I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

 

[jc456]

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now

You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.

Knee Grow, Please!!!

That's a low-brow bullshit, escapist answer.

You have a theory, the main portion of which is certainly testable in a lab, but you can never show us the lab work

Was odd the first 5 years I've been asking for it, but now it's clear your side is scamming us

and not worth spending one dime on!

 

[westwall]

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

That's yours. Supposedly the world is going to end if we reach 400 ppm. Well guess what we'll be there next year. Then they'll tell us that the world will end when it hits 425 ppm, which we'll hit. Then they'll shift the goal posts yet again.

That's all they do, tell us the world is going to end, and then when that time comes and go's (as it has on at least 6 different occasions so far) they issue a new lie and pat themselves on the back saying look how smart we are because morons never bother to review what they said before.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now

You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.

Knee Grow, Please!!!

That's a low-brow bullshit, escapist answer.

You have a theory, the main portion of which is certainly testable in a lab, but you can never show us the lab work

Was odd the first 5 years I've been asking for it, but now it's clear your side is scamming us

Call it what you like, but it is the only honest answer I have. If you were truthful, it would be yours as well. You are not a climate scientist, and it's silly for you to try to act like one.

 

[jc456]

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

That's yours. Supposedly the world is going to end if we reach 400 ppm. Well guess what we'll be there next year. Then they'll tell us that the world will end when it hits 425 ppm, which we'll hit. Then they'll shift the goal posts yet again.

That's all they do, tell us the world is going to end, and then when that time comes and go's (as it has on at least 6 different occasions so far) they issue a new lie and pat themselves on the back saying look how smart we are because morons never bother to review what they said before.

I like those how hop on here and claim to know nothing about science calling those here that are, like yourself and todd, idiots. That is just too special. Warrants a more stupid award of some kind.

 

[westwall]

So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.

Precisely who got 120 billion dollars?

Where did you get that figure?

Name names. Show the documentation. Support your claim. You can support it, right?

Here's some. There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it. As I have a life you can go look for yourself.

 

[westwall]

No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory." Period. Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models. EVERYTHING. Come back when you actually have some real data.

You do know what "data" is...right?

Computer models? You mean the kind those non thinking scientific clowns designed? Got it!

Yes, those computer models that can't recreate the weather we had yesterday with perfect knowledge of all the variables and you seem to think that those models and model producers can generate a meaningful prediction for something 100 years in the future. Your lack of critical thinking while astonishing, is also quite laughable.

 

[westwall]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

I find it amusing that you are the only one referencing FOX. We are referencing peer reviewed papers and scientific organizations in our rebuttals and you are the only person in this discussion referencing FOX. Why is that? You claim to be "open minded" when you arrogant, ignorant posts expose you for the progressive asshat you truly are.

An open mind terrifies you. Someone who actually understands basic science (and surprise surprise in a Ivy League survey of AGW supporters and sceptics, it was the sceptics who scored higher on the scientific aptitude portion of the survey ((that means we're smarter than you)) is miles ahead of you. You claim to want to learn but you then compound your utter failure by stating you are too lazy to review actual scientific matters and instead want to merely bandy words in an endless round of mental masturbation.

Well screw you. You're nothing more than troll, like all the other AGW trolls. I only engage in conversations with people.

 

[westwall]

My theory is that these changes are natural and further CO2 lags temperature.

Prove it's not

No Frank. That is not a theory. That is a fact. It needs no opinion or consensus. It just "IS".

 

[BULLDOG]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

 

[westwall]

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now

You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.

Knee Grow, Please!!!

That's a low-brow bullshit, escapist answer.

You have a theory, the main portion of which is certainly testable in a lab, but you can never show us the lab work

Was odd the first 5 years I've been asking for it, but now it's clear your side is scamming us

Call it what you like, but it is the only honest answer I have. If you were truthful, it would be yours as well. You are not a climate scientist, and it's silly for you to try to act like one.

That's rich. The troll calling other peoples honesty into question. You're the untruthful one here jerk.

 

[westwall]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

No, they don't matter to you because you are intellectually dishonest and merely wish to engage in mental masturbation. You don't want to learn anything at all. You're a troll. Nothing more.

 

[jc456]

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now

You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.

Knee Grow, Please!!!

That's a low-brow bullshit, escapist answer.

You have a theory, the main portion of which is certainly testable in a lab, but you can never show us the lab work

Was odd the first 5 years I've been asking for it, but now it's clear your side is scamming us

Call it what you like, but it is the only honest answer I have. If you were truthful, it would be yours as well. You are not a climate scientist, and it's silly for you to try to act like one.

That's rich. The troll calling other peoples honesty into question. You're the untruthful one here jerk.

can I call it the most stupid post of the day?

 

[BULLDOG]

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

That's yours. Supposedly the world is going to end if we reach 400 ppm. Well guess what we'll be there next year. Then they'll tell us that the world will end when it hits 425 ppm, which we'll hit. Then they'll shift the goal posts yet again.

