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

[PMZ]

No, child. Your delusions of adequacy are not reality. You know nothing of science; you just know your programming.

Wrong again dumbo. You aren't doing very well debating science, without understanding it. That’s why the education that you passed on was so important.

I debate fine. The problem is, you don't want debate. You want instant, unthinking, unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of the talking points you're programmed with. All you can do is repeat them. You don't understand them, and you can't debate them.

Since I know how important it is to your fragile ego that you be able to pretend you've won, I'll let you have the last word. You're welcome.

Science is not opinion. It's questions are resolved through peer reviewed experiments. It's findings are facts.

The IPCC does that for climate science.

You should stick to your demented politics.

 

[westwall]

Wrong again dumbo. You aren't doing very well debating science, without understanding it. That’s why the education that you passed on was so important.

I debate fine. The problem is, you don't want debate. You want instant, unthinking, unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of the talking points you're programmed with. All you can do is repeat them. You don't understand them, and you can't debate them.

Since I know how important it is to your fragile ego that you be able to pretend you've won, I'll let you have the last word. You're welcome.

Science is not opinion. It's questions are resolved through peer reviewed experiments. It's findings are facts.

The IPCC does that for climate science.

You should stick to your demented politics.

The IPCC used to do good science. Now it is beholden to NGO's and other political operatives. They have destroyed the peer review process in climatology, and become a laughing stock in the scientific world. Now, the only people who care about them are fellow travelers and mentally deficient people such as yourself.

 

[PMZ]

I debate fine. The problem is, you don't want debate. You want instant, unthinking, unquestioning acceptance and endorsement of the talking points you're programmed with. All you can do is repeat them. You don't understand them, and you can't debate them.

Since I know how important it is to your fragile ego that you be able to pretend you've won, I'll let you have the last word. You're welcome.

Science is not opinion. It's questions are resolved through peer reviewed experiments. It's findings are facts.

The IPCC does that for climate science.

You should stick to your demented politics.

The IPCC used to do good science. Now it is beholden to NGO's and other political operatives. They have destroyed the peer review process in climatology, and become a laughing stock in the scientific world. Now, the only people who care about them are fellow travelers and mentally deficient people such as yourself.

No. Denialists are the laughing stock of the scientific world because you propose a world and a pseudoscience for which there's no evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

Didn't get my check from Exxon this month.. The rhetoric is over the top..

Can you see a pattern here?

Skeptic Name RIGHT-WING??? Funded by oil/gas/coal???
Westwall No No
IanC No No
FlaCalTenn No No

Your sample size is too small to make inferences, but I think you should check your premises. And listen to the futility of your own rhetoric.

I didn't say that YOU are funded by Exxon or any other fossil fuel conglomerate. You're just a willing stooge.

Then how are you so certain that those emails were freed by "right wingers funded by big fossil fuel? Thats what you believe ---- right?

I think it was likely to be elements of this "scientific community" that tired of the activism and bullying.. Whose theory is more likely?

Right, the very people who support AGW tried to do it in. Are you drunk? The fact is that the hacking and release of those e-mails just happened to coincide with a major international conference on global warming, and was timed to negatively influence its outcome. And that could only have benefited the those who are fighting so vehemently against AGW. We all know who they are.

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't say that YOU are funded by Exxon or any other fossil fuel conglomerate. You're just a willing stooge.

Then how are you so certain that those emails were freed by "right wingers funded by big fossil fuel? Thats what you believe ---- right?

I think it was likely to be elements of this "scientific community" that tired of the activism and bullying.. Whose theory is more likely?

Right, the very people who support AGW tried to do it in. Are you drunk? The fact is that the hacking and release of those e-mails just happened to coincide with a major international conference on global warming, and was timed to negatively influence its outcome. And that could only have benefited the those who are fighting so vehemently against AGW. We all know who they are.

This is an important and worth discussing oroman.. You're laboring under this tremendous misconception of "consensus". As tho every scientist in the 30 disciplines related to climate science are one happy family and extremely proud of the bullying, grandstanding, and outright shoddy leaps to conclusions. It's not. There is AMPLE evidence that my picture of discontent is more accurate than your picture of consensus. For instance, one poll of AGU and (someother vital bastion of Climate research) says that a full 30% of the participants don't think the proxy science portion is stable or convincing.. (no surprise there).

