Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[Meister]

That would be completely redundant to the lab demonstrations and quantum mechanics and common sense calculations that predict with absolute certainty that, considering only the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increases from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, AGW is absolutely certain. The end points of the process are unequivocal. The degree to which our consumption of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the temperature increase that ultimately has to emerge to restore the energy balance that that concentration increase upset.

What is left to determine is how long it will take to get from that certain cause to that certain effect, and how the weather and sea levels will respond along the way.

The single cause and ultimate effect are known with certainty. The path between them is being quantified. The cause from the past is known with certainty, what mankind does from this day forth is unknowable. The degree to which the civilization that we built adapting to the previous climate and sea levels, must change, to readapt to the climate and sea levels when they stabilize to what they must, from what we've done so far, will obviously be very costly, but can't be predicted with any accuracy.

Wishing things were different has no impact on any of this.

You're fucking crazy.

From what I've shown you.....the science isn't settled.
I've named names from your own scientists that no longer agree with you and the manipulated science you embrace.

I am right......you ignore the facts that don't back your religion (agenda) and you just keep moving forward with your lies like nothing disproved them.

This discussion is done, you have no evidence of what you're trying to support regarding AGW, and the scientists know it.

The fact that you don't know the science has no impact on it. That leaves you with two alternatives. Learn it, or keep hoping that ignorance triumphs over knowledge for the first time in history.

You are a perfect example of the fundamental motivation behind conservative entertainment. To empower ignorance by encouraging it.

Ignorant conservatives know more science than scientists who spend their entire lives learning it. More Constitutional law than legal experts who spend their lives perfecting it. More statesmanship, diplomacy, and politics than those spending their lives performing it, know. More history than the historians who devote their lives to its careful study. More about the design of our Union than the Constitutional Convention that put it on paper. More macroeconomics than Ben Bernanke. More about risk than actuaries.
More about news than people who live it.

If you wanted to know what you pretend to know you'd have to spend a dozen lifetimes in school and in practice.

Still ignoring what's out there? Figures you would ignore the facts because of your religion. It's sad, but at least you are becoming a non issue because the facts are catching up with your AGW agenda.

 

[Meister]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion

 

[flacaltenn]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Several problems with that measurement..

1) The C13/C12 ratio is virtually indistinguishable between burning fossil fuels and OTHER natural sources that breakdown in the atmos..

2) The ratio SIGNATURE of CO2 from fossil fuels is hard to detect because the Statistical distributions of "fossil" and "non-fossil" are CONTINUOUS and they OVERLAP. Because the numerical gap between those indicators is extremely small. Something like 1.14 to 0.96..

3) Large variations in C13 ratio have been observed on "inter-annual" basis. Meaning that if you subtract THIS years reading from Last years reading on a particular date -- you'd expect that the mankinds contribution would be a constant increase. But THAT'S not what seen in data.. It VARIES WILDLY and NATURALLY --- on a level MUCH higher than the "man-caused" signature we're trying to detect..

All that makes sense since the Ocean is chock full of "ancient CO2" and it's tossing 10 times the human emissions into the sky every year..

 

[PMZ]

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Listen up you useless ignorant SOB. Its time you defended this incessant incoherent banter.

I was responding to science that Matthew posted. Something ive NEVER seen YOU DO.
I need you to support

1 The assertionn that my comments werre political.

2 The asssertion that the is zero science behind the discussion of thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system.

I have provided PAGES of cites about the retarded adoption of these FUNDAMENTAL climate system elements. Why dont you give us EVERYTHING that YOU know onthis topic..

ill be thrilled to hear your analysis of the topic. GEt to it bastard troll.

Your comments are by definition political because they are aimed at supporting action that denies current climate science.

"thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"

Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.

 

[PMZ]

You're fucking crazy.

From what I've shown you.....the science isn't settled.
I've named names from your own scientists that no longer agree with you and the manipulated science you embrace.

I am right......you ignore the facts that don't back your religion (agenda) and you just keep moving forward with your lies like nothing disproved them.

This discussion is done, you have no evidence of what you're trying to support regarding AGW, and the scientists know it.

The fact that you don't know the science has no impact on it. That leaves you with two alternatives. Learn it, or keep hoping that ignorance triumphs over knowledge for the first time in history.

You are a perfect example of the fundamental motivation behind conservative entertainment. To empower ignorance by encouraging it.

