Research shows humans are primary cause of global ocean warming

Jun 11, 2012 by Anne M Stark
Pacific and Atlantic Ocean zonal average cross sections (surface to 700 meters) of temperature changes for 1955 to 2011. Each globe represents a decadal average. The foreground is the most recent decade and preceding decades are in the background. Red represents warming ocean, white no change, and blue for cooling with respect to a 1957-1990 average. Data was provided from the National Oceanographic Data Centre (NODC) World Ocean Database (WOD). Graphic by Timo Bremer/LLNL.

(Phys.org) -- The oceans have warmed in the past 50 years, but not by natural events alone.

New research by a team of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists and international collaborators shows that the observed ocean warming over the last 50 years is consistent with only if the models include the impacts of observed increases in during the 20th century.

Though the new research is not the first study to identify a on observed ocean warming, it is the first to provide an in-depth examination of how observational and modeling uncertainties impact the conclusion that humans are primarily responsible.

"We have taken a closer look at factors that influence these results," said Peter Gleckler, an LLNL and lead author of the new study that appears in the June 10 edition of the journal, Nature Climate Change. "The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The group looked at the average temperature (or ) in the upper layers of the ocean. The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters) is approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years. The sub-surface ocean warming is noticeably less than the observed Earth surface warming, primarily because of the relatively slow transfer of warming to lower depths. Nevertheless, because of the ocean's enormous , the oceans likely account for more than 90 percent of the heat accumulated over the past 50 years as the Earth has warmed.  

In this study the team, including observational experts from the United States, Japan and Australia, examined the causes of ocean warming using improved observational estimates. They also used results from a large multi-model archive of control simulations (that don't include the effects of humans, but do include natural variability), which were compared to simulations that included the effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases over the 20th century.

"By using a "multi-model ensemble," we were better able to characterize decadal-scale natural climate variability, which is a critical aspect of the detection and attribution of a human-caused signal. What we are trying to do is determine if the observed warming pattern can be explained by natural variability alone," Gleckler said. "Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role."   

Livermore co-authors include Benjamin Santer, Karl Taylor and Peter Caldwell, whose work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (contract DE-AC52-07NA27344).

Explore further: Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

More information: Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1553

Related Stories

Separating signal and noise in climate warming

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

Recommended for you

Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

2 hours ago

The severe drought gripping the western United States in recent years is changing the landscape well beyond localized effects of water restrictions and browning lawns. Scientists at Scripps Institution of ...

A NASA satellite double-take at Hurricane Lowell

2 hours ago

Lowell is now a large hurricane in the Eastern Pacific and NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites double-teamed it to provide infrared and radar data to scientists. Lowell strengthened into a hurricane during the ...

Arctic sea ice influenced force of the Gulf Stream

4 hours ago

The force of the Gulf Stream was significantly influenced by the sea ice situation in the Fram Strait in the past 30,000 years. Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ...

User comments : 169

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birger
3.6 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2012
Cue for denilaist rant in 3...2...1...
Origin
1 / 5 (21) Jun 11, 2012
In my theory the oceans are heated spontaneously with decay of radioactive elements (potassium in particular) accelerated with elevated concentration of neutrinos from cloud of dark matter, passing through solar system. There is global heat content anomaly, which indicates the oceans are warming faster than the atmosphere itself - despite they have much larger heat capacity. The temperature of oceans rises steadily, whereas the global atmosphere temperature suffered with relative cooling in the 2002 - 2010 period. Recently warm currents were found, which are heating the Antarctica from the bottom. Of course, this theory still holds lot of water - but there are many indicia, that the global warming occurs at the another planets of solar system too.
Origin
1 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2012
There are another phenomena, which do indicate, something strange happens inside of solar system. The magnetic poles of Earth are travelling with increased rate, geomagnetic anomalies are expanding, the geovolcanic activity is on the rise, the physical constants are changing.. I would recommend to analyse all these changes as a whole, because the isolated phenomena provide only weak clue of what is actually going on.
Origin
1.1 / 5 (18) Jun 11, 2012
My theory is based on assumption, that the neutrinos from dark matter can affect the speed of decay of radioactive elements and we have many evidence for it. At the same cases, this influence can be surprisingly pronounced.
Origin
2 / 5 (23) Jun 11, 2012
The article itself is named Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales - which I do perceive rather strange, because the suggestive interpretation of data should never appear in the title of rigorous scientific article. IMO this interpretation is very vague too - I don't see any single logical evidence in the article, that the global warming is really caused just with humans. Such an interpretation is indeed possible or even probable - but how to prove it just with measurements of ocean temperatures? Such a headline is therefore a prime example of scientific journalism.
dogbert
2 / 5 (35) Jun 11, 2012
In this study the team, including observational experts from the United States, Japan and Australia, examined the causes of ocean warming using improved observational estimates.


Note that these are estimates of .1 degree over a period of 50 years. Estimates. This estimated infinitesimal change is then modeled on unvalidated computer models.

Then, bingo, we know that human activity caused this.

Psychic readings are more likely to be accurate.

Of course, when a political agenda is the goal, psychic readings would be used if they were thought to be convincing.
vlaaing peerd
3.3 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2012
Cue for denilaist rant in 3...2...1...


Lol. So the neutrino/solar radiation crackpot got here first. Still took 53 minutes before the first denialist entered the room.

Instead of checking if the effects are really caused by us, try considering minimizing our footprint anyhow. I don't see how our carbon emission and resource depletion would do us any good, even in the unlikeliness it doesn't cause any side-effects at all.
CapitalismPrevails
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2012
OK, 3...2...1...yeah this article is vague but here ya go.
http://seoblackha...jupiter/
Livermore co-authors include ... whose work was funded by the U.S. Department of (NO) Energy
I guess these people don't have every incentive to prop up AGW and dub it "SCIENCE" or now it's "climate change" so they won't run out of research grants.
Origin
1.9 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2012
Global warming on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Enceladus, Saturn, Mars or even Pluto... These observations don't call the global warming at the Earth into question at all (on the contrary) - but they at least render the anthropocentric origin of global warming problematic.
wiyosaya
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2012
Cue for denilaist rant in 3...2...1...


Lol. So the neutrino/solar radiation crackpot got here first. Still took 53 minutes before the first denialist entered the room.

Instead of checking if the effects are really caused by us, try considering minimizing our footprint anyhow. I don't see how our carbon emission and resource depletion would do us any good, even in the unlikeliness it doesn't cause any side-effects at all.

