AGW Scam Main Points

[Crick]

Note the similarity in slope between the TWO curves between 1957 and 1991? Then note the deviation in rate: the deeper water starts accumuting heat faster than the shallower water. Does that sound the least bit familiar? That heat has been moving into the DEEP ocean is the central theme to what BTK and all the follow on studies found.

Tell you what, though. if you'd like a challenge. Since you claim the world stop heating up about the turn of the century, WHERE has the energy come from that caused the oceans to put on ~10x10e22 joules of energy since then? That's roughly 1.5 trillion times the energy of the 16 kTon Hiroshima explosion.

1 kTon TNT=4.184x10^9 J
4.184 * 16 * 1,000,000,000 = 6.6944x10^10 Joules @ Hiroshima

10x10^22 /6.6944x10^10 = 1,493,785,850,860 ~ 1.5x10^12

 

[SSDD]

Note the similarity in slope between the TWO curves between 1957 and 1991?

Unfortunately for your argument...this is not 1957 or 1991...this is 2014 and the slope of the curve during this period does not show accelerated accumulation of heat.....thanks again for proving beyond doubt that you are a poser claiming to be an ocean engineer...I have never seen anyone with less ability to read a graph than you crick...have you ever got one right?

you what, though. if you'd like a challenge. Since you claim the world stop heating up about the turn of the century, WHERE has the energy come from that caused the oceans to put on ~10x10e22 joules of energy since then? That's roughly 1.5 trillion times the energy of the 16 kTon Hiroshima explosion.

You already know where the heat has gone....the satellites at the ToA have already told you....it is leaving the atmosphere...it won't be found on earth because it has already left....you know this but at this point have to much invested in your first class ticket on the AGW crazy train to get off now.

As to your atom bomb comparison...again, mathematical slight of hand...an attempt to make a vanishingly small number appear significant...It is, after all what climate change is all about. Look at your idiot numbers and put them in actual scientific terms rather than hysterical wackaloon terms...it works out to about six tenths of a watt per square meter...and we can't even measure incoming radiation to that kind of accuracy so it is all bullshit anyway. How scary is that?...and you can't find it because it is gone.

Your atom bomb hysterics amount to what, 4 hiroshima bombs every second....how scary....until one stops to consider that the incoming solar radiation is equal to more than 1000 hiroshima bombs per second...when put in context, your crazy threat of hiroshima bombs couldn't even be detected in the noise...it is a laughable bit of climate pesudoscience that stands out in a rather large field of laughable climate pseudoscience.

You are pathetic crick....just pathetic.

 

[Crick]

As all the available data show, the rate of temperature increase, (something that doesn't happen at all in a world that's not getting warmer) in water below 700 meters has been accelerating since the turn of the century.

No matter how you might try to minimize it, you cannot deny the amount of heat energy that the ocean has absorbed since the turn of the century. Neither, it seems, do you have any suggestion as to where it came from.

Your science misconceptions make you the person least to be trusted on any such matter of anyone on this board.

 

[Stephanie]

Really, is there anyone who doesn't believe the EARTH warms and cools?

the thing with the cultish (climate changers aka Globull warmers) is that if you DON'T believe what THEY SAY is happening that makes you a "denier" and I believe you own President called you, "flat earthers". Here's something I was just reading and how scientist have now become nothing more than fearmongers and this is being used to hose you down by the Far left elected politicians. and people like the brainwashed in this thread. I BELIEVE Hitler used the same tactics using the "environment ......................... look it up

links in the article at the site

SNIP:
Nothing says confidence in the verdict of history and an unwavering faith in ultimate vindication like gauche emotional manipulation. Similar to so many tropes on the left, the issue of climate change has evolved from a public policy challenge into just another shibboleth – a special knock, knowledge of which allows you access to the liberal speakeasy.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. Take a look at the faces below. What emotion do you see displayed?




