The Sound of Settled Science

[SSDD]

Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O 2 and CO 2 composition | Nature

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates. Among other things, this raises the lower end of the range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5C back to 2.0C.

How much warmer are those deep oceans in degrees? And explain the mechanism by which mans CO2 emissions in the atmosphere warmed them.

Let me guess...you don't know how much warmer in degrees, or are to embarrassed to say it...and you can't even begin to describe a rational, scientifically valid mechanism for the atmosphere warming the deep oceans...

You are easily fooled skidmark.

Another thing...I guess you are unaware that they are estimating the entire heat uptake of all the oceans since 1991on atmospheric measurements of O2 and CO2, not on actual temperatures...that is right up there with claiming to have found the tropospheric hot spot in wind instead of temperatures...if this is the sort of bullshit that convinces you that climate science is right, then you are even more stupid than I thought...and I have always thought that in addition to being a congenital liar, you were a top shelf moron.

 

[Crick]

Let me guess. You haven't read the study. Just like you never read any part of AR5.

That they are calculating ocean heat content from atmospheric O2 and CO2 content is the basis of the fucking study.

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Let me guess. You haven't read the study. Just like you never read any part of AR5.

That they are calculating ocean heat content from atmospheric O2 and CO2 content is the basis of the fucking study.

God are you stupid.

Sorry crick....but you are the stupid one...and the dupe...
paper: (bolding mine)


Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20 × 1022 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks.

Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise.

Like I said.....they are claiming that the warming can't be measured with a thermometer, but they can find it via measurements of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere...You are an idiot crick...an idiot and a liar.

By the way, that is from the abstract and does the abstract not describe the basis of the study?

 

[Crick]

You are claiming that you understand basic physics better than the ten PhD scientists who conducted this study and the several more PhDs who reviewed it for Nature.

Please explain to us why we should consider such an idiotic and absurd claim for even a second.

 

[SSDD]

You are claiming that you understand basic physics better than the ten PhD scientists who conducted this study and the several more PhDs who reviewed it for Nature.

Please explain to us why we should consider such an idiotic and absurd claim for even a second.

Explain why, if deep ocean warming can not be detected with the sophisticated and very accurate thermometers we have at our disposal, I should believe that the deep oceans are warming based on the measurement of atmospheric gasses. If warming were happening, don't you think that thermometers could detect it?

Logical fallacies don't cut it crick...give me a reason to believe that warming in the deep oceans that is undetectable via thermometer can be detected via O2 and CO2 measurements in the atmosphere...and logical fallacies such as appeal to authority are not valid reasons.

 

[Crick]

Explain why we should take your word against ten thousand PhD scientists?

 

[SSDD]

Explain why we should take your word against ten thousand PhD scientists?

Because they can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can they produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...nor have the produced a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

That being said, why should I believe them? Why should anyone? Just because they call themselves scientists?.....as if scientists...large groups of them have never been wrong before on topics which they actually had goodly amounts of observed measured evidence to support their hypotheses.

 

[Crick]

The ONLY person who thinks there is no evidence is you, fool.

 

[SSDD]

The ONLY person who thinks there is no evidence is you, fool.

Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else. I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?

 

[Crick]

The ONLY person who thinks there is no evidence is you, fool.

Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else. I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

The evidence is in the 70+ pages of reference material to WG-I's Chapters 2 and 3. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

In the manner and for the purpose you ask, yes. AGW is not based on a single piece of evidence. It is based on thousands.

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Again, when your intent is to sow doubt where none actually exists, it IS unreasonable. That the Greenhouse Effect warms the atmosphere is supported by mountains of evidence and is essentially universally accepted.

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

The IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are assessments of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies which characterize the warming we have experienced and ascribe that warming to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. If that does not satisfy you, nothing will.

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?

Is it really too much to ask of you that you examine in at least some detail the multitude of studies on which the acceptance of AGW by the vast majority of the world's scientists is based? Is it really too much to ask you to assume that people with PhDs who've spent their lives conducting research on these very topics might be better acquainted with these topics than are you? Is it really too much to ask that you abandon the nonsensical idea that 97% of the world's climate scientists are all involved in a perfectly maintained conspiracy out of simple greed? Is it too much to ask that you stop insisting things are true that you know for a fact are not? It is too much to ask you to stop lying?

 

[SSDD]

The evidence is in the 70+ pages of reference material to WG-I's Chapters 2 and 3. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Nothing has been pointed out...you claim it is there but don't seem to be able to post it here. Posting your bullshit on every thread is not fooling anyone crick...anyone with any capacity to think at all knows that if you had posted even a single piece of evidence that I had asked for, it would be that evidence that you would be posting on every thread...rather than a weak, impotent, mewling, lying dodge that no one is falling for.
You lost a lot of face today and you aren't getting it back unless you can post the evidence you claimed existed and are now dishonestly claiming that you posted...and we both know that it isn't going to happen.

You are laughing stock...how do you like it?

In the manner and for the purpose you ask, yes. AGW is not based on a single piece of evidence. It is based on thousands.

Of course not...but rather than ask for an overwhelming body of evidence...or proof, I ask for just one piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you believe that is an unreasonable request? You are a complete idiot.

Again, when your intent is to sow doubt where none actually exists, it IS unreasonable. That the Greenhouse Effect warms the atmosphere is supported by mountains of evidence and is essentially universally accepted.

My intent was to have at least one piece of actual observed, measured evidence to look at ...And if the greenhouse effect is supported by mountains of observed, measured evidence, by all means bring a bit of it here...

I am saying that the greenhouse effect has been in dispute since it was first put on the table...No less than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius said that it was not a viable hypothesis and after 120 years, there is still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to offer up in its support....prove me wrong...

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

The IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are assessments of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies which characterize the warming we have experienced and ascribe that warming to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. If that does not satisfy you, nothing will.[//quote]

All models and wild assed bullshit guesses. Nothing more or you would be bringing it here to slap me down.

Is it really too much to ask of you that you examine in at least some detail the multitude of studies on which the acceptance of AGW by the vast majority of the world's scientists is based?

I have skidmark...probably much more of it than you...which is why I can make the statements I have made with perfect confidence that no one will be delivering the simple straight forward pieces of evidence I have asked for...there is none. It isn't my fault that you are easily swayed by bullshit.

Is it really too much to ask you to assume that people with PhDs who've spent their lives conducting research on these very topics might be better acquainted with these topics than are you? [/qyite]

Yes it is when they are unable to provide observed measured evidence to support their hypotheses.

Either you have the evidence or you don't...and since climate science hasn't provided you with any...you don't...and yet, you believe. How stupid is that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Despite unanimous agreement on the sign of the trends, substantial disagreement exists among available estimates as to the rate of temperature changes, particularly outside the NH extratropical troposphere, which has been well sampled by radiosondes. Hence there is only medium confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure in the NH extratropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere.

Little or no evidence of CAGW....

Way to go.... You just shot yourself in the damn foot....

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 226049

Asshole, have you nothing of substance to contribute to the debate? Thus far, all you have been is a brainless troll, worth no respect at all. The science is settled. The absorption spectra of the GHG's was first measured one hundred and sixty years ago. The prediction of Arrhenious, made in 1896, are being borne out. The predictions of Dr. James Hansen, made in the 1980's, are spot on, and, if anything, are a bit conservative.

And yet radiosonds says your GISS fantasy is pure bull shit...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O 2 and CO 2 composition | Nature

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates. Among other things, this raises the lower end of the range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5C back to 2.0C.

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates.

Is that an actual measurement of ocean heating?

Or is it, we don't know why the atmosphere isn't heating more, so we'll use this ocean fudge-factor?

 

[SSDD]

Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O 2 and CO 2 composition | Nature

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates. Among other things, this raises the lower end of the range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5C back to 2.0C.

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates.

Is that an actual measurement of ocean heating?

Or is it, we don't know why the atmosphere isn't heating more, so we'll use this ocean fudge-factor?

Try and get any of them to talk to you about the actual temperatures in degrees and how much change they are talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O 2 and CO 2 composition | Nature

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates. Among other things, this raises the lower end of the range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5C back to 2.0C.

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates.

Is that an actual measurement of ocean heating?

Or is it, we don't know why the atmosphere isn't heating more, so we'll use this ocean fudge-factor?

Try and get any of them to talk to you about the actual temperatures in degrees and how much change they are talking about.

Just because their idiocy involves spending trillions of tax dollars doesn't minimize your ignorance of basic physics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or is it, we don't know why the atmosphere isn't heating more, so we'll use this ocean fudge-factor?

WE have our daily WINNER!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O 2 and CO 2 composition | Nature

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates. Among other things, this raises the lower end of the range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5C back to 2.0C.

New study in Nature showing ocean heating to be at the upper range of previous estimates.

Is that an actual measurement of ocean heating?

Or is it, we don't know why the atmosphere isn't heating more, so we'll use this ocean fudge-factor?

Try and get any of them to talk to you about the actual temperatures in degrees and how much change they are talking about.

I had to laugh when they were all upity about 3/1000 of a degree.. Most devices have no ability to determine that temperature change under pressure in the ocean.

How stupid do they think we the people are? The "model says"..... says it all...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Explain why we should take your word against ten thousand PhD scientists?

Some of those PHD's Predicted/Projected the Troposphere "hot spot" with their AGW based climate models, but the phenomenon doesn't exist in the real world.

How do you explain it, Crick?

 

[SSDD]

Explain why we should take your word against ten thousand PhD scientists?

Some of those PHD's Predicted/Projected the Troposphere "hot spot" with their AGW based climate models, but the phenomenon doesn't exist in the real world.

How do you explain it, Crick?

they claim to have found it in the wind...a million radiosondes couldn't measure it but they found it in the wind....like they have found the deep ocean heat via measurements of atmospheric CO2 and O2...can't be measured with a thermometer, but apparently they can see it clearly in CO2 and O2 proxies....and I guess in a crystal ball.