I agree. Minimization of humanity's footprint is a good idea whether or not humanity is having an effect.

Trying to get that through to those in the denialist category is going to be like finding a nanoparticle in a haystack. I am sure many of them have the opinion that if there is no effect, why should we moderate our consumption. The only thing the denialists are interested in is not having their world-view shattered.
SteveL
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2012
Global warming on http://www.scienc...6.htm... These observations don't call the global warming at the Earth into question at all (on the contrary) - but they at least render the anthropocentric origin of global warming problematic.

Ah, if it were proven to be true that our solar system is heating up generally, then it might still be a good idea to do what mankind can to reduce our greenhouse potential. At some point the cause becomes moot and what we plan to do about it becomes the only real issue.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2012
What are the "developing" countries doing to help prevent this AGW? There are more of them than there are of us in our developed Western countries. Their governments have been receiving billions of dollars in foreign aid each year from us. What have they been doing with all that money? Why are there no spreadsheets available for each of those developing countries to see where the money is going and for what purpose and the results of that spending? I would like to see in print what my tax money is going for and to make sure that it's going for the benefit of the people and not the politicians and military in each third world country.
Nobody is trying to deny that there is 'global warming'. There is no denial of that. The world cools and warms in cycles. But the point is that the ocean warming that they quote is such a minuscule rise in temperature and they are too quick to blame it on human activity without having examined other possible causes also.
And then, they want money from us.
Terriva
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2012
What are the "developing" countries doing to help prevent this AGW..they want money from us
The carbon footprint of most of developing countries is still negligible. In addition, due the various neocolonialistic synergies, their economy is still heavily exploited with more advanced countries.

http://upload.wik...ntry.png
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (37) Jun 11, 2012
Nobody is trying to deny that there is 'global warming'. There is no denial of that.
Many people here are denying that. Cant you freeking read?
The world cools and warms in cycles.
And how would you know either way? I know - you just like to talk because you just like to talk. And it doesnt really concern you that what often comes out is pure ignorance. Right ritchie/pirouette/russkiye?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2012
You mean developing countries like China, Russia and India is included in that? I read that China now surpasses the USA for pollution production and the government has warned American Embassies in Beijing and other cities to stop measuring the air pollution and sending the results off. They make a pretense of diminishing their pollutants to satisfy the West. They have over 2 billion people now, many with lung diseases. At least in the USA, we are motivating power companies to use air scrubbers and filters. I think they will be given a hefty fine if they don't comply. So WE are doing some good here WITHOUT the U.N and being coerced into it.
It's not only African and Asian countries, it's major nuclear superpowers who are polluting the air.
But it's still important to know what African and small Asian countries are doing with the foreign aid we give them.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 11, 2012
I am not Russkiy and I am not those other names, and I will add each new post from that weirdo to the next email that I send to Phys.org administration. I have sent 2 emails already, and I can see a third one will be necessary.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2012
31 mile long Hydrothermal vents pumping super-heated water into Gulf of California

"Super-heated water (550°F hot) spews from the Alarcón Rise. The mineral-rich water from this black smoker looks like smoke because of the mineral particles that form as the hot fluid contacts cold seawater."

http://iceagenow....ifornia/
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2012
Here's a fair assessment from NOAA regarding the data on ocean heat content data as of 2005.

http://journals.a...PO3005.1

Have a look, and think about what this expert from NOAA says. Keep in mind that NOAA is the leading source of ocean heat data in the world. Nobody else has anything close to the ARGO floats, and you can't see below the surface from a satellite. Then compare this to the statements in the article above, and ask yourself if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy about their conclusions or not.

BTW, I'm not a denier and I'm not suggesting any theory of my own. I have provided solidly sourced, peer reviewed material from one of the world's top experts, and I ask you to make your own judgement call based on that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (33) Jun 11, 2012
I am not Russkiy and I am not those other names, and I will add each new post from that weirdo to the next email that I send to Phys.org administration. I have sent 2 emails already, and I can see a third one will be necessary.
You are indeed part of the same coven or whatever, as many here can see. Keep complaining and I will keep outing you in whatever form you wish to take, as well as illuminating the same ridiculous nonsense you keep posting under whatever sockpuppet you create. Guaranteed.
MikPetter
5 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Since 2005 more analysis has been done to better gauge trends....Extract from "135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme"
Nature Climate Change 2, 425428 (2012)
"This, the first global-scale comparison of Challenger and modern data, shows spatial mean warming at the surface of 0.59°C±0.12, consistent with previous estimates of globally averaged sea surface temperature increase. Below the surface the mean warming decreases to 0.39°C±0.18 at 366m (200fathoms) and 0.12°C±0.07 at 914m (500fathoms). The 0.33°C±0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years6, implying a centennial timescale for the present rate of global warming. "
Forestgnome
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2012
I agree. Minimization of humanity's footprint is a good idea whether or not humanity is having an effect.

Trying to get that through to those in the denialist category is going to be like finding a nanoparticle in a haystack. I am sure many of them have the opinion that if there is no effect, why should we moderate our consumption. The only thing the denialists are interested in is not having their world-view shattered.

You like to paint people with a narrow brush, don't you? I'm a denialist, and proud of it. I don't think we as a people could change the climate if we pooled our global resources to do it. That said, I'm a conservationist, where it makes sense. It does me no good to leave lights on when I'm not using them. I would love to incorporate passive heating and cooling, but the liberal union-loving politicians have made it nearly impossible to do on your own without a stack of permits, drawings, and money. If you burn more fuel driving a big car you enjoy, do it!
Howhot
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
31 mile long Hydrothermal vents pumping super-heated water into Gulf of California

Its been there millions of years and hasn't changed a thing.
StarGazer2011
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 11, 2012
im so sick of this pseudo science; showing that something is not necessarily impossible is different to showing that its actually happening.

"the observed ocean warming over the last 50 years is consistent with climate models only if the models include the impacts of observed increases in greenhouse gas during the 20th century."

Totally untrue, their models also have to include a forcing factor of 3, becuase from first principles the CO2 warming is insufficient to cause the observed warming.
Also they play ridiculous curve fitting games with unobserved aerosol figures.
And yet again they ingore the possibility that there is some other phenomena or that observed pheonomena arent properly modeled.
This is not science, this is fraud and has been for decades now.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2012
I see that I have to repeat what I have already said, since the weirdo TheGhostofOtto1923 appears to have a hard time comprehending my meaning even though I can't speak any plainer English than that. Here it is:

I am not Russkiy and I am not those other names, and I will add each new post from that weirdo concerning me, to the next email that I send to Phys.org administration. I have sent 2 emails already, and I can see a third one will be necessary.

