Working definition of climate change

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:Infrared interacts with CO2

"interacts"? What do they do, play chess?


.

It plays Hide and Seek (and no, you're not getting wRmer).

Oceans Are Warming Faster Than Predicted
Up to 90 percent of the warming caused by human carbon emissions is absorbed by the world's oceans, scientists estimate. And researchers increasingly agree that the oceans are warming faster than previously thought.

James___ wrote:
Multiple studies in the past few years have found that previous estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be too low.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/

James___ wrote:
Since CO2 levels are obviously higher over land, why is 90% or more of temperature increase in the oceans and seas?

James___ wrote:
Please note that the vents were not found by observing ocean temperatures.

Like another vent field in the Gulf that MBARI discovered in 2012, the Pescadero Basin vents were initially identified in high-resolution sonar data collected by an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602171917.htm


Note that "seeing the seafloor" and sea surface temperature omits temperature at depth. The frequency necessary to hit the seafloor would be an extremely low frequency.

Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Please note that the vents were not found by observing ocean temperatures.

Like another vent field in the Gulf that MBARI discovered in 2012, the Pescadero Basin vents were initially identified in high-resolution sonar data collected by an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602171917.htm


Note that "seeing the seafloor" and sea surface temperature omits temperature at depth. The frequency necessary to hit the seafloor would be an extremely low frequency.

Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. They only measure light. The emissivity is unknown.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Please note that the vents were not found by observing ocean temperatures.

Like another vent field in the Gulf that MBARI discovered in 2012, the Pescadero Basin vents were initially identified in high-resolution sonar data collected by an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602171917.htm


Note that "seeing the seafloor" and sea surface temperature omits temperature at depth. The frequency necessary to hit the seafloor would be an extremely low frequency.

Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. They only measure light. The emissivity is unknown.

Can you define climate change?

James___ wrote:
Also, there are not enough thermometers to verify satellite data.

James___ wrote:
This is where I am tired of your "stuff" itn.

James___ wrote:
Just because people like you prefer an algorithm to verified data,

James___ wrote:
not my problem. Algorithms are pure speculation that people like you accept.

James___ wrote:
Einstein believed in empirical data,

James___ wrote:
ie. it has to be verified

James___ wrote:
but you believers in the Church of Global Warming accept algorithms as the Holiest of Holies.

I don't get your kind. The owners of Google are billionaires because they made a better logarithm. You're all the same to me.

James___ wrote:
I bet you even live around the Puget Sound and not the Salish Sea.

James___ wrote: Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

keepit wrote: It sounds like you accept an authority of information.

keepit wrote: If everyone did one thing to help someone else, then every one would be helped.

keepit wrote:
As usual your post is 95% baloney.

keepit wrote:
As usual your post is 95% baloney.

By the way, random answers are better than endlessly repetitive slogans.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

I notice that warmizombies prefer to cite articles referencing NOAA. On the other hand, I have never seen a single warmizombie cite any valid dataset from the USNRL (United States Navy Research Labs), i.e. the US Intelligence agency that conducts the US' research on the ocean and the rest of the earth's hydrosphere, and then feeds that data to the NGA (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency), the US Intelligence agency responsible for the earth's repository on global geospatial data.

All of the relevant "data" that warmizombies claim exists would be held at NGA, not at NOAA or NASA. It's not NASA's job. It's not NOAA's job. Why do you think warmizombies avoid finding out "what we know" from those who "know it"?

Why do you think that is?


.

James___ wrote: Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

James___ wrote: They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

I'm not sure that a satellite can accurately assess the temperature of water at any given point, either on the surface or on the ocean floor. Then Navy uses thermometers exclusively, which tells them the temperature of water at one point only. Of course they then apply statistical math to their datasets to draw conclusions about currents.

Speaking of satellites, if you wanted to know the temperature of someplace, why would you even consider taking a measurement from hundreds of miles away and then guessing at how far off the measurement must be ... as opposed to sticking a thermometer right there and getting a more or less exact answer? Why would you consider a satellite to be an accurate device for measuring temperature hundreds of miles below? Isn't that a bit of an absurd prospect?