I would say, respectively, bored, skeptical, hungry, and engaged. You probably came up with a number of different responses.
Now look at them again with the knowledge that all of the above are climate scientists who are supposedly struggling to maintain their composure during a panicked discussion about the post-apocalyptic Hellscape that awaits us in a future defined by climate shifts.
That’s how The Huffington Post primed its readers before featuring images of these and other scientific professionals purportedly wracked with anxiety over the pressing problem of global climate change.
“We’ve read the daunting headlines. We’ve seen the bleak predictions. We know in our minds that climate change is putting our Earth’s future in danger,” the Huffington Post’s write up on a series of photographs called “Scared Scientists” by artist Nick Bowers. “And yet there’s something uniquely frightening about this artist’s attempt to transform global warming data into visceral, human responses.”
Frightening? They might as well be dramatic headshots. You could probably book a recurring role on an HBO drama with one of these – at least, get you past the casting director’s door.
This was just one of Tuesday’s attempts by climate activists to tug at your heartstrings in lieu of a logical argument.
“Scientists are used to talking about climate change in facts and figures, a discussion framed around parts-per-million concentrations of carbon dioxide, millimeters of sea-level rise, and degrees of global temperatures,” a piece in Tuesaday’s National Journal opened. “[Australian National University student] Joe Duggan wants them to talk about their feelings.”

all of it here:
Scientists abandon science to popularize climate change alarmism Hot Air

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "Ocean Ate my Global Warming" meme is a gullibility test. We just want to see who lacks any capacity for thought and will believe absolutely ANYTHING you tell them about AGW

 

[SSDD]

As all the available data show, the rate of temperature increase, (something that doesn't happen at all in a world that's not getting warmer) in water below 700 meters has been accelerating since the turn of the century.

No matter how you might try to minimize it, you cannot deny the amount of heat energy that the ocean has absorbed since the turn of the century. Neither, it seems, do you have any suggestion as to where it came from.

Your science misconceptions make you the person least to be trusted on any such matter of anyone on this board.

Actually, none of the available data show the rate of temperature increase...if the data were shown in those terms, the entire field of climate science and all of its threats of imminent doom would be laughed right out of the picture...you guys never even want to discuss actual temperature increases as in those terms the whole AGW scam just looks stupid. You like to play with imaginary anomalies in terms of hundredths of a degree or joules or whatever term you think will best make a mountain out of the very small molehill you have to work with....

Did you hear that australian climate science is now on the hook for data manipulation...the same sort of official scrutiny may be coming soon to a climate pseudoscientist near you. We can all look forward to the show and you may want to invest in popcorn futures.....or not.

 

[mamooth]

Did you hear that australian climate science is now on the hook for data manipulation.

Well, the WUWT cultists are parroting an Australian political nutter who is pretending to be a climate scientist, but nobody outside of the cult is paying any attention to it. That's what a history of crying wolf does to a group's reputation.

If anyone is wondering, it concerns temp adjustments at a single weather station in Australia. Boring stuff, but such desperate cherrypicks are all the deniers have. Moyhu has written about it, if anyone cares to look. The quick story is the station was moved in 1980 to a much cooler spot, hence the data had to be adjusted.

 

[SSDD]

Did you hear that australian climate science is now on the hook for data manipulation.

Well, the WUWT cultists are parroting an Australian political nutter who is pretending to be a climate scientist, but nobody outside of the cult is paying any attention to it. That's what a history of crying wolf does to a group's reputation.

If anyone is wondering, it concerns temp adjustments at a single weather station in Australia. Boring stuff, but such desperate cherrypicks are all the deniers have. Moyhu has written about it, if anyone cares to look. The quick story is the station was moved in 1980 to a much cooler spot, hence the data had to be adjusted.

Keep telling yourself that admiral....Personally, I enjoy watching the level of denial you people are capable of....it will make the final exposure of the fraud all the better....

 

[jc456]

Did you hear that australian climate science is now on the hook for data manipulation.

Well, the WUWT cultists are parroting an Australian political nutter who is pretending to be a climate scientist, but nobody outside of the cult is paying any attention to it. That's what a history of crying wolf does to a group's reputation.

