Pacific Ocean and AGW Question

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,450
Reaction score
26,416
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is, the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
 
Last edited:

jon_berzerk

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
7,351
Points
1,130
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
certainly

--LOL
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
"Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying."? ? ? That's your reasoned response? Have you even suggested WHY we should believe you?

"Water temperatures vary, no surprise there" ? ? ? Do you think ocean temperatures vary spontaneously? You realize they're talking about a LOT of water warming VERY rapidly. Where do you think that energy came from? Too many hot showers?

You've got a problem. First you say that you don't care where the warming came from, where it will go or what happens next. THEN you say that you'd have to be stupid and gullible to believe this [ocean warming?] is real. Those are mutually exclusive positions Frank.
 
Last edited:

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
"Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying."? ? ? That's your reasoned response? Have you even suggested WHY we should believe you?

"Water temperatures vary, no surprise there" ? ? ? Do you think ocean temperatures vary spontaneously? You realize they're talking about a LOT of water warming VERY rapidly. Where do you think that energy came from? Too many hot showers?

You've got a problem. First you say that you don't care where the warming came from, where it will go or what happens next. THEN you say that you'd have to be stupid and gullible to believe this [ocean warming?] is real. Those are mutually exclusive positions Frank.
Well it certainly wasn't from CO2.

Then again it could be that big yellow thing in the sky which without this planet would be a ball of ice.
 

jon_berzerk

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
7,351
Points
1,130
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
"Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying."? ? ? That's your reasoned response? Have you even suggested WHY we should believe you?

"Water temperatures vary, no surprise there" ? ? ? Do you think ocean temperatures vary spontaneously? You realize they're talking about a LOT of water warming VERY rapidly. Where do you think that energy came from? Too many hot showers?

You've got a problem. First you say that you don't care where the warming came from, where it will go or what happens next. THEN you say that you'd have to be stupid and gullible to believe this [ocean warming?] is real. Those are mutually exclusive positions Frank.
Well it certainly wasn't from CO2.

Then again it could be that big yellow thing in the sky which without this planet would be a ball of ice.
some lefties on the board say

the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet

--LOL
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
some lefties on the board say

the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet

--LOL
How many times in the last year have "the lefties on the board" mentioned the ToA imbalance? A hundred times? More? And of what is that actually an imbalance? Why it is an imbalance of RADIATION FROM THE SUN and radiation from the Earth. For the Earth to have a stable temperature, they have to be equal. If the former is short, we get colder. If the latter is short, we get hotter. Simple as that. And I'll give you three guesses as to which of the two is short and has been short ever since we had the ability to measure it. But... the first two guesses don't count.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Well it certainly wasn't from CO2.
Why not Kosh? Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?
Because CO2 does not drive climate.


Although to push such nonsense shows that the AGW cultists are about propaganda and not science.

BTW: When are you going to post those datasets with source code that prove CO2 drives climate?
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
some lefties on the board say

the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet

--LOL
How many times in the last year have "the lefties on the board" mentioned the ToA imbalance? A hundred times? More? And of what is that actually an imbalance? Why it is an imbalance of RADIATION FROM THE SUN and radiation from the Earth. For the Earth to have a stable temperature, they have to be equal. If the former is short, we get colder. If the latter is short, we get hotter. Simple as that. And I'll give you three guesses as to which of the two is short and has been short ever since we had the ability to measure it. But... the first two guesses don't count.
More proof you are filled with AGW propaganda!
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
some lefties on the board say

the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet

--LOL
How many times in the last year have "the lefties on the board" mentioned the ToA imbalance? A hundred times? More? And of what is that actually an imbalance? Why it is an imbalance of RADIATION FROM THE SUN and radiation from the Earth. For the Earth to have a stable temperature, they have to be equal. If the former is short, we get colder. If the latter is short, we get hotter. Simple as that. And I'll give you three guesses as to which of the two is short and has been short ever since we had the ability to measure it. But... the first two guesses don't count.
More proof you are filled with AGW propaganda!
I ask you questions and your respond with completely unsubstantiated assertions or personal insults. Why don't you answer questions? Surely, you have REASON to hold the opinions you've expressed over and over again. Why don't you tell us what those reasons are?