So where does Law Enforcement FIRST LOOK for the perpetrator? Do they go to the oil companies or talk show hosts? NO. They find all the SPOUSE or the disgruntled INSIDERS who are closest to the scene of the crime and the victim.. Logically --- I have a better theory of who was responsible for embassing these clowns who deserved to be embarrassed..

 

[orogenicman]

Didn't get my check from Exxon this month.. The rhetoric is over the top..

Can you see a pattern here?

Skeptic Name RIGHT-WING??? Funded by oil/gas/coal???
Westwall No No
IanC No No
FlaCalTenn No No

Your sample size is too small to make inferences, but I think you should check your premises. And listen to the futility of your own rhetoric.

I didn't say that YOU are funded by Exxon or any other fossil fuel conglomerate. You're just a willing stooge.

Amazing how much non subject related garbage you and your fellow trolls can puke up in just a few hours every time your "skepticalscience" crap backfires.

You'll have to explain that one since I only posted a graph from that web site, but could just as easily posted the same graph from the original paper from which it came. Stop making excuses for the fact that you got it wrong.

What`s with all these lame "Fox" news remarks?

Since I posted nothing whatsoever about Fox, you'll have to explain this one as well.

Which one of us has ever quoted them and how would any of you know if or what we watch on TV. You figure the only people who laugh at global warming idiots like you live in the US and watch Fox on TV?

Looks like you are the one whining about Fox, since I said nothing about it. But to answer your question, since you asked, no, it appears quite a few live and breath right here on this forum.

How did you wind up having this Fox news fetish and how would you even know what`s on there unless you are watching it as a part of your compulsory anger management program to qualify for an early parole.

Oh my. It looks like you are the one who could use an invitation to an anger management program.

You could not sucker anybody to respond to it so now it`s on to the next best trolling tool...If it`s not a Fox news conspiracy, it`s the "oil lobby" and everybody who is not as dumb as you idiots are is a part of it.

Gee, I mention Exxon and you go on this tirade about Fox. Is there some kind of connection between the two that you aren't telling us?

People like you are socially dysfunctional in a free and competitive society, are low skilled and get twisted out of shape when others succeed.

If you are so successful, how do you manage to spend so much time posting nonsense here?

Thus the only way for mentally handicapped idiots like you to achieve equality is by having a government restricting the rest of us to come down to your level "playing field".

Gee an ad hominem. How quaint.

Equality for all at the price of excellence for none!

That sounds like something a member of the kkk would say. Congratulations.

Neither Exxon nor any other oil company has to beg or coerce anyone to buy the oil they bring to the market.

Indeed, they just run right over anyone who opposes them. Just ask the Nigerians.

Matter of fact the sanctimonious assholes you quote and admire so much are always the first ones to start hording gas or oil futures when trouble looms.

Really? And who is it that I am quoting that does this? In fact, who am I quoting. Do you even know? Who's 'name' is being quoted by me in this very post?

And you would load up every can and container you can get into your car and drive clear across the continent for a 50% gas rebate.

Would I? Why would I do that?

Nobody that reads and quotes the crap like you do, day after day from sun-up to midnight would know how to survive just 30 days if we cut you off oil & gas.

As a matter of fact, I have gone for very long stretches without using any oil or gasoline at all. So I actually know how to do that. And you?

I`m pretty sure you got the same appliances as the rest of us and don`t wait with a magnifying glass in your hand for the sky to clear so that you can roast garden insects for dinner

I'm pretty sure my stereo, coffee maker, refrigerator, computer, and heating and air conditioning unit do NOT run off of oil and gasoline. In fact, I am certain that none of my appliances run off of it, since my electric company uses only natural gas these days, and used coal in the past. It might be possible for you to run all of your appliances off the hot air you spewed in your response, above. You should look into that possibility. It might save you a lot of money.

 

[orogenicman]

Then how are you so certain that those emails were freed by "right wingers funded by big fossil fuel? Thats what you believe ---- right?

I think it was likely to be elements of this "scientific community" that tired of the activism and bullying.. Whose theory is more likely?

Right, the very people who support AGW tried to do it in. Are you drunk? The fact is that the hacking and release of those e-mails just happened to coincide with a major international conference on global warming, and was timed to negatively influence its outcome. And that could only have benefited the those who are fighting so vehemently against AGW. We all know who they are.