I have been verbally accosted and accused in many threads by this GhostofOtto person who pretends to be injured somehow by my presence and my comments in each thread and topic that I find interesting.
I have, however, investigated into his past identities and I find that it is he who is the schizophrenic, and that the dick_wolf whom he complains about in his Profile, is actually himself. I have the proof.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2012
(contd)
After reading this TheGhostofOtto1923 person's Profile, I decided to look up this dick_wolf's Profile whom he refers to. When I looked up dick_wolf's Profile, then I saw that dick_wolf mentions Otto1932,
Please observe that in all 3 Profiles for TheGhostofOtto1923, dick_wolf, and otto1932, all 3 of them say the same exact words: "Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!"

This and the following Profiles are proof that TheGhostofOtto1923 has multiple personalities, pretending to rage against each other. There are other names who are also his sock puppets
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2012
From http://phys.org/p...tto1923/
(Profile of TheGhostofOtto1923

"----------- One can see by the pic that dick_wolf is the kind of person who would downrate somebody by using as many as 24 sockpuppets, just because he doesnt like what that person has to say. This must take dick a fair amount of time but I suppose compulsion drives one to expend this kind of effort. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!"
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
From: http://phys.org/p...ck_wolf/

in which dick_wolf says: "I'm an atheist and occasional agnostic forced into existence to lay down a little law and order around here, because trolling freaks like the multi-sock-puppeted Zephir/KwasniczJ aether theory crackpot, and the infantile fascist fanatic otto1932 - who sometimes plagiarizes some of my profile to make himself sound righteous, are dumping their turds all over this otherwise terrific science site. Hopefully someday the moderators will return, and ban the habitual site abusers once and for all. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!
About yourself:
If you want to see why I call these creeps "trolls" - let the record speak for itself: http://www.physor...nal.html http://www.physor...ist.html
PussyCat_Eyes
Jun 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
From: http://phys.org/p...tto1932/

in which otto1932 says: "Navel of the universe.
Affiliation:
Ignore the religionist stalker named dick_wolf who compulsively downrates me under multiple nicks because I proved conclusively to him that god (and philosophy especially Kant and free will) is all nonsense, and is a little petulant as a result. Too bad. dick.
About yourself:
One can see by the pic that dick is the kind of person who would downrate somebody by using as many as 24 sockpuppets, just because he doesnt like what that person has to say. This must take dick a fair amount of time but I suppose compulsion drives one to expend this kind of effort. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!
Research Interests:
Empire
Other Interests:
Everything pertaining to Empire which is a LOT."
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
From: http://phys.org/p...Otto1932

Name: Otto Skorzeny
Anus of the universe
Affiliation:
Ignore the religionist stalker named dick_wolf who compulsively downrates me under multiple nicks because I proved conclusively to him that god (and philosophy especially Kant and free will) is all nonsense, and is a little petulant as a result. Too bad. dick.
About yourself:
Hopefully the moderators will return some day and enact the consensus of many respectable posters like myself, and delete the accounts of unstable gang raters like dick_wolf who pretty obviously do not belong here. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!
Research Interests:
Empire/Reich
Other Interests:
Everything pertaining to Empire which is a LOT.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
From http://phys.org/p...tto1923/
(Profile of TheGhostofOtto1923

"----------- One can see by the pic that dick_wolf is the kind of person who would downrate somebody by using as many as 24 sockpuppets, just because he doesnt like what that person has to say. This must take dick a fair amount of time but I suppose compulsion drives one to expend this kind of effort. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!"
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
(contd)
From: http://phys.org/p...Otto1932

Name: Otto Skorzeny
Anus of the universe
Affiliation:
Ignore the religionist stalker named dick_wolf who compulsively downrates me under multiple nicks because I proved conclusively to him that god (and philosophy especially Kant and free will) is all nonsense, and is a little petulant as a result. Too bad. dick.
About yourself:
Hopefully the moderators will return some day and enact the consensus of many respectable posters like myself, and delete the accounts of unstable gang raters like dick_wolf who pretty obviously do not belong here. Please help out and REPORT serious violations of the Physorg Comments Guidelines: http://www.physor...omments/ Thanks!
Research Interests:
Empire/Reich
Other Interests:
Everything pertaining to Empire which is a LOT
CardacianNeverid
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2012
I am not Russkiy and I am not those other names, and I will add each new post from that weirdo concerning me, to the next email that I send to Phys.org administration. I have sent 2 emails already, and I can see a third one will be necessary -PussyTard

Could you possibly be a bigger moron PussyRitchieRusskiPiroutteXbw?

At least if you're going to deny your sockpuppetry, you could try not responding in exactly the same manner as you do under all your other schizoid personas.

How about this. Create a new sockpuppet and make some posts and we'll all see how long it takes us to out you (again).
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2012
Ahhh.....CardacianNeverid aka FrankHerbert aka bewertow aka too many other sock puppets. I've heard about you from your many previous posts and the PMs I've received from people who know all about your mental sickness.
Since I've only got this one user name and never had another, I guess it's safe to assume that you are TheGhostofOtto1923's best friend and adviser here in Phys.org and the two of you have decided that I must be the people you name because you wish it to be so.
So where is your proof? Give us your evidence.