Why do you believe CO2 does not drive climate?
 

jon_berzerk

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
7,351
Points
1,130

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
How many times in the last year have "the lefties on the board" mentioned the ToA imbalance? A hundred times? More? And of what is that actually an imbalance? Why it is an imbalance of RADIATION FROM THE SUN and radiation from the Earth. For the Earth to have a stable temperature, they have to be equal. If the former is short, we get colder. If the latter is short, we get hotter. Simple as that. And I'll give you three guesses as to which of the two is short and has been short ever since we had the ability to measure it. But... the first two guesses don't count.
More proof you are filled with AGW propaganda!
I ask you questions and your respond with completely unsubstantiated assertions or personal insults. Why don't you answer questions? Surely, you have REASON to hold the opinions you've expressed over and over again. Why don't you tell us what those reasons are?

Why do you believe CO2 does not drive climate?
CO2 does NOT drive climate and it never has.

This has been explained many times already with real science. I know that is why you didn't understand it.

Still waiting for the datasets and source code (that you claim exists in thousands of papers) that definitely shows that CO2 drives climate.

So you going to back up your AGW religious claims?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,225
Reaction score
13,829
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."

Pacific Ocean warming 15 times faster than before

Water temperatures vary, no surprise there.

How did they arrive at the ocean temperature from 10,000 years ago? How is it any better than a rough estimate?

Ahh, fuck it, they're just totally lying. I don't care about where this "Warming" came from or where it will go or what happens next

My question is: are you really this stupid and gullible that you believe this is real?
Hey man.. We DID that one --- Back in November.. It's MISTITLED as I pointed here..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8088408-post5.html

First of all, their conclusions were RIGHT UP FRONT that it was MUCH WARMER during the MEd Warm Period -- by almost 2degC. A fact that the title doesn't hint at all.. ((AND warmer during other periods in recent history))

And paleo methods like these do not have the TIME RESOLUTION to make claims about about RATES of warming on a decadal scale like our recent run-up.. Although the authors CLAIM to have improved the time resolution of their study, there is no evidence that this type of dating for temperature could accurately detect a 40 or 50 year 1degC runup..

So --- all in all --- this paper was big bummer for AGW. That's why they needed to juice the title and the conclusions... And BURY the conclusions of the data that IN RECENT HISTORY --- it's been much warmer at mid-ocean levels..

IT IS --- a data point. And reading these INDIVIDUAL studies can give us valuable clues to REGIONAL histories of temperature. And that's what its good for..
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
22,441
Reaction score
4,566
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
CO2 does NOT drive climate and it never has.
Kosh hums that like a mantra now. It's what cultists do.

Kosh, your cult leaders want you to know that, being you're a moron who keeps embarrassing the cult, you need to just keep quiet and leave the lying to the denialist professionals.

Now, here's a juice box. Kiddie table is that way.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,363
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Despite their recent denials, the AGW Cult is trying to convince us that the reason for the recent pause in AGW, that is, the decline they try to hide by manipulating the data, really does exist. First, there was no decline, now they admit there is a "pause" but -- the reason for it is" the Pacific Ocean ate my AGW

I know, it's laughable, but bear with me.

"In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."
Climate "scientists" are like the chiropractors of the scientific community. It's all a bunch of quackery.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,363
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
CO2 does NOT drive climate and it never has.
Kosh hums that like a mantra now. It's what cultists do.

Kosh, your cult leaders want you to know that, being you're a moron who keeps embarrassing the cult, you need to just keep quiet and leave the lying to the denialist professionals.

Now, here's a juice box. Kiddie table is that way.
Isn't it cute how he tries to turn around the cult label on normal people who don't belong to his cult? That's how you know his ilk is backed into a corner. Nobody believes their garbage anymore and they just can't stand it.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
22,441
Reaction score
4,566
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
On the one hand, the whole planet. On the other, a handful of bitter political cranks from the lunatic right fringe. Golly, who to trust.

Naturally, the cranks aren't happy with people who point out that they're considered cranks by most of the world.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top