NASA: Climate Change

[Crick]

Altered trade winds pushing warmed surface waters to the continental margins where it was subducted.

Regardless of the details of the mechanism, actual measurements have shown the increases in deep ocean temperatures. The increase in the level of the total thermal energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans has not paused.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Darn, the deniers know they can't refute cold hard evidence. What a shame.

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

What do you consider "Evidence"?

Well, we all know what evidence oil companies and their employees (are you one of them?) take? Nothing. If there's oil all over birds and fish, it's not evidence of anything,

 

[SSDD]

Altered trade winds pushing warmed surface waters to the continental margins where it was subducted.

Regardless of the details of the mechanism, actual measurements have shown the increases in deep ocean temperatures. The increase in the level of the total thermal energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans has not paused.

Actually, they have not shown any acceleration in deep ocean temperatures...your inability to read a graph is to blame for that particular belief. And the mechanism is damned important....if you can't explain it, then you can't claim that you have any idea what is causing it. Describe if you will how CO2 has altered trade winds...and do describe the mechanism by which you claim it happened....the mechanism is everything....understanding the mechanism is the only way you can credibly ascribe cause.

 

[Crick]

The data do show such an acceleration and I have provided a viable explanation. Weather patterns are altered by increasing global temperatures, particularly in the ocean.

But... pardon me. You're still back there trying to prove there's no greenhouse effect because all matter in Sid's universe has absolute knowledge of the universe and the ability to aim and throttle it's own radiation. Wow... and here I thought the Gaia hypothesis was a little weird.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Altered trade winds pushing warmed surface waters to the continental margins where it was subducted.

Regardless of the details of the mechanism, actual measurements have shown the increases in deep ocean temperatures. The increase in the level of the total thermal energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans has not paused.

LOL Trade winds altered, "excess heat" subducted" LOL

Sure, Crick. Sure. Just another wat of saying "The oceans ate my warming"

The "increase in heat" is compared to what? Popeye the Sailors readings 50 years ago?

The AGWCult thinks so so clever by adding in the ocean as the heat source but you said yourself it take 700 times the energy to heat the ocean than it does the air. So where was the energy since it clearly was never in the atmosphere of we'd have record shattering heat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Darn, the deniers know they can't refute cold hard evidence. What a shame.

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

What do you consider "Evidence"?

Well, we all know what evidence oil companies and their employees (are you one of them?) take? Nothing. If there's oil all over birds and fish, it's not evidence of anything,

A better answer would have been " I have no idea what evidence is, I just follow along with whatever the AGWCult tell me"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are the two of you (and you make a lovely couple) suggesting that greater than 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by the planet does NOT end up in the ocean?

The ocean warms the atmosphere...not the other way around. Describe the mechanism by which CO2 stopped warming the atmosphere in the latter part of the 20th century and started warming the deep oceans.

You beat me to it. Crick supposed that CO2 creates magical heat that bypasses the atmosphere and warmed the oceans 700m down. When I first mentioned "Excess heat" he said is was a fiction of 2 random words strung together. When I told him that was the entire basis of AR5, that excess heat was absorbed by the oceans, he hasn't once said that excess was a fiction since

 

[deltex1]

Ban the pipeline...problem solved according to PIAPS.

The pipeline is an unnecessary environmental hazard.

No more than the pipeline that carries your bullshit every day to the bs refinery.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the Obama MUSLIM OUTREACH site propaganda abounds.. Sadly they dont have real science on the subject to back up their wild ass claims.

Does Polly want a cracker?

 

[SSDD]

The data do show such an acceleration and I have provided a viable explanation. Weather patterns are altered by increasing global temperatures, particularly in the ocean.

Sorry, but they don't. They show an increase...but the rate of increase is not growing.

But... pardon me. You're still back there trying to prove there's no greenhouse effect because all matter in Sid's universe has absolute knowledge of the universe and the ability to aim and throttle it's own radiation. Wow... and here I thought the Gaia hypothesis was a little weird.

I am more likely to put creedence in a hypothesis that works on any planet with an atmosphere....not a greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science which only works here and then only with substantial tweaking.

 

[Crick]

The data do show such an acceleration and I have provided a viable explanation. Weather patterns are altered by increasing global temperatures, particularly in the ocean.

Sorry, but they don't. They show an increase...but the rate of increase is not growing.

Only for those who choose to cherry pick.

But... pardon me. You're still back there trying to prove there's no greenhouse effect because all matter in Sid's universe has absolute knowledge of the universe and the ability to aim and throttle it's own radiation. Wow... and here I thought the Gaia hypothesis was a little weird.

I am more likely to put creedence in a hypothesis that works on any planet with an atmosphere....not a greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science which only works here and then only with substantial tweaking.

The greenhouse effect works on every planet where its necessary conditions exist. And you don't seem to have touched on your long and needlessly complex relationship with grossly flawed pseudo-physics. Don't abandon your principals. There are very few people here who won't know it's what you're doing.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Darn, the deniers know they can't refute cold hard evidence. What a shame.

What "cold hard" evidence? Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.

That so-called "cold hard evidence"?

 

[Crick]

No, he means the thousands of pages of "cold hard evidence" from thousands of peer reviewed studies authored by thousands of PhD scientists on which not the tiniest of iota of doubt is thrown by bullshit, unsupportable accusations from a gullible ass like you.

 

[SSDD]

Only for those who choose to cherry pick.

If by "cherry pick" you mean those who can actually read a graph...ok.

The greenhouse effect works on every planet where its necessary conditions exist. And you don't seem to have touched on your long and needlessly complex relationship with grossly flawed pseudo-physics. Don't abandon your principals. There are very few people here who won't know it's what you're doing.

A greenhouse effect as described by climate science can not be used to describe the temperature on any planet with an atmosphere...and not even on earth without constant and serious tweaking.

 

[SSDD]

No, he means the thousands of pages of "cold hard evidence" from thousands of peer reviewed studies authored by thousands of PhD scientists on which not the tiniest of iota of doubt is thrown by bullshit, unsupportable accusations from a gullible ass like you.

Thousands of pages of failed computer model output....climate science is very short on actual observable, repeatable, empirical evidence. It was quite a few years ago when climate science started calling computer model output "evidence" even when the computer models were failing.

 

[Crick]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Darn, the deniers know they can't refute cold hard evidence. What a shame.

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

What do you consider "Evidence"?

Still pushing the pause bullshit? The international community and most climate scientists disagree. Ill trust the UN, scientists in every country (virtually) and the evidence.

you got duped by "the ocean ate my warming"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

Altered data fed into a computer designed to show warming is still not evidence

 

[SSDD]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

Sorry but there isn't. There is fabrication...cherry picking, and alteration...all run through failed computer models...the output of those models is not evidence...GIGO.

Observation and empirical evidence point to natural variation..nothing more nothing less. There is nothing whatsoever unprecedented about the present climate...

 

[Crick]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

Altered data fed into a computer designed to show warming is still not evidence

Frank, I don't know with what level of conversation your intelligence qualifies you to participate, but this ain't it.