Ignorant conservatives know more science than scientists who spend their entire lives learning it. More Constitutional law than legal experts who spend their lives perfecting it. More statesmanship, diplomacy, and politics than those spending their lives performing it, know. More history than the historians who devote their lives to its careful study. More about the design of our Union than the Constitutional Convention that put it on paper. More macroeconomics than Ben Bernanke. More about risk than actuaries.
More about news than people who live it.

If you wanted to know what you pretend to know you'd have to spend a dozen lifetimes in school and in practice.

Still ignoring what's out there? Figures you would ignore the facts because of your religion. It's sad, but at least you are becoming a non issue because the facts are catching up with your AGW agenda.

What I don't ignore is science. It's the only for sure truth that mankind has uncovered. We are slaves to reality. Understanding and accepting reality is our single path to progress.

You can shout your fantasies as loud as you are able but you and we can't live them.

 

[PMZ]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion

Don't know how long ago that was said but, if it was recently, he's no better informed than you are.

 

[PMZ]

simply that our co2 being burnt has a different chemical make up then natural co2.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4) How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Several problems with that measurement..

1) The C13/C12 ratio is virtually indistinguishable between burning fossil fuels and OTHER natural sources that breakdown in the atmos..

2) The ratio SIGNATURE of CO2 from fossil fuels is hard to detect because the Statistical distributions of "fossil" and "non-fossil" are CONTINUOUS and they OVERLAP. Because the numerical gap between those indicators is extremely small. Something like 1.14 to 0.96..

3) Large variations in C13 ratio have been observed on "inter-annual" basis. Meaning that if you subtract THIS years reading from Last years reading on a particular date -- you'd expect that the mankinds contribution would be a constant increase. But THAT'S not what seen in data.. It VARIES WILDLY and NATURALLY --- on a level MUCH higher than the "man-caused" signature we're trying to detect..

All that makes sense since the Ocean is chock full of "ancient CO2" and it's tossing 10 times the human emissions into the sky every year..

None of this matters in the least as we know precisely how much fossil fuel caused GHG we are putting into the atmosphere and how much AGW that has to eventually cause.

 

[Meister]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion

Don't know how long ago that was said but, if it was recently, he's no better informed than you are.

Yeah, that's it.

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it. Is that what you want all of us to believe?

 

[PMZ]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore agreed that, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Just can't get around what one of your former disciples had to say about your religion

Don't know how long ago that was said but, if it was recently, he's no better informed than you are.

Yeah, that's it.

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it. Is that what you want all of us to believe?

Is this your science?

 

[flacaltenn]

You seem quite ignorant of the fact that there is zero science behind your politics. It's simply what you wish was true.

Listen up you useless ignorant SOB. Its time you defended this incessant incoherent banter.

I was responding to science that Matthew posted. Something ive NEVER seen YOU DO.
I need you to support

1 The assertionn that my comments werre political.

2 The asssertion that the is zero science behind the discussion of thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system.

I have provided PAGES of cites about the retarded adoption of these FUNDAMENTAL climate system elements. Why dont you give us EVERYTHING that YOU know onthis topic..

ill be thrilled to hear your analysis of the topic. GEt to it bastard troll.

Your comments are by definition political because they are aimed at supporting action that denies current climate science.

Thats actually quite chilling. That you believe dissent in science is a POLITICAL crime.
If youre gonna charge me with a political crime for debating science -- it clearly demonstrates how DANGEROUS and Dogmatic bastard trolls are.. No need to understand the science -- just invoke the power of poltical heresy. Thats what you just did.

"thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"

Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.

You just lost the argument and capitualated right there you moron. Its NOT that I have zero science supporting my assertions. It just that you have no fucking idea how those KNOWN and neglected systems concepts wreck your juvenile simplistic views of climate science.

The analysis of those components means there is NO REQUIREMENT for climate forcings to look exactly like the temperature curve.. IN FACT the presence of those constructs pretty much assures that climate inputs do NOT match the shape of resultant temp change.

You dont understand that this is true in the way your home HVAC heating works ----so we can rule out that you have any chance of understanding the thermodynamics of a climate system.

Please realize that you WILL be called out on your STUPIDEST comments. And that you might want to work harder on content and post less responding to my posts.

 

[Meister]

Don't know how long ago that was said but, if it was recently, he's no better informed than you are.

Yeah, that's it.

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it. Is that what you want all of us to believe?

Is this your science?

If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did? It can only mean you don't have the science on your side. He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, that's it.

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it. Is that what you want all of us to believe?