The only one I know about is Russkiy, and that was only briefly when I asked him to elaborate on his hypothesis. I expect that he is probably on his way back to Russia by now for his teaching job.
Good luck to him. I'm sure he has a very bad impression of you people who gave him a hard time.
Congratulations!! You have given Phys.org a black eye and he will most likely tell everyone in his country about you people.
How pathetic......LOL
CardacianNeverid
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2012
So where is your proof? Give us your evidence -PussyTard

I've already stated the evidence against you, Tard. But then you go on to prove it by denying it in exactly the same manner as you always do. Clearly you're not smart enough either to comprehend what I've already stated nor what it is that always gives you away. So sad.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
And what is it that you claim gives me away? Where is your proof? Give us your evidence? You still haven't given any damn evidence, FrankHerbert. That's because you don't have any. I speak the king's English as does most everyone else.
If that is your picture in your profile, you sure are a disgusting, ugly fat slob of a maggot. I'll bet you still live with your ugly mama and no normal woman would want to be near you. Fat pig!!
You are evidently attempting to emulate Vendicar_Decarian with your tard imitation. Well, it won't work, dummy. Vendicar is probably able to run rings around you and your GhostofBlotto as for intelligence. Your sock puppets fool nobody. Everyone knows who you really are......ROFLOL
CardacianNeverid
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2012
Asked:
And what is it that you claim gives me away? Where is your proof? Give us your evidence? -PussyTard

And answered:

If that is your picture in your profile, you sure are a disgusting, ugly fat slob of a maggot. I'll bet you still live with your ugly mama and no normal woman would want to be near you. Fat pig!! -PussyTard

No one here but Ritchie/Pirouette/Russky Tard has such a potty mouth and a childlike psyche. Maybe your next sockpuppet should be Eric Cartman, but I'll wager that no one will respect your authoritah! He, he, he.
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2012
GS7, I tried your link but just wound up with a blank page, I was curious though....

Sweet Sorgum Jesus Ritchie, you might also think about posting as
your other puppets from time to time instead of just showing up as a "new guy" with the same diction, word patterns and OCD when fighting a losing battle like the one you're displaying on this thread....it's reminiscent of the whole spain/equator debacle.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2012
to rubberman

The link opens a PDF file, so you need Adobe Acrobat to view it. Well, here's the first couple sentences of the abstract:

Subsurface temperature trends in the better-sampled parts of the World Ocean are reported. Where there are sufficient observations for this analysis, there is large spatial variability of 51-yr trends in the upper ocean, with some regions showing cooling in excess of 3°C, and others warming of similar magnitude. Some 95% of the ocean area analyzed has both cooled and warmed over 20-yr subsets of this period. There is much space and time variability of 20-yr running trend estimates, indicating that trends over a decade or two may not be representative of longer-term trends


Basically, there isn't very much coverage in large portions of the global oceans, and in areas where there is coverage, there aren't any recognizable long term trends due to natural variability over multi-decade time scales.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2012
Now, to the people who read my comment and thought that I'm trying to claim that the ocean isn't warming:

Would it surprise you if I actually suspect that the ocean may have warmed more than we know?

The paper I linked to isn't saying the ocean hasn't warmed. There's lots of evidence that it has been warming. The problem is that it isn't uniform and our data isn't either. The southern hemisphere is especially lacking in measurements, and that's where the bulk of our oceans are. There are huge areas where there has only been one set of vertical temperature profiles ever done. How do you get a trend from one measurement? There just wasn't any interest in global ocean heat content until the past few decades. People watched it locally, for other reasons like fishing management and weather forcasting, but that was very limited. In the US, the Commerce Department tracked it before NOAA existed.

Yes, I think the ocean is warming, but we don't know how much.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2012
GS7
The ARGO coverage is very extensive (although badly needed in the arctic where there are none) but can only tell us where we are at now, not where we were 50 years ago. I haven't researched the ARGO floats enough to know about their capabilities as far as measurement at depth. I do know the large scale deployment has been very recent and that they are working on one that can handle being trapped in an ice flow.Below is the coverage map.

http://w3.jcommop...atus.png

Given that they are talking about observed warming, I too would tend to believe that is has, and will continue to until the onset of cooling on the way to the next ice age.....if there is another one.
Empire_man_otto
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
I have the proof.
And thus I have the proof that you are an imbecile. But there is certainly plenty of that. I was making fun of mr. wolf by copying what he put on his profile. I commonly do this because it is funny.

Moreover I have many sockpuppets left over from former glorious battles, all (most) of which include 'otto' in their nicks. I resurrect these from time to time.

We do have proof that you are indeed part of the pirouette cabal... Your suckup style is identical to pirouettes; your inane ideas are very similar to pirouettes; You flood with dozens of inane posts in the same manner as pirouette and the rest of your sockpuppets did; you endorse the same inane ideas as they all did; and your sockpuppets appear in succession. And you treat physorg like it was facebook which is intolerable.

You are transparent to most everybody here. Your inanity makes people very uncomfortable and I see no reason to stop drawing attention to it.
diaper_dog_dick
3 / 5 (24) Jun 12, 2012
Sniff sniff what IS that smell? Check your shoes everybody. Maybe it is only sweet sorghum stewing. That stuff sure stinks when you cook it up. Maybe a troll has eaten something disagreeable?
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2012
Rubberman:

Notice that your map is dated february 2009. That's either a snapshot of locations or those could be deployment spots (wiki has a feb 2011 map). Argo floats are not anchored, so they drift with the wind and currents over time. You are correct that coverage has greatly improved in recent years, but your map would look extremely empty if the dots weren't so big and the map was bigger. We have about 350 million square km of ocean. With 3500 argo floats, that's one for every 100,000 square km of ocean (it's actually worse than that, but I rounded down). And as I said, they end up bunched up most of the time, since they are free drifting and currents, wind and storms will make them bunch up.

As you said, current coverage is good, but I was talking about coverage in relation to trends. As little as 20 years ago, the coverage was terrible. There just isn't hardly any historical ocean temp data below the surface. The claim above can't be valid as far as I can tell.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2012
I haven't researched the ARGO floats enough to know about their capabilities as far as measurement at depth.


The newest ones go all the way down to 2000 meters, but that's a really new addition. Most ARGO data only goes down to 1000 or less. They continuously go up and down from the surface to their max depth on a 10 day cycle. They also measure conductivity (for salinity/density).

If you can find an actual map of ARGO data locations you'll see that the readings are way more bunched up than the map you linked to. I strongly suspect you found a deployment map. There's places with fast currents where the floats won't stay for long, and places where currents stall, where there's oversampling.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
LOL, I considered that (current transport) after I posted the link to the map...no accounting for drift and 3500 divided over the surface of all of the oceans except for the arctic. Grossly inadequate to make any difinitive statement. Still I do have to agree with the base statement that the oceans as a whole are warming, otherwise thermal expansion would not be a factor in sea level rise, and it the warming of the arctic ocean wasn't even mentioned as a factor in the study.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2012
I have no idea what "sweet sorgum" is. Is that some kind of weed?
rubberman, please explain what the hell that is that they're talking about.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2012
Oh yes, I almost forgot....CardacianNeverid/FrankHerbert/bewertow/and all his sock puppets are also TheGhostofOtto1923 and HIS sock puppets. It's evident now because C.N and the other names are always on the same threads as GhostofBlotto. We figure that GhostofBlotto is operating 2 or more computers at a time and using several accounts each time he posts in a thread so that he doesn't have to sign out and then sign in as his sock puppet. About 17 of us have noticed that CardacianNeverid has been showing up whenever GhostofBlotto is having some trouble convincing people of something. That's when Cardacian comes in to say nasty things to the people who are giving GhostBlotto a hard time. That is proof of schizophrenia, according to my supervisor where I work.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
I have gotten many friends on Phys.org who have given me tips according to their own experience with GhostofBlotto, et al and his sock puppet CardacianNeverid, et al . It's a classic example of the craving for attention from others to affirm his own worth and intelligence.