James___ wrote: They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

The Navy's answer to that is to have thermometers on their ships and submarines and they travel ocean-wide and ocean-deep all year. The Navy has loads of ocean temperature data taken directly from calibrated thermometers. If you were to try to tell the Navy that some ocean temperature data taken from a satellite somehow disagrees with some of their thermometer data, and that you should give the satellite data more authority, ... they would probably laugh you out of the room.

.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

I notice that warmizombies prefer to cite articles referencing NOAA. On the other hand, I have never seen a single warmizombie cite any valid dataset from the USNRL (United States Navy Research Labs), i.e. the US Intelligence agency that conducts the US' research on the ocean and the rest of the earth's hydrosphere, and then feeds that data to the NGA (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency), the US Intelligence agency responsible for the earth's repository on global geospatial data.

All of the relevant "data" that warmizombies claim exists would be held at NGA, not at NOAA or NASA. It's not NASA's job. It's not NOAA's job. Why do you think warmizombies avoid finding out "what we know" from those who "know it"?

Why do you think that is?


.

You missed something in the quote I used. Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

James___ wrote:
They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

James___ wrote: Satellites can transmit different frequencies. The return of the different frequencies and missing spectrums can be used to infer atmospheric density, temperature and humidity.

James___ wrote: In the article, they are not mentioning how much heat is coming from those vents.

James___ wrote: Also, the missing global warming heat that the IPCC found and used to debunk its 2013 climate report was found off the west coast of the Americas, where these vents were found.

James___ wrote: Methane is gushing forth from hundreds of newly-discovered deep-sea vents all along the US's western seaboard.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

I'm not sure that a satellite can accurately assess the temperature of water at any given point, either on the surface or on the ocean floor. Then Navy uses thermometers exclusively, which tells them the temperature of water at one point only. Of course they then apply statistical math to their datasets to draw conclusions about currents.

Speaking of satellites, if you wanted to know the temperature of someplace, why would you even consider taking a measurement from hundreds of miles away and then guessing at how far off the measurement must be ... as opposed to sticking a thermometer right there and getting a more or less exact answer? Why would you consider a satellite to be an accurate device for measuring temperature hundreds of miles below? Isn't that a bit of an absurd prospect?

James___ wrote: They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

The Navy's answer to that is to have thermometers on their ships and submarines and they travel ocean-wide and ocean-deep all year. The Navy has loads of ocean temperature data taken directly from calibrated thermometers. If you were to try to tell the Navy that some ocean temperature data taken from a satellite somehow disagrees with some of their thermometer data, and that you should give the satellite data more authority, ... they would probably laugh you out of the room.

.

Satellites can transmit different frequencies. The return of the different frequencies and missing spectrums can be used to infer atmospheric density, temperature and humidity.

James___ wrote:
There is a glaring omission concerning the temperature at depth of our planet's seas,

James___ wrote:
hydrothermal vents seems to be found by accident.

James___ wrote:
The first ones were found in the 1970's.

James___ wrote:
With this quote, they're ignoring the fact that it was most likely warm water flowing from the Gulf of California that led to this discovery.

James___ wrote:
In the article, they are not mentioning how much heat is coming from those vents.

James___ wrote:
Also, the missing global warming heat that the IPCC found and used to debunk its 2013 climate report was found off the west coast of the Americas, where these vents were found.

James___ wrote:
Methane is gushing forth from hundreds of newly-discovered deep-sea vents all along the US's western seaboard.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

I'm not sure that a satellite can accurately assess the temperature of water at any given point, either on the surface or on the ocean floor. Then Navy uses thermometers exclusively, which tells them the temperature of water at one point only. Of course they then apply statistical math to their datasets to draw conclusions about currents.

Speaking of satellites, if you wanted to know the temperature of someplace, why would you even consider taking a measurement from hundreds of miles away and then guessing at how far off the measurement must be ... as opposed to sticking a thermometer right there and getting a more or less exact answer? Why would you consider a satellite to be an accurate device for measuring temperature hundreds of miles below? Isn't that a bit of an absurd prospect?