This is an important and worth discussing oroman.. You're laboring under this tremendous misconception of "consensus". As tho every scientist in the 30 disciplines related to climate science are one happy family and extremely proud of the bullying, grandstanding, and outright shoddy leaps to conclusions. It's not. There is AMPLE evidence that my picture of discontent is more accurate than your picture of consensus. For instance, one poll of AGU and (someother vital bastion of Climate research) says that a full 30% of the participants don't think the proxy science portion is stable or convincing.. (no surprise there).

So where does Law Enforcement FIRST LOOK for the perpetrator? Do they go to the oil companies or talk show hosts? NO. They find all the SPOUSE or the disgruntled INSIDERS who are closest to the scene of the crime and the victim.. Logically --- I have a better theory of who was responsible for embassing these clowns who deserved to be embarrassed..

Law enforcement has given up on finding the perpetrators because trying to track hackers on a tight law enforcement budget is virtually impossible. What is clear from the timeline of events is that minutes to hours after the hacking occurred, the files showed up on a Russian server (Russia has been very vocally opposed to any international agreement on climate change, as has the energy sector of this country and their unpaid lackeys such as people like polar teddy bear, and even you) , and then some hours later, on denier web sites. Do you deny this? Now, I am not saying that you or anyone here had anything to do with it; of course you did not.

The point is that I have yet to see a single denier complain about or condemn such criminal and unethical behavior being used instead of actually confronting the science itself. It does point, in large measure, to desperation on your side of the argument.

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't say that YOU are funded by Exxon or any other fossil fuel conglomerate. You're just a willing stooge.

Amazing how much non subject related garbage you and your fellow trolls can puke up in just a few hours every time your "skepticalscience" crap backfires.

You'll have to explain that one since I only posted a graph from that web site, but could just as easily posted the same graph from the original paper from which it came. Stop making excuses for the fact that you got it wrong.

That's funny --- cause I ASKED YOU about the source of that MANUFACTURED graph and you never responded. And of COURSE, the TSI chart on that graph looks NOTHING LIKE any of the satellite record data as PBear pointed out. Like I said, MOST of the crap on that website is MADE UP or RETOUCHED or otherwise FUDGED.. If there's a source and a paper --- I'd love to be proven wrong. For once...........................

<<<<< EDIT >>>>> News Flash..

I donned my total isolation suit and briefly braved the skepticalscience sewers to retrieve the CAPTION from the graph you posted.

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.

Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit...
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????

 

[flacaltenn]

Right, the very people who support AGW tried to do it in. Are you drunk? The fact is that the hacking and release of those e-mails just happened to coincide with a major international conference on global warming, and was timed to negatively influence its outcome. And that could only have benefited the those who are fighting so vehemently against AGW. We all know who they are.

This is an important and worth discussing oroman.. You're laboring under this tremendous misconception of "consensus". As tho every scientist in the 30 disciplines related to climate science are one happy family and extremely proud of the bullying, grandstanding, and outright shoddy leaps to conclusions. It's not. There is AMPLE evidence that my picture of discontent is more accurate than your picture of consensus. For instance, one poll of AGU and (someother vital bastion of Climate research) says that a full 30% of the participants don't think the proxy science portion is stable or convincing.. (no surprise there).

So where does Law Enforcement FIRST LOOK for the perpetrator? Do they go to the oil companies or talk show hosts? NO. They find all the SPOUSE or the disgruntled INSIDERS who are closest to the scene of the crime and the victim.. Logically --- I have a better theory of who was responsible for embassing these clowns who deserved to be embarrassed..

Law enforcement has given up on finding the perpetrators because trying to track hackers on a tight law enforcement budget is virtually impossible. What is clear from the timeline of events is that minutes to hours after the hacking occurred, the files showed up on a Russian server, and then some hours later, on denier web sites. Do you deny this?

What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks???

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.

 

[orogenicman]

Amazing how much non subject related garbage you and your fellow trolls can puke up in just a few hours every time your "skepticalscience" crap backfires.

You'll have to explain that one since I only posted a graph from that web site, but could just as easily posted the same graph from the original paper from which it came. Stop making excuses for the fact that you got it wrong.

That's funny --- cause I ASKED YOU about the source of that MANUFACTURED graph and you never responded. And of

If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked. The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

FUDGED.. If there's a source and a paper --- I'd love to be proven wrong. For once...........................

Consider yourself proven wrong.