So when one expounds his opinions on socio-political themes, or in a science theme, the other comes in if things are not going well, in order to keep everyone in line.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2012
Now, to the people who read my comment and thought that I'm trying to claim that the ocean isn't warming:

Would it surprise you if I actually suspect that the ocean may have warmed more than we know?

The paper I linked to isn't saying the ocean hasn't warmed. There's lots of evidence that it has been warming. The problem is that it isn't uniform and our data isn't either. The southern hemisphere is especially lacking in measurements, and that's where the bulk of our oceans are. There are huge areas where there has only been one set of vertical temperature profiles ever done. How do you get a trend from one measurement? There just wasn't any interest in global ocean heat content until the past few decades. People watched it locally, for other reasons like fishing management and weather forcasting, but that was very limited. In the US, the Commerce Department tracked it before NOAA existed.

Yes, I think the ocean is warming, but we don't know how much.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 12, 2012
That's basically what I was trying to say on the first page. But I said that the warming of the water was minuscule and not enough to say that it's all the fault of humans. There must be something else going on to cause it.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2012
If the mammoths died off from global warming thousands of years ago before fossil fuels were used by humans, then there had to be a different cause.....and that cause may be occurring again....now.

http://phys.org/n...ths.html

PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2012
Asked:
And what is it that you claim gives me away? Where is your proof? Give us your evidence? -PussyTard

And answered:

If that is your picture in your profile, you sure are a disgusting, ugly fat slob of a maggot. I'll bet you still live with your ugly mama and no normal woman would want to be near you. Fat pig!! -PussyTard

No one here but Ritchie/Pirouette/Russky Tard has such a potty mouth and a childlike psyche. Maybe your next sockpuppet should be Eric Cartman, but I'll wager that no one will respect your authoritah! He, he, he.
- CardacianNeverNice

There is nothing "pottymouth" about telling the truth, no matter how ugly it is. And YOU are one ugly fat creep, just going by your picture. You are a poster boy for men going on a diet and keeping their clothes on to take a picture....LOL
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2012
@G7; Rubberman, the article says what is measured.

The group looked at the average temperature (or heat content) in the upper layers of the ocean. The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters)


It doesn't say anything about the vast depths of the ocean. Since this really is a concern about global temperature rise as seen in ocean temp measurements, I think your obfuscating the debate GS7.

The very obvious fact that temperatures have raised as much as they have within this sample window should be of real concern to all. After, the ocean is the worlds largest thermal sink.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2012
Howhot:

yes, we know the above study only used 0-700 meters. We were also discussing capabilities of the Argo network in general, and how it has improved over time.

As shown in the paper I linked to, the argo data is not sufficient to show any trend in ocean temp in the time period used above. The data is so sparse that it doesn't show the obvious warming we know is happening. The present day argo network is good, but in order to see a trend over the past 50 years, you would also need to have had good data from 50 years ago. There isn't any such thing, at any depth except the surface, and even surface temps aren't well represented in parts of the southern hemisphere 50 years ago. In the rare cases where there has been good, consistent measurements down to 700 meters, there are as many that show cooling as warming, so the data obviously isn't showing the whole picture. We know from density that it cannot be a zero trend.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2012
I think your obfuscating the debate GS7.


What debate am I obfuscating? I'm talking about the paper here, in the article above. If you're going to go off on some "save the planet" crusade speech, then you can have that discussion with someone else.

I'm just pointing out the article above is claiming to draw a conclusion from data that cannot possibly be detailed enough to either confirm or deny their conclusion. If anyone is obsfucating something, it's the guys in the press release who are obsfucating the lack of data on ocean heat content 50 years ago. The lack of historical data is a documented fact. So, how are they seeing the signature of human cause in a dataset that doesn't have enough historical data to even show the trend we know should be there? I call foul ball.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2012
pussycat:

That's basically what I was trying to say on the first page. But I said that the warming of the water was minuscule and not enough to say that it's all the fault of humans. There must be something else going on to cause it


calling the warming "miniscule" is a bit subjective, and could certainly be called misleading in this context. When talking about global ocean heat content, even a tenth of a degree in the top 10 meters is a LOT of heat. Such small changes are extremely difficult to measure though. With such a large standard deviation in your data compared to such a small trend you're looking for, it takes a huge data set to get results that are more certain than random chance. You really want to have thousands of measurements in each of the areas you measure, and to get a global average you want to have tens of thousands of locations. When it comes to climate data, the more the merrier.
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2012
Back to Howhot:

The thing I see as a problem is that the ocean heat content data they used was derived by taking Argo data (which isn't complete) then infilling the data with computer model data (Levitus 2000 & 2009 according to thier references). I have no problem with that process. It's done all the time, and it is perfectly valid, but you must keep that in mind before you use that infilled data for further study. In Levitus the data was infilled using computer models that assume a human component in the warming. If you then go back and compare the infilled data to model results that only include natural causes, what are you going to find? You'll find exactly what they found here. The data isn't going to be consistent with a model that only uses natural forcings and feedbacks.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2012
BTW, I think it's safe to assume that Santer knows what I'm talking about here, and published the work anyway. Stuff like this always comes out before a UN climate summit, such as the upcoming Rio 20 conference.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2012
Oh yes, I almost forgot....CardacianNeverid/FrankHerbert/bewertow/and all his sock puppets are also TheGhostofOtto1923 and HIS sock puppets. It's evident now because C.N and the other names are always on the same threads as GhostofBlotto. We figure that GhostofBlotto is operating 2 or more computers at a time and using several accounts each time he posts in a thread so that he doesn't have to sign out and then sign in as his sock puppet. About 17 of us have noticed that CardacianNeverid has been showing up whenever GhostofBlotto is having some trouble convincing people of something. That's when Cardacian comes in to say nasty things to the people who are giving GhostBlotto a hard time. That is proof of schizophrenia, according to my supervisor where I work.