James___ wrote: They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

The Navy's answer to that is to have thermometers on their ships and submarines and they travel ocean-wide and ocean-deep all year. The Navy has loads of ocean temperature data taken directly from calibrated thermometers. If you were to try to tell the Navy that some ocean temperature data taken from a satellite somehow disagrees with some of their thermometer data, and that you should give the satellite data more authority, ... they would probably laugh you out of the room.

.

Satellites can transmit different frequencies. The return of the different frequencies and missing spectrums can be used to infer atmospheric density, temperature and humidity.

A satellite cannot be in two places at once. All a spectrum measurement tells you is the overall composition of what you shone the light through. They do not tell you density, temperature, or humidity.

James___ wrote:
There is a glaring omission concerning the temperature at depth of our planet's seas,

That temperature is unknown.

James___ wrote:
hydrothermal vents seems to be found by accident.

They are is an underwater volcano. People have known about them for a very long time.

James___ wrote:
The first ones were found in the 1970's.

Nope. Hawaii itself is made by such underwater vents. We knew this long before the 1970's!

James___ wrote:
With this quote, they're ignoring the fact that it was most likely warm water flowing from the Gulf of California that led to this discovery.

Hawaii is nowhere near the Gulf of California.

James___ wrote:
In the article, they are not mentioning how much heat is coming from those vents.

Who cares? What are going to do? Stop a volcano?

James___ wrote:
Also, the missing global warming heat that the IPCC found and used to debunk its 2013 climate report was found off the west coast of the Americas, where these vents were found.

There is no such thing as 'missing heat'. It doesn't play hide and seek.

James___ wrote:
Methane is gushing forth from hundreds of newly-discovered deep-sea vents all along the US's western seaboard.

So?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Satellites can define the sea floor and surface temperature of the sea but not the temperature at a given depth in the sea.

I'm not sure that a satellite can accurately assess the temperature of water at any given point, either on the surface or on the ocean floor. Then Navy uses thermometers exclusively, which tells them the temperature of water at one point only. Of course they then apply statistical math to their datasets to draw conclusions about currents.

Speaking of satellites, if you wanted to know the temperature of someplace, why would you even consider taking a measurement from hundreds of miles away and then guessing at how far off the measurement must be ... as opposed to sticking a thermometer right there and getting a more or less exact answer? Why would you consider a satellite to be an accurate device for measuring temperature hundreds of miles below? Isn't that a bit of an absurd prospect?

James___ wrote: They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

The Navy's answer to that is to have thermometers on their ships and submarines and they travel ocean-wide and ocean-deep all year. The Navy has loads of ocean temperature data taken directly from calibrated thermometers. If you were to try to tell the Navy that some ocean temperature data taken from a satellite somehow disagrees with some of their thermometer data, and that you should give the satellite data more authority, ... they would probably laugh you out of the room.

.

Satellites can transmit different frequencies. The return of the different frequencies and missing spectrums can be used to infer atmospheric density, temperature and humidity.

A satellite cannot be in two places at once. All a spectrum measurement tells you is the overall composition of what you shone the light through. They do not tell you density, temperature, or humidity.

James___ wrote:
There is a glaring omission concerning the temperature at depth of our planet's seas,

That temperature is unknown.

James___ wrote:
hydrothermal vents seems to be found by accident.

They are is an underwater volcano. People have known about them for a very long time.

James___ wrote:
The first ones were found in the 1970's.

Nope. Hawaii itself is made by such underwater vents. We knew this long before the 1970's!

James___ wrote:
With this quote, they're ignoring the fact that it was most likely warm water flowing from the Gulf of California that led to this discovery.

Hawaii is nowhere near the Gulf of California.

James___ wrote:
In the article, they are not mentioning how much heat is coming from those vents.

Who cares? What are going to do? Stop a volcano?

James___ wrote:
Also, the missing global warming heat that the IPCC found and used to debunk its 2013 climate report was found off the west coast of the Americas, where these vents were found.

There is no such thing as 'missing heat'. It doesn't play hide and seek.

James___ wrote:
Methane is gushing forth from hundreds of newly-discovered deep-sea vents all along the US's western seaboard.

So?

This is where you and ibdm present yourselves as a couple of anarchists. I guess if you have nothing better to do.

James___ wrote:
I did answer your question, you're an anarchist. Your proof of life is your identity, an anarchist.