifesatan wrote: You have no idea what anyone here was doing or thinking. mywifesatan wrote: Graphs show what they were intended to show. If you have something to say about negative feedbacks (sans doble), let's hear it. mywifesatan wrote: Isotopic analysis gives a direct measurment of CO2 in the atmosphere released by the combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 is also absorbed by plant life, dissolved into the oceans and fresh water bodies and takes part in several different chemical reactions. All of this is known and calculable with more than sufficient precision for these purposes. mywifesatan wrote: I might if you provided a link or a quote from a reference source explaining the contention. Otherwise, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. mywifesatan wrote: If you say so. mywifesatan wrote: How about some links to sources discussing this topic? Do you believe that this refutes AGW in some manner? mywifesatan wrote: I have to guess that you are saying "They" do not know the relationship between radiation absorbed and atmospheric CO2 level. If that IS what you're trying to say, my response is that you should simply look up CO2's "climate sensitivity". The value just for CO2 IS fairly well known. It is the net effect: taking the many additive and subtractive effects into account that, lead to the relatively broad range of potential values one finds in AR5. mywifesatan wrote: I read this article. Decent source. However, it supports neither the claim above (the climate sensitivity is unknown) or the claim below (human CO2 attribution is unknown). Rather, it explains the mistake Angstrom and other scientists got wrong between the experiments of Arrhenius and those of Hulbert and Plass. mywifesatan wrote: As I've explained several times now, by multiple methods, yes it is. mywifesatan wrote: Here is temperature data since the last glaciation (ice age). Temperatures are plotted on running multi-century averages. Note, however, at the right hand boundary where you can see marked the global average temperature from 2004, significantly above the incoming average. Note also that the average temperature for the prior 7 or 8 thousand years has not been climbing but falling. The very steep ascent that actually took place during the last 150 years (visible in the next graph down) was most certainly not part of the Earth's slow retreat from the most recent glaciation.   mywifesatan wrote: I asked because the manner in which you brought it up made it sound as if you thought it something new. That's very interesting that you heard about that in elementary school. I looked up Urban Heat Island in Wikipedia and searched for dates among its dozens of references. The earliest was 2001 and I could see none of which you might have been aware as a grade schooler till roughly 2005. If we take the most liberal outlook: that you were in the sixth grade in 2001, that would make you now 25 though the more realistic numbers (fourth grade in 2005) would make you 19. In 2001 I turned 48. I am now 61. mywifesatan wrote: You don't need links for what? That current warming came from the last ice age or that you heard of UHI while in elementary school? mywifesatan wrote: You really need to catch up. The effects of UHIs on station data has been well investigated. Hold your nose and visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island and scroll down to the section titled "Global Warming" and read. mywifesatan wrote: Before attempting to explain why catastrophic warming effects have been overestimates, it might be a good idea to make some attempt to show that they have. I, for one, accept no such a thing. mywifesatan wrote: You are going to take some science classes and accept AGW as valid and significant? mywifesatan wrote: I wish you could work a little harder assembling a working sentence. mywifesatan wrote: Do you not live in democracy? mywifesatan wrote: I have my vote. It is a great deal of power. mywifesatan wrote: They do? Could I see a link to a source of that contention? mywifesatan wrote: It might be wrong, but it is not false. mywifesatan wrote: Are you familiar with the term euphemism? I was trying to be kind. The alternative is that you are simply ignorant. mywifesatan wrote: Can I take from this set of comments that you are neither republican or democrat? mywifesatan wrote: No, I do not. A disinformation campaign exists and many denier arguments have their origin from it. There are people that reject AGW that make no conscious or unconscious use of Exxon/Mobil memes. They are very few, but they exist. Unfortunately, you aren't one of them. mywifesatan wrote: Are you aware of how much you repeat yourself. I already addressed this point. mywifesatan wrote: I'm sorry, but as has been the case throughout our discussions, you simply don't know what you're talking about. mywifesatan wrote: It's getting late and I'm getting tired of wasting my time with you. You have told us a number of lies, made a much larger number of blatantly erroneous assertions and made no real effort to substantiate any of them; but you HAVE clearly demonstrated that your command of basic science is nil. The only thing your continued posting has substantiated is that in regards to this topic, you haven't a fucking clue. I really wish you'd get one before we had another chat, but I'm not sure I'm going to live that long. Good night. Edited on 03-01-2015 06:43 |
| 03-01-2015 14:25 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
What would be an observed climate over a 18 year period that could go against agw theory? How long does the climate have to show none of the popular symptoms of climate change pushers such as gradually rising temperatures, increase in frequency and intensity of weather disasters, or tropospheric hot spots? If we stick to the observed climate. You have now admitted to me the warming pause. What exactly are the symptoms of climate change in the last 18 years? How many years need to go by before climate change pushers consider that the theory is not valid? is there a number on that? Is the something completely variable? The last thing I will ever have is a beef with someone that is based on their political viewpoint. Using politics for pushing an agenda which should be scientific is something different though. That goes for the commies and the ayn rand types alike. I don't trust any research on this topic. I'm sorry if you think that's ignorant. I don't have to be a conservative or a liberal. I certainly don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican. That only comes in when i go vote. I realize you have the power to vote but if the government want to implement more taxes or huge regulations on gas powered cars well that is possible even in a democracy. My vote is just one vote at a time as yours is. you are really barking up the wrong tree to come after me on ideological terms. I dislike the right as much as you do most likely but i don't think I can blame them for everything that is wrong in this country or even for the majority of misinformation on this issue. Edited on 03-01-2015 14:43 |