http://www.buzzle...9666.asp

Also, I spoke to a supervisor and he said that GhostofOtto1923 is more likely suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, rather than Dissociative Identity Disorder.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2012
pussycat:

That's basically what I was trying to say on the first page. But I said that the warming of the water was minuscule and not enough to say that it's all the fault of humans. There must be something else going on to cause it


calling the warming "miniscule" is a bit subjective, and could certainly be called misleading in this context. When talking about global ocean heat content, even a tenth of a degree in the top 10 meters is a LOT of heat. Such small changes are extremely difficult to measure though. With such a large standard deviation in your data compared to such a small trend you're looking for, it takes a huge data set to get results that are more certain than random chance. You really want to have thousands of measurements in each of the areas you measure, and to get a global average you want to have tens of thousands of locations. When it comes to climate data, the more the merrier.
- GS7

Well, that's the whole problem. (contd)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2012
(contd) The world's oceans aren't steady temperature in all areas or regions. You have warm spots and cold and everything in between. The warmer temp that they quoted is, to me, pretty minuscule when in depths that are supposedly cold, the water is hot and heat rises, unless I'm mistaken. I'm not saying that there is no warming of the oceans, it's just too inconclusive in an overall framework.
So what do we do? Pray for an ice age? How do we make it happen?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2012
Also, I spoke to a supervisor and he said that GhostofOtto1923 is more likely suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, rather than Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Nice reputable reference. I see it has a lovely collection of poetry.
http://www.buzzle...e-poems/

-Did your supervisor tell you to look here for info on mental instability? He must be a freeking moron as well.
I'm not saying that there is no warming of the oceans, it's just too inconclusive in an overall framework.
Especially in equatorial spain.
So what do we do? Pray for an ice age? How do we make it happen?
Hey - why dont you look it up on buzzle?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2012
OK...if you take the hottest temp in a certain oceanic location and work with that to the exclusion of all other lower temps, plus the natural causes from geologic and hydrothermal changes, then sure, you can say that the warming temps are anthropogenic relative to any other causes. But that doesn't make it so.
If they want to take all the temps in millions of locations and average it out, I doubt that the average would come anywhere near the hottest temperature. Put a thermometer in every square mile of ocean, if it can be done.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2012
Maybe its in this section:
http://www.buzzle...kutcher/

Hmmm nope. Maybe here:
http://www.buzzle...tichoke/

-Uh nope. Here?
http://www.buzzle...-repair/

-No but I think we're getting close?
http://www.buzzle...ragalus/

-Naw I thought this was about stars. Maybe in the B's?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2012
Hah I knew TheGoatofOtto1923 would show up. Good. I've sent off the third email already. Now I'll have to send a 4th email to the editor in chief of Phys.org and find out his phone number.
What the hell is an equatorial Spain? That's MORE evidence that TheGoatofOtto1923 is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder and fights with himself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (21) Jun 13, 2012
Put a thermometer in every square mile of ocean, if it can be done.
Hey - buzzle addresses this:
http://www.buzzle...ometers/

Lets look at the G's for 'Global Warming' shall we? Hey heres something:

'Vast barren lands have been encroached upon to pave way for new buildings.'
http://www.buzzle...ent.html

-Gee willikers I did not noe (know?) this- I must add it to my noe-ledge base.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jun 13, 2012
Hah I knew TheGoatofOtto1923 would show up. Good. I've sent off the third email already. Now I'll have to send a 4th email to the editor in chief of Phys.org and find out his phone number.
Oh gosh that tears it. Say did you get any news from the State Dept or the FBI yet? I havent heard anything- let me noe, ok?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2012
What strange talk!! State Dep't? FBI? What the hell is THAT all about?
Can someone explain this idiot to me, please?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2012
Yuppers...I think this site describes the ugly fat idiot that's following me around, pretty well.

http://my.clevela...der.aspx

What is dissociative identity disorder?
Dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly called multiple personality disorder, is one of a group of conditions called dissociative disorders. Dissociative disorders are mental illnesses that involve disruptions or breakdowns of memory, awareness, identity and/or perception. When one or more of these functions is disrupted, symptoms can result. These symptoms can interfere with a persons general functioning, including social activities, work functions, and relationships. People with DID often have issues with their identities and senses of personal history.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2012
(have to send it again)
A person with DID, the most severe type of dissociative disorder, has two or more different personality statessometimes referred to as "alters" (short for alternate personality states)each of whom takes control over the persons behavior at some time. Each alter might have distinct traits, personal history, and way of thinking about and relating to his or her surroundings. An alter might even be of a different gender, have his or her own name, and have distinct mannerisms or preferences. The person with DID may or may not be aware of the other personality states and might not have memories of the times when another alter is dominant. Stress or a reminder of the trauma can act as a trigger to bring about a "switch" of alters. This can create a chaotic life and cause problems in work and social situations.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2012
Oh goody...here's another one, is this my lucky day or what?
http://www.psycho...disorder

Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder, is a condition wherein a person's identity is fragmented into two or more distinct personalities. Sufferers of this rare condition are usually victims of severe abuse.
Definition
Symptoms
Causes
Treatments
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a severe condition in which two or more distinct identities, or personality states, are present inand alternately take control ofan individual. The person also experiences memory loss that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2012
Oh yeah...this definitely describes the fat ugly maggot that follows me into threads...GhostofBlottoBalloooooo

DID is a disorder characterized by identity fragmentation rather than a proliferation of separate personalities. The disturbance is not due to the direct psychological effects of a substance or of a general medical condition, yet as this once rarely reported disorder has become more common, the diagnosis has become controversial.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2012
Gswift7:
infilling the data with computer model data (Levitus 2000 & 2009 according to thier references).


Good. At least we agree on the baseline for modeling. It's certainly is recognized that there are cold spots and empty spots in the data. But good computer modeling helps us understand the big picture, the point I was trying to make, and one that is also stated clearly in the article.

we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role.


Whether this is a paper released to coincide with Rio, I have no-idea nor should that matter. It does confirm, using other methodologies, that AGW is on firm footing in it's analysis and predictions.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2012
infilling the data with computer model data (Levitus 2000 & 2009 according to thier references).