That's all they do, tell us the world is going to end, and then when that time comes and go's (as it has on at least 6 different occasions so far) they issue a new lie and pat themselves on the back saying look how smart we are because morons never bother to review what they said before.

No that is not my research. I've been as clear as I know how to be. I don't know why you don't understand. I'm not discussing the validity of any research by either faction. I AM NOT A SCIENTIST AND I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE RESULTS BY EITHER SIDE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS NO MORE QUALIFIED THAN I AM. Your continuous, insistence to present off subject information looks more like a dodge of the question than any reasonable answer to my reasonable questions. If you want to flame me for that, then go for it. If you want to present more silly graphs, charts, or even doodles from your scratch pad, that's fine too, but I haven't received anything anywhere close to an answer. Obviously the right can't answer any questions other than to repeat crap from oil company funded sites or talk radio. Far from a convincing argument, or an answer to reasonable questions

 

[mamooth]

Here's some. There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it. As I have a life you can go look for yourself.

So, your denier liar source took every penny allocated to weather, climate, public health, the environment, and so on, and called it the climate change budget. Weather satellites? Weather radars? Weather forecasting? EPA cleaning up pollution? National Parks? Energy research? You just toss it all together, and hope nobody looks.

That is, you fudged the statistics hard. And even though everyone knows it's a crap figure, you'll keep quoting $120 billion. You can't take it back, as a complete inability to admit error is kind of your trademark.

 

[westwall]

Here's some. There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it. As I have a life you can go look for yourself.

So, your denier liar source took every penny allocated to weather, climate, public health, the environment, and so on, and called it the climate change budget. Weather satellites? Weather radars? Weather forecasting? EPA cleaning up pollution? National Parks? Energy research? You just toss it all together, and hope nobody looks.

That is, you fudged the statistics hard. And even though everyone knows it's a crap figure, you'll keep quoting $120 billion. You can't take it back, as a complete inability to admit error is kind of your trademark.

No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY! Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

 

[mamooth]

What measurements? The ones that are so fine the instruments supposedly making them are not capable of that level of precision so the "readings" are actually computer generated? Those "measurements"?

The measurements you get when you point an infrared spectrometer at the sky. Here's one example. There's no single master backradiation graph, since results will vary based on things like time of day, temperature, clouds and humidity.

We can _directly_ measure backradiation. No models involved. If a person denies direct measurements, they are a conspiracy nutter.

Here's the reality of the ARGO floats and the models that you clowns are constantly trying to alter reality to match...

No, that's some meaningless nonsense you took off a denier blog. Please stick with the topic.

Talk about lack of knowledge... Sheesh. Yes UV is a small percentage of total light output it is however the dominant light that reaches into the oceans. It is also far more energetic and thus imparts more energy (which means heat for you nucular watch officers) into the water.

You're essentially the only person on the planet claiming UV is the dominant heating mechanism of the oceans. Energy-wise, UV is a small portion of sunlight, therefore it heats the ocean minimally compared to visible light. Penetration depth is not relevant. A tiny portion penetrating more deeply is still a tiny portion.

"If our diver wore ultraviolet (UV)-viewing goggles, almost half the light she would see looking down and horizontally would be UV. Light passing through water also becomes polarized, which means its wave motion vibrates in only one direction, or plane. (This also happens to the light reflected as glare from the sea surface or a wet road.) If our diver wore sunglasses that blocked vertically polarized light and looked to her side, her view would be dark; but if she looked up or down, her view would be full of light. The polarized sunglasses would block light vibrating in the horizontal plane, while allowing light vibrating in the vertical plane to pass through."

Shedding Light on Light in the Ocean Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Irrelevant to the topic, the topic being your misunderstanding of how backradiation heats the oceans. Out in the real world, the ocean temperature profile in the daytime looks like this.

Note the log-type scale on the vertical axis

Heat transfer inside the ocean is driven mostly by convection in the top 10 meters. Sunlight is absorbed by the top 10 meters, the water gets warmer and less dense and rises, so water temperature increases as it gets nearer the surface skin.

However, at the skin, that last 20 micrometers, the ocean temperature drops by about a degree, due to the oceans losing heat to the atmosphere by conduction/radiation/evaporation.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

You're welcome. I should charge for this.

 

[mamooth]

No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY! Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!

So you made a crazy claim, and now you're saying it's everyone else's responsiblity to prove it.

It's not our job to verify your cult's fables. It is the job of ethical people to point out how you willingly parrot your cult's crazy fables. I just did so.

 

[jc456]

No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY! Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!

So you made a crazy claim, and now you're saying it's everyone else's responsiblity to prove it.

It's not our job to verify your cult's fables. It is the job of ethical people to point out how you willingly parrot your cult's crazy fables. I just did so.

yo dude/dudette.....ding, ding, ding, ding, I couldn't have said that any better. So now please provide the experiment that you claim exists on 120 PPM of CO2 affecting temperatures. woo hoo... finally you get it. I can't wait to see it. Frank, it finally gets it!