If anyone is wondering, it concerns temp adjustments at a single weather station in Australia. Boring stuff, but such desperate cherrypicks are all the deniers have. Moyhu has written about it, if anyone cares to look. The quick story is the station was moved in 1980 to a much cooler spot, hence the data had to be adjusted.

Again you F....is it factually correct?

 

[elektra]

The Earth is not cooperating with the AGW Theory.

 

[SSDD]

The Earth is not cooperating with the AGW Theory.

It isn't a theory...it doesn't deserve that much respect...AGW is a hypothesis...and a pretty poor one at that. Look up the definition of theory and hypothesis some time...You have to squint just right and stand on one foot on the full moon to even call it a hypothesis with a straight face.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, I'd ask you if it bothers you most of the planet considers you to be an acolyte of a kook liars' cult, if it wasn't so clear it did bother you. You're going to be humiliated about it for the rest of your life, and there's no avoiding it. All you can do about it is cry bitterly on a message board.

Deniers, I suggest you try to sneak off into the jungle before they set that vat of koolaid out. Don't wait until the last minute, because your cult will have set guards to block your escape.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Earth is not cooperating with the AGW Theory.

Earth may be the biggest Denier!!!!

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, I'd ask you if it bothers you most of the planet considers you to be an acolyte of a kook liars' cult, if it wasn't so clear it did bother you. You're going to be humiliated about it for the rest of your life, and there's no avoiding it. All you can do about it is cry bitterly on a message board.

Deniers, I suggest you try to sneak off into the jungle before they set that vat of koolaid out. Don't wait until the last minute, because your cult will have set guards to block your escape.

Actually most of the planet is on my side...your position is the result of data fabrication, manipulation and outright lies...

How about you answer my point and tell us how AGW deserves to be called a theory in the context of the actual definition of hypothesis and theory.

 

[jc456]

SSDD, I'd ask you if it bothers you most of the planet considers you to be an acolyte of a kook liars' cult, if it wasn't so clear it did bother you. You're going to be humiliated about it for the rest of your life, and there's no avoiding it. All you can do about it is cry bitterly on a message board.

Deniers, I suggest you try to sneak off into the jungle before they set that vat of koolaid out. Don't wait until the last minute, because your cult will have set guards to block your escape.

There you go with your pompous behavior again. Show me the factual data that most of the world believes your claim, See I have polls and dude, it isn't most. It is some, but it is far far far from most. You're still delusional.

 

[Crick]

It isn't a theory...it doesn't deserve that much respect...AGW is a hypothesis...and a pretty poor one at that. Look up the definition of theory and hypothesis some time...You have to squint just right and stand on one foot on the full moon to even call it a hypothesis with a straight face.

AGW has more than enough acceptance among climate scientists to be considered a theory.

Your opinions on the climate and the several bizarre interpretations you have on physics fundamentals from whence that climate opinion arises, are held by NO ONE ELSE. NO ONE. What does that make them? What does that make YOU?

 

[SSDD]

AGW has more than enough acceptance among climate scientists to be considered a theory.

Your opinions on the climate and the several bizarre interpretations you have on physics fundamentals from whence that climate opinion arises, are held by NO ONE ELSE. NO ONE. What does that make them? What does that make YOU?

Acceptance isn't one of the criteria which moves a hypothesis to the level of theory.. more logical fallacy on your part. Obviously you never read the definition of hypothesis or theory.

 

[Crick]

Obviously you never understood anything you ever read concerning any point in the field of physics.

 

[SSDD]

Obviously you never understood anything you ever read concerning any point in the field of physics.

Divert much?

hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Where are those experiments?

theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts orphenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictionsabout natural phenomena. Failing models...failed predictions...lack of experiments...again. the greenhouse hypothesis barely ranks as a hypothesis...and AGW doesn't even rank that in so far as the actual meanings of the words goes...of course your side is prone to redefining terms in an effort to look credible.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Crick]

Over 13,000 peer reviewed studies examined in Cook et al's study and you think no experiments have been conducted?

And if you're relying on Roy Spencer's lies about CMIP results for your contention that models have failed, you've hitched your pony to the wrong cart.