"A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a random walk alternative, consisting simply of using the last periods value in each location as the forecast for the next periods value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.

The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7 ... "
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2012
sure, you can say that the warming temps are anthropogenic relative to any other causes. But that doesn't make it so.


You can join all of the other deniers too. What you opin doesn't make truth.
Howhot
3 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2012
"The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7 ... "

BS.

Bring it on Mr. Nopark (must hate parks). On a scale of 0 to 1, where 0 I absolutely believe what you say, and 1 is I can't agree at all, you are a 2.4 to 3.7.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2012
howhot....sorry to inform you, but that was a silly thing you've said, "must hate parks". I think his name is Parker. A real scientist would use a lot more finesse in his criticism.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2012
sure, you can say that the warming temps are anthropogenic relative to any other causes. But that doesn't make it so.


You can join all of the other deniers too. What you opine doesn't make truth.
- howhot
There, I fixed your spelling of opine.
But seriously, I don't understand what all the hullabaloo about deniers and denialists and denying is all about it. If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen, and that's it. All this going crazy just because it's hard to believe...well, that's just plain crazy. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the government to make up some documentaries or whatever and use the docs on radio and TV to convince people to stop polluting? All you're doing here is going around in circles, is all.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2012
Hah...some dodo bird keeps giving me ones. Some people live their lives through Phys.org, it seems. :)
Obviously, there are them that's got no class, as my uncle in Montana would say.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
It's easy to get your attention pussy. Thanks for fixing the spelling. And with regards to Nopark ... go figure, it must be a hobby or a paid for troll.

You know if it's such a waste of time for people to continue to post the same thing over and over then why are you filling the pages of Phys.org comment section with your works. Your very wordy. I said so many months ago.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
It's easy to get your attention pussy. Thanks for fixing the spelling. And with regards to Nopark ... go figure, it must be a hobby or a paid for troll.

You know if it's such a waste of time for people to continue to post the same thing over and over then why are you filling the pages of Phys.org comment section with your works. Your very wordy. I said so many months ago.

- howhot

Many months ago? Which month was that? I haven't been into this website very long. Been busy working, not lurking. lol
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
howhot.....most weekends, my boyfriend and I and some friends go up to the mountains to do some hiking, camping and skiing if there's enough snow. I only come into this site if there's some article I find interesting and want to talk about it. Kind of like you do.
CardacianNeverid
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2012
most weekends, my boyfriend and I and some friends go up to the mountains -PussyTard

So...you're gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2012
Gay? If you mean am I happy, then yes, I'm very happy. If you mean queer....nopers, that's not me.
Are YOU gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wait....let me check. Yeppers, my vagina and perky breasts are still there. ;)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2012
So, TheGhostofCrotcho/cardacianneverid is still wanting to get on my case. Just how many of your multiple personality sickness do you use in this website? And when did you turn into howhot?
SteveL
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2012
Wait....let me check. Yeppers, my vagina and perky breasts are still there. ;)

So, that's the source of global warming. Good to know. :)
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
LMAO....yeah, we use up a lot of energy with the air conditioner going full blast.

My cheeks are very pretty too....all 4 of them, SteveL ;) (smooch)
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
For those that are new, here is the low down on the pussy. This is just a new alias of many for "pirouette". A pirouette is a playful ballet maneuver where then dancer spins at one location.
Here is how to do a pirouette.

http://dance.abou...ette.htm

Please note; SPIN is what he is all about. Pirouette will say anything to spin a debate off topic. That is the M.O. If an article or story supports something like global warming, and the evidence for the article is stronger than the counter deniers can muster, in comes the SPIN doctor. I think he is a paid troll, but then there are the FOX associates and the right wing fruits and nuts that love to show their wares too. So pussy = pirouette = spin, post filler and troll.

Pro or Con, it doesn't matter as long as the article in question is not debated and pirouette skunks up the debate.

Anyway, just be warned that this guy royal pain to ditch as I will demonstrate.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2012
LOL....howhot.....why do you tell lies? I've never met a Liberal bedwetter AGWist who wasn't a big fat liar.
The pussy? ROFLOL Sounds like YOU'RE off topic.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
Get back to us when you manage to get it published.

"In my theory" - Origin

Until then you may continue to discuss it with your proctologist.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2012
PussyCat = Spirochete - banished for supreme idiocy.

"LOL....howhot.....why do you tell lies?" - PussyCaTard
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2012
Poor howhot. . .doesn't believe in reading the previous posts to see what was said earlier. That is the sign of a true climate "scientist". I wonder what kind of scientist howhot really is? Probably a refuse engineer with a Ph.d in Immaturity.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
Spirochete? Isn't that the little worm? I see that Vendicar isn't as nice as I thought. And he buys into lies hoping to find some poor slob who is no longer in Phys.org, as far as I can tell.
Hey, maybe Vendicar or howhot is Russkiy or spirochete?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
But why no warming on Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Amalthea, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, or Titan.

"Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter" - CapitalimHasFailed

Warming on Neptune's moon Triton but no warming of Neptune.

Difficult to explain all this selective warming if there is a common cause.

PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
Vendicar....I've been reading Russkiy's past posts about you. Is it true that you creamed in your pants when some woman named Naomi took off her bra and all the other guys laughed at you? She said that you've got a short dick and you cum too fast so you couldn't make it in the porn movies. Something like that.......amazing......LOL
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
Exactly Spirochete.... Exactly.

"Spirochete? Isn't that the little worm?" - PussyCaTard

PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2012
What a shame....and I was so hoping that there was some intelligence in that pea brain of yours. Maybe you're a wiki jockey just like GhostofBlotto/cardacianneverid? Sounds to me like there's a bunch of misogynists in this site.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2012
OK....I just looked it up and, from what I understand about Naomi describing your penis, your penis is the size of a spirochete. Perfect description........LOL
I'l bet you even dance the piruette, Vendicar
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2012
Sorry SteveL....I DID try to stay on topic.....too late for that now.
:(
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
wowee,,,the one raters can't do it fast enough....must be the climate change.
Gosh....it's sure a rare thing for someone like Vendicar to actually ADMIT that he creamed in his pants when Naomi took off her bra and all the guys laughed at him.
What was it she called you? Have to look that up too.....LOL
PussyCat_Eyes
Jun 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
Spirochete; So seriously, how much are the goons paying you?