Is this your science?

If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did? It can only mean you don't have the science on your side. He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.

If hes got science on his sside, there wouldnt be lead IPCC authors saying there shouldnt be ANY MORE IPCC reports -- because they distort the science and process too much..

 

[PMZ]

Listen up you useless ignorant SOB. Its time you defended this incessant incoherent banter.

I was responding to science that Matthew posted. Something ive NEVER seen YOU DO.
I need you to support

1 The assertionn that my comments werre political.

2 The asssertion that the is zero science behind the discussion of thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system.

I have provided PAGES of cites about the retarded adoption of these FUNDAMENTAL climate system elements. Why dont you give us EVERYTHING that YOU know onthis topic..

ill be thrilled to hear your analysis of the topic. GEt to it bastard troll.

Your comments are by definition political because they are aimed at supporting action that denies current climate science.

Thats actually quite chilling. That you believe dissent in science is a POLITICAL crime.
If youre gonna charge me with a political crime for debating science -- it clearly demonstrates how DANGEROUS and Dogmatic bastard trolls are.. No need to understand the science -- just invoke the power of poltical heresy. Thats what you just did.

"thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"

Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.

You just lost the argument and capitualated right there you moron. Its NOT that I have zero science supporting my assertions. It just that you have no fucking idea how those KNOWN and neglected systems concepts wreck your juvenile simplistic views of climate science.

The analysis of those components means there is NO REQUIREMENT for climate forcings to look exactly like the temperature curve.. IN FACT the presence of those constructs pretty much assures that climate inputs do NOT match the shape of resultant temp change.

You dont understand that this is true in the way your home HVAC heating works ----so we can rule out that you have any chance of understanding the thermodynamics of a climate system.

Please realize that you WILL be called out on your STUPIDEST comments. And that you might want to work harder on content and post less responding to my posts.

Any body in space must conserve energy. Whatever the energy in is, it must, eventually, if a perturbation occurs, be rebalanced by a change in surface temperature. Excess energy heats and raises surface temperatures, reduced energy cools to a lower surface temperature. There is no other possibility.

We create, every day, by the burning of fossil fuels, such a perturbation, which reduces outgoing energy by the action of GHGs. There is no other possibility.

Nobody knows the exact dynamics of weather and sea levels as they strive to restore energy balance, but they have to. There is no other possibility.

Show me one scrap of science that offers an alternative scenario.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, that's it.

There are a lot more of your disciples that used to be smart, but are no longer because they couldn't connect the dots, dude/dudette/it. Is that what you want all of us to believe?

Is this your science?

If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did? It can only mean you don't have the science on your side. He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.

I, just like you, have absolutely no way to know his motivation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your comments are by definition political because they are aimed at supporting action that denies current climate science.

Thats actually quite chilling. That you believe dissent in science is a POLITICAL crime.
If youre gonna charge me with a political crime for debating science -- it clearly demonstrates how DANGEROUS and Dogmatic bastard trolls are.. No need to understand the science -- just invoke the power of poltical heresy. Thats what you just did.

"thermal storage, delays, and inertia in the climate system"

Are all part of AGW climate science. They explain how the indisputable cause, increased atmospherics GHG concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels, gets to the effect of higher climatic temperatures in order to resolve spaceship earth's growing energy imbalance.

You just lost the argument and capitualated right there you moron. Its NOT that I have zero science supporting my assertions. It just that you have no fucking idea how those KNOWN and neglected systems concepts wreck your juvenile simplistic views of climate science.

The analysis of those components means there is NO REQUIREMENT for climate forcings to look exactly like the temperature curve.. IN FACT the presence of those constructs pretty much assures that climate inputs do NOT match the shape of resultant temp change.

You dont understand that this is true in the way your home HVAC heating works ----so we can rule out that you have any chance of understanding the thermodynamics of a climate system.

Please realize that you WILL be called out on your STUPIDEST comments. And that you might want to work harder on content and post less responding to my posts.

Any body in space must conserve energy. Whatever the energy in is, it must, eventually, if a perturbation occurs, be rebalanced by a change in surface temperature. Excess energy heats and raises surface temperatures, reduced energy cools to a lower surface temperature. There is no other possibility.

We create, every day, by the burning of fossil fuels, such a perturbation, which reduces outgoing energy by the action of GHGs. There is no other possibility.

Nobody knows the exact dynamics of weather and sea levels as they strive to restore energy balance, but they have to. There is no other possibility.

