Remember me
▼ Content

Working definition of climate change



Page 2 of 2<12
04-12-2019 18:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean.
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/

A prediction of something that can't be measured is propaganda.
James___ wrote:
Since CO2 levels are obviously higher over land, why is 90% or more of temperature increase in the oceans and seas?

CO2 concentration isn't higher over land. It is also not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2019 02:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
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? Also, there are not enough thermometers to verify satellite data.
This is where I am tired of your "stuff" itn. Just because people like you prefer an algorithm to verified data, not my problem. Algorithms are pure speculation that people like you accept.
Einstein believed in empirical data, ie. it has to be verified 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.
I bet you even live around the Puget Sound and not the Salish Sea.
Yep, just another Satellite
05-12-2019 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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?

I'm not trying to.
James___ wrote:
Also, there are not enough thermometers to verify satellite data.
What satellite data?
James___ wrote:
This is where I am tired of your "stuff" itn.
Too bad.
James___ wrote:
Just because people like you prefer an algorithm to verified data,

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

Algorithms are not data. What makes you think it is?
James___ wrote:
Einstein believed in empirical data,

Nope. He was a talented mathematician.
James___ wrote:
ie. it has to be verified

Data isn't verified. It's just data.
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.

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

I live around both.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2019 19:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
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?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-12-2019 20:43
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Wait a minute IBDM. It sounds like you accept an authority of information. Why do you accept the ones you cited?

If everyone did one thing to help someone else, then every one would be helped. Wouldn't it feel good to know you were going to always be helped and wouldn't it feel good to know you helped someone?
I've experienced helping other people and it is great. I've been helped a huge amount even though i didn't realize it at the time.
05-12-2019 23:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: It sounds like you accept an authority of information.

I take it you are following tmiddles lead and are simply ignoring every post I have ever written that thoroughly addresses your question.

Are you and tmiddles involved in some sort of relationship. You seem to be doing his bidding, which is perfectly fine by me but you have to know that if you do exactly what he does then you are going to get exactly the same responses.

First: Review The Data Mine for the minimum requirements for a valid dataset.

Second: Frame your question in context of something I wrote (and quote me). If you are simply asking random questions then I will feel justified in providing random answers.

So while we're at it, do you have an answer to my question?

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

You are going to wish you had never brought this up.

I'm going to try to help you in the most important way possible. I am going to try to save you, which can only be done through Jesus Christ. You cannot be saved if have other gods, for they are false gods. Your faith in Global Warming will cast you into the Lake of Fire. Repent today. Repent of your idolotry. Calling it "science" will not fool God.

There, I gave it my best shot. Some people simply cannot be helped. When your day comes and you feel like fried chicken, you'll want to thank me for at least trying.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 02:06
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
As usual your post is 95% baloney.

By the way, random answers are better than endlessly repetitive slogans.
Edited on 06-12-2019 02:16
06-12-2019 02:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1529)
keepit wrote:
As usual your post is 95% baloney.


Cool. What 5% did you agree with?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
06-12-2019 02:18
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I agree with what he said about "some people simply can't be helped".
06-12-2019 04:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
As usual your post is 95% baloney.

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


No, they aren't.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2019 06:13
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
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.
They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.
06-12-2019 15:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
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.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 17:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
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.
There is a glaring omission concerning the temperature at depth of our planet's seas, hydrothermal vents seems to be found by accident. The first ones were found in the 1970's.
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. In the article, they are not mentioning how much heat is coming from those vents. 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.

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109698-hundreds-of-deep-sea-vents-found-spewing-methane-off-us-coast/
06-12-2019 18:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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.
Satellites don't define words. They are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature.
James___ wrote:
They need to better monitor the temperature in the sea.

They can't. No satellite can measure an absolute temperature. They only measure light. The emissivity is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2019 18:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
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.

... but not accurately. Please tell me that you are aware of all that can happen to electromagnetic radiation over hundreds of miles, and the margin of error this induces.

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

What do you mean by "heat" in this context?

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 was never any missing completely-undefined-heat.

Warmizombies were called out for never defining "heat" so they pivotted and declared that "heat" couldn't be defined because it was hiding at the bottom of the ocean.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

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

What about sulfur? Why does sulfur keep getting ignored? I sense a cover-up.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2019 18:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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?


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2019 20:40
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
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.
06-12-2019 22:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
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.


Evasion. So you won't answer the question, eh?


The Parrot Killer
07-12-2019 04:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
I did answer your question, you're an anarchist. Your proof of life is your identity, an anarchist.
07-12-2019 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
I did answer your question, you're an anarchist. Your proof of life is your identity, an anarchist.


No, dude. I'm an republican. I believe that constitutional government is the way to go.

Stop evading and answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Working definition of climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Definition of Climate Change9910-12-2019 17:21
working and spending8422-08-2019 05:46
What the USA Government has been working on to mitigate the problem821-02-2013 12:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact