What hiatus?

[mamooth]

What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2

So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.

Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?

Also I don't understand why asking you for incremental temperature increase based upon CO2 variances is "meaningless" please explain why

You left out baseline and timeframe. 100 ppm on top of 300 ppm has more effect than 100 on top of 400. And to see the full temp increase from it would take many decades or centuries, until a new equilibrium was reached.

As it stands, there are many articles on climate sensitivity that discuss Climate Senstivity. AR5 indicated a range of 1.5C - 4.5C for a doubling of CO2, but more recent data seems to indicate the lower end of that estimate can be ruled out.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have seen the data showing the continuous and accelerating increase of ocean heat content and global heat content during the last 17 years or so. FlaCalTenn has published such data himself. Where, then, do you get the idea there has been a hiatus?

Wrong. We have seen the result of an ALGORITHM, which claims to plot that which is beyond the ability of the instruments involved to measure. Funny how that works. If the oceans were truly warming the whole planet would be warming as well. That's why it is so much colder in Siberia, or in the internal Antarctic continent, the oceans are a heat sink, keeping it cooler when it's warm and warmer when it's cold.

Simple physics that every high schooler knows, and which every climatologist seems not to.

You'd better talk to your brother FlaCalTenn before you badmouth stuff he's posted. Those data are MEASUREMENTS.

Nice try Abe.. I think we've discussed the diff between the BTK "re-analyzed" fairy tale and the NOAA data which I prefer.. Even with the NOAA data being closer to empirical conditions, the HISTORICAL portion of those data sets are too sparse to be believed.

And what was done to cover the globe EVEN WITH the NOAA (or Leviticus) data is just an ancient slide-rule type of "re-analysis" to come up with brain-dead GLOBAL numbers.

BTW --- Have you ever seen this ocean warming plotted on a MAP???? You really should look into that Abraham.. Kinda tells you how dicey it is to try to do this on a GLOBAL scale for the early period before 2000.

If you've ever been out to sea for a day or 2 searching for Tuna or Salmon --- you'd understand how dispersed these thermal layers and differences really are.. The FISH know how spotty this thermal biz really is !!!!!

I think a large part of this AGW tendency to produce hockey sticks is simple technological advances and metrology...

 

[mamooth]

I will dumb it down for you so you can understand admiral..... the thermometer can only read to +/- a degree C, and they are claiming to "measure" in the tenths of a degree.

So you're claiming ARGO floats only measure to whole degrees? I believe you're off by a factor of 100 there.

Or are you just getting the statistics all wrong? It's hard to tell what you're claiming, since it's always vague and not backed up.

 

[gnarlylove]

The science does back our support.

You keep saying that, but since you can never back it up, it appears to be bullshit on your part. But hey, I'll give you a chance to show you're not just a parrot.

Explain why more energy comes into the earth now than goes out, and why the outgoing infrared radiation is observed squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band.

AGW science explains that with flying colors, along with many other things, for decades running now. How does your science explain it?

(I put "science" in quotes there because you've never actually done science before. Raging at the other side is not science.)

I think JC believes that he himself is the scientist and we are to take his word as science. I couldn't help notice he didn't make any scientific claims though. Confusing.

I mean he literally turned my post on its head. He asserted I referenced literally no science (I listed 4 scholarly sources that publish often and are available online) while he himself actually referenced no science. So either JC is the scientist or is a babble brook. I vote the latter.

 

[westwall]

I will dumb it down for you so you can understand admiral..... the thermometer can only read to +/- a degree C, and they are claiming to "measure" in the tenths of a degree.

So you're claiming ARGO floats only measure to whole degrees? I believe you're off by a factor of 100 there.

Or are you just getting the statistics all wrong? It's hard to tell what you're claiming, since it's always vague and not backed up.

Ummmm I was dumbing it down to simple numbers that even you could understand, admiral...

 

[ScienceRocks]

8c difference between now and the peak of the last ice age.
2c difference between now and little ice age during the 1680s.

Every degree is pretty important when you're dealing with a global avg. 1-2c can mean 6-10c for the arctic.

 

[flacaltenn]

8c difference between now and the peak of the last ice age.
2c difference between now and little ice age during the 1680s.

Every degree is pretty important when you're dealing with a global avg. 1-2c can mean 6-10c for the arctic.

Yeah.. That's why the IPCC is so focused on a SINGLE Climate Sensitivity for the Entire Globe..
That makes sense dont it??

 

[Abraham3]

What doesn't make sense is your criticism of the use of basic math to describe a planetary issue. Or, perhaps it makes perfect sense, if we assume you are doing nothing but attempting to obscure the issue. Or perhaps that you object to the use of averages because they prevent you from making your case by identifying the statistical outliers on your, pre-selected side of the mean: it's cold in the Northeast, it's cold in Eastern Europe, it's cold in Antarctica so the world cannot be getting any warmer. Right?