Show me one scrap of science that offers an alternative scenario.

Youve been told this many times before, but ill try once more.. The power of CO2 to create an imbalance is limited waaaaay below the types of numbers for temperature rise that AGW INVENTS out of Magic Multipliers. So heres your quiz bastard troll.. What does physics say the resultant warming from JUST a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm????????

no magic multipliers......

Ive posted it 100 times... Bet you dont remember do you?

 

[Meister]

Is this your science?

If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did? It can only mean you don't have the science on your side. He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.

I, just like you, have absolutely no way to know his motivation.

Exactly....maybe he's smarter than you.

 

[PMZ]

Thats actually quite chilling. That you believe dissent in science is a POLITICAL crime.
If youre gonna charge me with a political crime for debating science -- it clearly demonstrates how DANGEROUS and Dogmatic bastard trolls are.. No need to understand the science -- just invoke the power of poltical heresy. Thats what you just did.



You just lost the argument and capitualated right there you moron. Its NOT that I have zero science supporting my assertions. It just that you have no fucking idea how those KNOWN and neglected systems concepts wreck your juvenile simplistic views of climate science.

The analysis of those components means there is NO REQUIREMENT for climate forcings to look exactly like the temperature curve.. IN FACT the presence of those constructs pretty much assures that climate inputs do NOT match the shape of resultant temp change.

You dont understand that this is true in the way your home HVAC heating works ----so we can rule out that you have any chance of understanding the thermodynamics of a climate system.

Please realize that you WILL be called out on your STUPIDEST comments. And that you might want to work harder on content and post less responding to my posts.

Any body in space must conserve energy. Whatever the energy in is, it must, eventually, if a perturbation occurs, be rebalanced by a change in surface temperature. Excess energy heats and raises surface temperatures, reduced energy cools to a lower surface temperature. There is no other possibility.

We create, every day, by the burning of fossil fuels, such a perturbation, which reduces outgoing energy by the action of GHGs. There is no other possibility.

Nobody knows the exact dynamics of weather and sea levels as they strive to restore energy balance, but they have to. There is no other possibility.

Show me one scrap of science that offers an alternative scenario.

Youve been told this many times before, but ill try once more.. The power of CO2 to create an imbalance is limited waaaaay below the types of numbers for temperature rise that AGW INVENTS out of Magic Multipliers. So heres your quiz bastard troll.. What does physics say the resultant warming from JUST a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm????????

no magic multipliers......

Ive posted it 100 times... Bet you dont remember do you?

So at last, you accept what I've said all along. The burning of fossil fuels has to result in AGW. No other possibility. That's a start.

How much? The calculations show that the AGW for each doubling of carbon dioxide to be about 2 degrees C.

Virtually nothing in terms of sensible impact on any person. However enough to cause more extreme weather and changes in precipitation patterns that we've already experienced and paid to recover from and mitigate.

However the next question is what other effects will that change cause?

Two very significant ones. The melting of arctic ice and snow which changes the earths albedo, further reducing energy reflected from earths surface and thereby creating it's own AGW in addition to the GHG cause.

And the melting of arctic permafrost which has sequestered it's own supply of GHG by the action of preventing microorganisms from "rotting" organic material deposited before freezing occurred there. This would more than double the addition of fossil fuel GHGs and the resulting AGW.

The IPCC has predicted that these effects together would cause 8 to 12 degrees of AGW.

What's the effect of that cause? Whenever it stabilizes, many years after we stop adding daily to the problem, much higher sea levels, flooding virtually all major coastal cities in the world. Substantial changes in the precipitation pattern, that render the climate in areas that we chose for population and agricultural centers untenable.

The effect of those causes?

Somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization.

 

[PMZ]

If you got the science on your side, why in the world would a co-founder of Greenpeace say what he did? It can only mean you don't have the science on your side. He was a disciple of your church for crying out loud.

I, just like you, have absolutely no way to know his motivation.

Exactly....maybe he's smarter than you.

And, maybe not.

 

[PMZ]

I, just like you, have absolutely no way to know his motivation.

Exactly....maybe he's smarter than you.

And, maybe not.

And, maybe he was motivated by other considerations.

We don't know.

 

[Meister]

Exactly....maybe he's smarter than you.

And, maybe not.

And, maybe he was motivated by other considerations.

We don't know.

Other considerations like actual facts that the numbers weren't there to connect man to global warming.
You are giving yourself waaaay too much credit, dude/dudette/it

just sayin...