While you are checking that out, you should also read this one, which is more recent:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107204235.htm

 

[flacaltenn]

You'll have to explain that one since I only posted a graph from that web site, but could just as easily posted the same graph from the original paper from which it came. Stop making excuses for the fact that you got it wrong.

That's funny --- cause I ASKED YOU about the source of that MANUFACTURED graph and you never responded. And of

If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked. The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

FUDGED.. If there's a source and a paper --- I'd love to be proven wrong. For once...........................

Consider yourself proven wrong.

Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it..

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.



Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit...
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????

See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.

 

[orogenicman]

This is an important and worth discussing oroman.. You're laboring under this tremendous misconception of "consensus". As tho every scientist in the 30 disciplines related to climate science are one happy family and extremely proud of the bullying, grandstanding, and outright shoddy leaps to conclusions. It's not. There is AMPLE evidence that my picture of discontent is more accurate than your picture of consensus. For instance, one poll of AGU and (someother vital bastion of Climate research) says that a full 30% of the participants don't think the proxy science portion is stable or convincing.. (no surprise there).

So where does Law Enforcement FIRST LOOK for the perpetrator? Do they go to the oil companies or talk show hosts? NO. They find all the SPOUSE or the disgruntled INSIDERS who are closest to the scene of the crime and the victim.. Logically --- I have a better theory of who was responsible for embassing these clowns who deserved to be embarrassed..

Law enforcement has given up on finding the perpetrators because trying to track hackers on a tight law enforcement budget is virtually impossible. What is clear from the timeline of events is that minutes to hours after the hacking occurred, the files showed up on a Russian server, and then some hours later, on denier web sites. Do you deny this?

What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks???

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.

You miss the point. The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts. But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts. Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm only speculating because my speculation is better than your speculation.



Right now --- I'm anticipating a total conversion on your part once you've realized how badly you've been duped by skepticalscience.

 

[orogenicman]

That's funny --- cause I ASKED YOU about the source of that MANUFACTURED graph and you never responded. And of

If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked. The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions



Consider yourself proven wrong.

Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it..

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.



Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit...
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????

See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.

You are confused. Solanki's data is not from PMOD. His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

 

[orogenicman]

I'm only speculating because my speculation is better than your speculation.



Right now --- I'm anticipating a total conversion on your part once you've realized how badly you've been duped by skepticalscience.

Dude, if skepticalscience.com was the only place I get my information on climate science, you still would lose the argument. The fact of the matter is that I rarely go there for any reason. I usually read from Nature, Science, or similar sources. But as popular science web sites go, skepticalscience.com is orders of magnitude better than anything you deniers have.

As for my speculating, you'll have to point out where I speculated with regard to the e-gate crapola your side would have the world believe makes any difference (of course, it does not). I simply stated what is known. You speculated because that's all you have.

 

[flacaltenn]

If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked. The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions



Consider yourself proven wrong.

Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it..

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.



Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit...
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????

See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.

You are confused. Solanki's data is not from PMOD. His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKE.. Those morons FORGED the PMOD data.

I understand that Solanki data goes to 1978.. And the PMOD data goes from 1979..

THAT IS NOT THE PMOD DATA --- Got it? There is no "SAGGY DICK" feature in the PMOD data around 2008..

Compare for yourself at http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-13.html#post8132432


Start your conversion to the dark side.
And NEVER shove any shit at us from skepticalscience again...

 

[orogenicman]

So, no response to this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

 

[orogenicman]

Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it..



See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.

You are confused. Solanki's data is not from PMOD. His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKE.. Those morons FORGED the PMOD data.

I understand that Solanki data goes to 1978.. And the PMOD data goes from 1979..

THAT IS NOT THE PMOD DATA --- Got it? There is no "SAGGY DICK" feature in the PMOD data around 2008..

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

 

[flacaltenn]

You are confused. Solanki's data is not from PMOD. His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKE.. Those morons FORGED the PMOD data.

I understand that Solanki data goes to 1978.. And the PMOD data goes from 1979..

THAT IS NOT THE PMOD DATA --- Got it? There is no "SAGGY DICK" feature in the PMOD data around 2008..

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

 

[PMZ]

I don't know why all of the interest exists in things that we don't have control over.

There is only one variable that we can choose to control, it is unarguably leading us to a warmer climate, so the only analysis that's useful is what are the likely consequences from that variable given a couple of alternative actions on our part?

Everything else is noise.