Solar scientists say the "Grand Minimum" will cause a mini ice age next few years..

[edthecynic]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

SO in your estimation a sensor that is accurate to +/- .02 deg C and it's depth is tightly controlled is suspect and water from an intake sensor that is accurate to +/-2.0 deg C and whos depth is anybodies guess is better...?? SO your answer ,like theirs, is to adjust up the more precise measurements to meet the crap measurements that are not tightly controlled..... Fucking Idiot..

 

[edthecynic]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

 

[edthecynic]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

SO in your estimation a sensor that is accurate to +/- .02 deg C is suspect and water from an intake sensor that is accurate to +/-2.0 deg C is better... SO your answer ,like theirs, is to adjust up the more precise measurements to meet the crap measurements that are not tightly controlled..... Fucking Idiot..

A typical denier Straw Man argument. I said no such thing. A number of buoys were found to have defective depth sensors yielding bad data because the buoys were much deeper than the sensors reported. When deniers demand "raw" data they want that bad data included because deeper water is colder.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

"Inaccurate" means it refuses to validate your failed theory and needs to have its baseline adjusted

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

"Inaccurate" means it refuses to validate your failed theory and needs to have its baseline adjusted

Thomas Karl didn't like that the oceans were cooling so he choose a path that exposed him as both a liar and a fraudster simply by using empirical evidence...

 

[Billy_Bob]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

All of science is fake to these conservative voodoo idiots. Seriously, if they had their way we'd go back to witch doctors and men of god to tell us how the world works. These people would tell us that God does it all and that would be all! In their mind science and all the data above is evil and should be burnt.

This is the conclusion I've made. They hate it and won't even consider it.

The only one practicing voodoo is you... Does your magic make it warmer?

 

[edthecynic]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

 

[edthecynic]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

"Inaccurate" means it refuses to validate your failed theory and needs to have its baseline adjusted

Thomas Karl didn't like that the oceans were cooling so he choose a path that exposed him as both a liar and a fraudster simply by using empirical evidence...

That lie has been thoroughly debunked, especially the fake graph that deniers fabricated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Raw Buoy data

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

lol

No... it does not.. Too Funny; why didn't you post that this is a Karl Et Al graph? All I can do is laugh at the Goebbels method of creating an alternate reality..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

Right, that's all I have....just mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the consensus of the global scientiifc community. But I should ignore all that and listen to a guy who vomits a stream of lies about this topic and has no education or experience in the field. Seems legit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The pause is real and now 20 years 4 months long and possibly a lot longer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

Right, that's all I have....just mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the consensus of the global scientiifc community. But I should ignore all that and listen to a guy who vomits a stream of lies about this topic and has no education or experience in the field. Seems legit.

Were you sleeping through Climate-gate and the exposure of all your scientific propaganda whores? Political statements made by a select few and the rank and file do not agree with or support. Do you know why the AGU refused to post up their vote count? It decimated the narrative..

 

[Billy_Bob]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

Right, that's all I have....just mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the consensus of the global scientiifc community. But I should ignore all that and listen to a guy who vomits a stream of lies about this topic and has no education or experience in the field. Seems legit.

PAL REVIEW was a classic way of keeping only the alarmist side published and keeping opposing science from being seen.. Once you owned the reviewers you owned and controlled the publishing. Peer review by circle jerk.. pass your paper to your pal to the left.. And you wonder why Journals don't carry any weight anymore and real scientists have semi-open blog's now to post their work and have discussions. Being published is now bordering on meaningless.

Speaking of vomiting lies and deceptions, I'm feed up with yours. I have a masters in atmospheric physics and 3 years of doctoral work completed. The major problem with the current college system is that staff do not teach critical thought and questioning of the status quo dogma. This is the antithesis of science where everything is questioned. You touting that everything is settled marks you a science denier and a duped fool..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The pause is real and now 20 years 4 months long and possibly a lot longer.

View attachment 149494

The pause is not real, nor does that graph lend a shred of support to what you are saying. you clearly have zero idea what that graph represents.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

FAKE ocean heat content above. (not even labeled properly in Joules)
REAL ocean heat content below.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

Right, that's all I have....just mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the consensus of the global scientiifc community. But I should ignore all that and listen to a guy who vomits a stream of lies about this topic and has no education or experience in the field. Seems legit.

Were you sleeping through Climate-gate and the exposure of all your scientific propaganda whores? Political statements made by a select few and the rank and file do not agree with or support. Do you know why the AGU refused to post up their vote count? It decimated the narrative..

There was no "Climate gate". That's a debunked myth. See, that's the problem with engaging irrational deniers like you.... people will take the trouble to show you why the things you say are false and ridiculous, and you just repeat them, anyway. But, of course, it's everyone else's fault you are relegated to the blogosphere and producing zero science. Everyone is lying! Everyone is engaged in a giant conspiracy , and only Americans living within 20 miles of a trailer park have figured it out! heh heh