 

[SSDD]

And he's definitely not an expert.

At least I am not a fake engineer, which is far worse than simply not being an expert...and as it turned out, I was right and the "experts" were quite wrong and have now admitted it.

 

[SSDD]

There are two FLCs as it were..

There is only one gnarley "as it were" and he is clearly not up to any sort of conversation on the topic of science and as far as his philosophizing goes, it is obviously that of someone who has never actually studied the topic as he is clearly driven by emotion and feeling rather than any sort of deep thought and reflection....self or otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

You have seen the data showing the continuous and accelerating increase of ocean heat content and global heat content during the last 17 years or so. FlaCalTenn has published such data himself. Where, then, do you get the idea there has been a hiatus?

Wrong. We have seen the result of an ALGORITHM, which claims to plot that which is beyond the ability of the instruments involved to measure. Funny how that works. If the oceans were truly warming the whole planet would be warming as well. That's why it is so much colder in Siberia, or in the internal Antarctic continent, the oceans are a heat sink, keeping it cooler when it's warm and warmer when it's cold.

Simple physics that every high schooler knows, and which every climatologist seems not to.

Beat me to it....he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of actually "seeing" which would involve sufficient instrumental coverage of the ocean to actually measure any temperature increase along the entire water column.....like always, they accept computer output and mathematical sleight of hand as data.

 

[SSDD]

What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2

So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.

Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?

Actually, it is the core question to the entire AGW issue....and interestingly enough, all of climate science and all the money they have flushed down the toilet can not even begin to answer. The one question, supported by observed, measured experiment required to validate your alarmist claims....

 

[SSDD]

What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2

So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.

Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?

100ppm increase is not vague either

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

They don't seem to grasp the fact that the 100ppm increase is easily measurable and certainly documented....it amazes that they can't make the connection between what can be seen and measured...and what simply doesn't exist... The supposed temperature increase due to that measured 100ppm does not exist outside of a computer model...and every predicted fingerprint of such a temperature fingerprint has failed to materialize.

 

[SSDD]

How much warmer will occur within the next 15-20 years? A good frame of time to judge climate change and make a opinion!

How much has occurred in the past 15 to 20 years? An even better frame of time to judge alarmist claims....assess the validity of the hypothesis...and form a position.

 

[SSDD]

What's the incremental temperature increase per each 100ppm of additional CO2

So vague as to be a meaningless question. Do you understand why? You'll need to clarify a lot more to make it meaningful.

Now, since you've jumped in, answer my previous question. How does your theory -- whatever it is -- explain the atmospheric heat imbalance, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?

Also I don't understand why asking you for incremental temperature increase based upon CO2 variances is "meaningless" please explain why

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Because she doesn't have an answer that wouldn't make her look like the blithering idiot she is....therefore vague and meaningless. It is a stock answer among those in the church of AGW when asked questions that involve empirical observation. They don't seem to be able to see that their entire pseudoscience is, in fact, vague and meaningless when actual observation is brought to bear against it.

 

[gnarlylove]

After SSDD update on who we are, it's time for real education kiddies.

 

[westwall]

Do you really think someone, other than a full on cultist, is going to watch that drivel?

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you really think someone, other than a full on cultist, is going to watch that drivel?

I made to 0:57 seconds.. Did you suffer farther than that? The premise is condescending. That usually shorts my interest.. That all these specialists are looking into climate, energy, economy, food SEPARATELY -- and no one 'cept the elite leftist intelligensia is getting a clear overview of how all that fits together.. So --- I'm guessing that all that "integration" is the rest of the hour I didn't waste...

Maybe Gnarly will edit it down some --- and dub the condescending Brit accent out...
((That statement will wind his clock))

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you really think someone, other than a full on cultist, is going to watch that drivel?

Anyone not willing to consider the alternative, which you've proven you would never do, is indeed a cultist. I'm willing to hear how you explain your position but I doubt very much you have the coherency and cognitive capacity to do so.

 

[gnarlylove]

I wonder where Nafeez said "left intelligentsia" FLC? I wonder where he invoked any elitism? Can you point to that within the first 57 seconds? I thought not.

I thought he said he gave credence to all sides and after reviewing thousands of documents, he concluded something. I guess your attention span was too short to get that far. If only you could actually do what you say you do: engage in scientific inquiry. Instead, you do not hear what people are saying because your dogma spins it a thousand directions before you finally find the right combination that makes you feel right. I wish you'd pull up your diaper and stop shitting all over these boards and make some honest arguments instead of just half assed personal attacks but alas, you've demonstrated you'd rather not. And when you do, it's about some extremely irrelevant detail that has nothing to do with the wider fact that humans have everything to do with climate change. I'd like to respect your position, but I'm not given much to work with.