| 03-01-2015 14:59 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
A sustained (for more than 2 or 3 years) halt or reversal in the ongoing rise in global sea levels would cause some major head scratching for climatologists and pretty much refute AGW theory. This is because the vast majority of the additional heat retained by increased levels of GHGs goes into warming the oceans, which then expand, causing the main part of the observed rise in sea levels (melting ice also makes a contribution, though this can also be attributed to AGW). Global sea level is thus a very good proxy for the overall temperature of the globe - the Earth's natural thermometer, as it were. Note that reversals over a timescale shorter than a couple of years may occur as a result of short term weather conditions, notably during 2011 when torrential rainfall in Australia transferred enormous quanities of sea water onto land. This effect was only temporary though, and the steady rising trend resumed as that water drained back to the oceans. Edited on 03-01-2015 14:59 |
| 03-01-2015 15:14 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
There is also the satellite observations of the radiative imbalance at the ToA: a direct measurement of the Earth's accumulation of solar energy. |
| 03-01-2015 15:28 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
how much has the gmsl rose in the last 2 years? The additional heat retained in our oceans? The measured global sea temperature since 2003 showed no warming for 6 years. There was actually a marginal cooling. Then there was a supposed recalibration? That doesn't seem suspicious to anybody? http://www.godac.jamstec.go.jp/catalog/data/doc_catalog/media/JAM_RandD05_04.pdf http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6002/60020253.pdf I don't know why you would need a complete reversal in sea level rise. It is agreed that sea level would rise regardless of agw..correct? Isn't that a bit of overkill? Edited on 03-01-2015 15:37 |
| 03-01-2015 15:51 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
 This is the second or third time you've claimed that there's been no ocean warming since 2003. Are you ever planning on showing us the data that supports that claim? Edited on 03-01-2015 15:58 |
| 03-01-2015 16:03 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio117/ipcc_figs/IPCC_3.4small.bmp For some reason I am unable to display this graphic. It is ocean, north and south hemisphere SST from AR4. Edited on 03-01-2015 16:07 |
| 03-01-2015 16:07 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
http://ww.ccphysics.us/henriques/climate/NPR%20Missing%20Heat%20for%20GW.pdf well here is the npr article again before the calibration. The timeline graphs have been changed for the calibration adjustment. You know that there was no warming before they fixed the "calibration' error. It's hard to tell from that graph how much gmsl rise in the last 2 years. What is the agreed sea level rise without the influence of agw? if such a number exists |
| 03-01-2015 16:29 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
So, you now agree that the Argo fleet required a recalibration and that the older data, showing no warming, was in error. So why do you keep repeating the claim that there has been no warming?      |
| 03-01-2015 16:33 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
PS, without AGW there is essentially no sea level rise. AGW causes sea level rise by warming the ocean and causing it to expand and by melting ice, primarily in Western Antarctica and Greenland, but also worldwide in glaciers and formerly permanent snowpack. There are sea level changes from non-equilibrium isostasy, but you'd have to ask a geologist what the net result of that might be. |
| 03-01-2015 17:33 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
could you be more specific in the opinion that without agw there is no sea level rise? If that is your official view on that what is that accepted variability in sea level..gmsl rise or decline over what period of time without agw influence? I don't know where you get this viewpoint. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ |
| 03-01-2015 17:37 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
I will not agree that the argo fleet required a recalibration. I will agree that the data and trend changed after this calibration error that they reportedly fixed after many years of somehow not knowing about this problem. You may have no problem accepting an explanation like this but my bullshit sensors go off like gangbusters. |
| 03-01-2015 18:10 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
It was accepted by the thousands of PhDs that actually use Argo data on a daily basis. Why does it bother you? |
| 03-01-2015 18:22 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
You should have been bothered - as were those PhDs - when the Argo data seemed to show no warming when the rest of the world did. Your own NPR link tried to tell you that. |
| 03-01-2015 20:43 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
well just because nobody has a campaign against the data doesn't prove they accept that data after the change in calibration. You know that having a career in this field very much requires you to accept agw. I'm sorry but I cannot accept such a thing on face value. I do know one scientist that worked on argo that has spoken out about it and doesn't accept the data. i will find that and post it. right now my computer is on the fritz.. so give a bit and I will get that what has warmed since then.. air temperature or other sea temperature measurements? The article just says after 2003 there were some of the warmest years on record but that doesn't mean an increase in temperatures as they plataued in 1998. Edited on 03-01-2015 20:57 |
| 03-01-2015 23:54 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Think a little harder about what you've read and what you've seen. |
Join the debate Are we done?: