What the science says

[CrusaderFrank]

No response? I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.

What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities. That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.

Since the AGW Cult can't show a single experiment, we conclude that $2.5Billion annually buys an awful lot of consensus

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I'd believe in the Toof Fairy for $2.5 Bil!

 

[Crick]

No response? I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.

What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities. That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.

Since the AGW Cult can't show a single experiment, we conclude that $2.5Billion annually buys an awful lot of consensus

So, the world's climate scientists are all lying to make money from research grants that don't give them any.

It doesn't matter what their politics or religion or personal ethics might be - they're all on it. Right? And none of them have ever confessed to the conspiracy. The conspiracy is perfect. Got it.

Fool.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Not all of them are lying. Others are probably licking al the boots they can, to obtain the peer reviews it takes to get into the big clique.

At this point, it's all political.

 

[Crick]

The evidence says quite clearly that you are incorrect.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

 

[jc456]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

as did the AR5 document explaining it as 'excess heat' in the oceans. Frank posted it awhile ago:

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:

1. What is Excess Heat?
2. Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
3. Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The ocean ate muh globull warmie!

 

[mamooth]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive

The models have been excellent. All the real scientists know that. All the informed people know that. Hence, that big whopper you just told is only going to fool your fellow cultists. Everyone else knows you're just making up nonsense.

Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

True. You deniers have failed hard with your "ice age just around the corner!" for over 40 years now. In contrast, all the real scientist have been correctly predicting warming all that time.

That is, your cult is completely incompetent. Own it.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Trenberth was referring to how the lack of instrumentation to measure the warming was a travesty. He was certainly not saying there was no warming, and only liars pretend he did.

So, since you repeated that big lie so loudly and proudly, why should anyone trust you in the future?

We do understand. You didn't know you were lying. Your cult tells you things, so you repeat them without thinking. You're not the first cult parrot we've seen, and you won't be the last. Just try to understand that you've been brainwashed, and everyone outside of your cult can see that clearly. Whether you can overcome your brainwashing is up to you. All we can do is continue to point out your really suckass science.

Oh, I suggest you not run back to your cult blogs to get some denier cult fudged data to cut-and-paste, like cultists usually do at this point. We've seen it hundreds of times before.

 

[hauke]

the current science says :
the climate is changing

its getting hotter

humans are responsible

thats what science says

 

[hauke]

science says the human race is changing the climate, humans ha´ve the posibility to change climate so much that earth will become uninhabitable.
meaning that if we keep up fucking earth we will destroy all life on earth.

humanity can kill all life on earth

 

[hauke]

but it won t be humanity it will be 10 000 people who own earth it will be 10 000 arseholes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but it won t be humanity it will be 10 000 people who own earth it will be 10 000 arseholes

We'll miss you. Moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No response? I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.

What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities. That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.

Since the AGW Cult can't show a single experiment, we conclude that $2.5Billion annually buys an awful lot of consensus

So, the world's climate scientists are all lying to make money from research grants that don't give them any.

It doesn't matter what their politics or religion or personal ethics might be - they're all on it. Right? And none of them have ever confessed to the conspiracy. The conspiracy is perfect. Got it.

Fool.

The AGW Cult is 97% in on the fraud.

Yes.

Absolutely

 

[Crick]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

So, you don't know what you're talking about or you choose to lie

 

[Crick]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

as did the AR5 document explaining it as 'excess heat' in the oceans. Frank posted it awhile ago:

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:

1. What is Excess Heat?
2. Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
3. Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

I'm curious jc, what is there about the IPCC statement that you find... enlightening and why do you choose to once again empahasize your general ignorance in this manner?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

as did the AR5 document explaining it as 'excess heat' in the oceans. Frank posted it awhile ago:

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:

1. What is Excess Heat?
2. Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
3. Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

I'm curious jc, what is there about the IPCC statement that you find... enlightening and why do you choose to once again empahasize your general ignorance in this manner?

Crick, remember when you said "excess heat" was a made up concept with no scientific relevance?

 

[jc456]

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never ever been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

as did the AR5 document explaining it as 'excess heat' in the oceans. Frank posted it awhile ago:

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:

1. What is Excess Heat?
2. Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
3. Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

I'm curious jc, what is there about the IPCC statement that you find... enlightening and why do you choose to once again empahasize your general ignorance in this manner?

the fact that they didn't find any warming that matched any model and then claimed the oceans ate it. how about that? I've posted that excerpt many different times in here. Oh, and during the time, CO2 increased. Look, it's very simple, either you can provide the piece you feel supports observed empirical evidence to your claim or not. you just writing down IPCC so there, doesn't cut the mustard big fella!! So why don't you post up the observed empirical evidence that supports AGW. Why are you afraid to post? Got nothing?

 

[Crick]

the fact that they didn't find any warming that matched any model and then claimed the oceans ate it. how about that?

The oceans will always "eat" more than 90% of any excess heat (yes, I used the term) available in the Earth's climate system. Warm water WAS driven deep during that period but Trenberth and Balmaseda both said that it wasn't enough. That was found when Karl improved the polar temperature records.

I've posted that excerpt many different times in here. Oh, and during the time, CO2 increased.

CO2 has't stopped increasing since the Keeling curves were started.

Look, it's very simple, either you can provide the piece you feel supports observed empirical evidence to your claim or not. you just writing down IPCC so there, doesn't cut the mustard big fella!! So why don't you post up the observed empirical evidence that supports AGW. Why are you afraid to post? Got nothing?

Sorry, that's all you get. If you want to see what's there, you'll have to do some reading. If you don't or - as seems most likely - you don't care, feel free to post your ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

Your first sentence stated the consensus. That the earth is warming, that GHGs produced by man are a factor, and probably the major factor, in that warming. And there are many on this board that deny that, and people like Inhofe also deny that.

As for how far the temperature will rise by 2100, 3C is considered a possibility. A meter rise in the sea level is also possible. I would hope that those numbers are wrong. But there is the possibility that they may be underestimates. We saw that with the estimates for the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap. The Northwest Passage was predicted to open by the latter part of the 21st century in Dr. James Hansen's 1981 paper. It opened in 2007. What other surprises does the warming have for us?