It is obvious the oceans have warmed in the past 50 years, but not by natural events alone. An yet you deny these facts that are in front of you. What about your teeny weeny baby peeny. Won't it suffer from the onslaught of JP-Morganism?

PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2012
howhot.....the Spirochete is in the front of Vendicar_De Idiot's underwear. Naomi said so. Maybe you would like to do your little perouette dance over to his house and check out his Spirochete and maybe make it grow another 32th of an inch? Miracles can happen, you know. Or is that too metaphysical for you?
And how much are the goons paying YOU? I see you must be talking about YOUR teeny weeny baby peeny, since I don't have one.
You don't have to worry about dying from global warming. More like you'll be dying from nuclear war fallout. I'm sure you'd much prefer that, right?
I see that you don't comprehend very well what was said in my earlier posts. How can you be a real scientist when you don't bother reading all the things I've said on previous pages. Then you ask me dumb questions.
Are you deliberately densified, or you just can't help it? I always said those Affirmative Action college degrees suck, and I think you're living proof.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2012
Pussy, your inflammatory bowel disease is calling. It needs it's attitude back.

Additionally "The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters) is approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."

Significant isn't it?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2012
Perhaps you don't really understand what is going on in the world with your closed mind on anything else but your AGW. You need to open your eyes to the REAL crap that's going on. I would tell you a lot more, but it wouldn't do much good. I'll tell you one thing, howhot. I'm scared as hell now, far more than ever before....and I don't scare so easily.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2012
Lol. Pussy. Like a voice on a web blog; that is the only real impact you or I make on the world of 7 billion people. Do what most MIT grads do; save the world.

And you know with Phys.org, you can't take back what you say.

CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2012
Spirochete; So seriously, how much are the goons paying you? -Hot

He's definitely not a paid shill because he's too dumb for the position. He would give shills a bad name.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2012
Additionally "The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters) is approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."


Based on heavily in-filled data. As such, the 1/10th increase is only an assumption. Using an assumption as "proof" that humans have caused it is NOT science. Heck, even with the in-filled data, the trend is not statistically far from random chance, which means that it could still be random. Typical scientific work is only taken as solid when statistical confidence is 90 or better. When a trend only has a 52% CI it's usually discarded. In stead, these guys ran with that trend and call it "proof" that humans have are the primary cause of ocean warming. Then, because it supports your agenda, you refuse to be critical of such crappy work? I'm not sure which is worse, you or them.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2012
Lol. Pussy. Like a voice on a web blog; that is the only real impact you or I make on the world of 7 billion people. Do what most MIT grads do; save the world.

And you know with Phys.org, you can't take back what you say.

- howhot

Whatever you and the rest of your hi-falutin elitist AGWist gonzos think you can do to prevent humans from living their lives the way they see fit....bring it on. Let's see how much you people can get away with and for how long. You keep talking about it but never do anything that the rest of us can actually SEE. I think you're all full of BS and only talk talk talk all the time in websites like this one.
So grow a pair...and I don't mean the size of aggies like what Vendicar_De Idiot's got in his shorts. Do it do it do it. We want to read it in the media what you people plan to do. All talk and no action doesn't cut it. I think you're all too chicken to do anything but squawk and lay an egg....lol
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2012
I have noted a marked decline in posting from ParkerTard now that PussyCatEyes has arrived with it's non stop stream of childish insults.

ParkerTard needs an outlet to rage and vent at having his continual stream of lies exposed for what they are.

PussyCat_Eyes
Jun 15, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (26) Jun 15, 2012
So... we have the dullard pussycat who shows up, drops a few incredibly inane ideas in 40-60 posts a day, and when many people understandably take issue with this, this person spends all their time bashing them in particularly crude and foul manner. Except for when they're making their greasy suckup sounds, looking for allies.

We have seen this behavior before. You are the lying dimwit pirouette/Ritchieguy/russkiye family unit and if you weren't so dim you could see how easy this is to figure out.

Is this REALLY entertainment for you?
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2012
"We have seen this behavior before. You are the lying dimwit pirouette/Ritchieguy/russkiye family unit and if you weren't so dim you could see how easy this is to figure out." -GhostofBlotto1923

NOBODY is taking issue with what I say, except for you and your friends, antialias_antifreespeech and Vendicar_De Idiot. You and your sock puppets need to look in the mirror and then go tell your problems to a psychiatrist so that he can certify you.
I read Russkiy's previous posts, and I saw how you and your alter ego decided to try and prevent Russkiy from enjoying the website. It's true that you're a certifiable nutcase who hasn't got the decency to admit your mental problem. GO GET PSYCHIATRIC HELP FORTHWITH...BEFORE YOU MURDER SOMEONE IN YOUR RAGE.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2012
(contd) Crude and foul manner? What crude and foul manner? Go look in the mirror, GhostofBlotto1923/CardacianNeverid/etc.
So who is the one who follows me into threads like in these and proceeds to RUIN EACH THREAD AND TOPIC so that I and nobody else can enjoy them?

http://phys.org/n...sex.html

http://medicalxpr...cer.html

http://medicalxpr...ger.html
I see that Phys.org admin has purged your stupid lies and imaginings from the above thread. At least they had the common sense to do THAT.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2012
PussyCatEyes = Spirochete is a fine example of the Conservative mond at work.

Lies... Lies.... Lies... Lies....

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2012
By the way Spirochete = PussyCatEyes Did you know that research shows that humans are the primary cause of ocean warming.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 15, 2012
Vendicar_De Idiot once said: "Selected extermination Gregor. The highest form of public service."
To which Gregor1 asked: "I guess I'm for the gas chambers then?"
To which Vendicar_De Idiot replies: "What is your address?"

It's a proven fact that mad dogs and murderers are often the objects of hero-worship by those who have a similar bent, but who can't bring themselves to perform the deeds of which they venerate, sometimes out of fear, but would like to emulate their heroes given the right conditions. If conditions are not conducive to their performance of possible individual or mass murder, even selectively, these criminally-minded individuals must promulgate their aberration(s) to everyone, especially those who are thought to defer to the hostility and murderous contempt of the individual in question, preferably within an anonymous setting. It gives that individual a sense of power over others and a heightened aura of superior intelligence and imagined societal upper-class.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2012
By the way Spirochete = PussyCatEyes Did you know that research shows that humans are the primary cause of ocean warming.


A bunch of bad models claim .025C/decade over the last 50 years but don't tell us how much it warmed from 1910 to 1940. Because they can't.

Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2012
Go away NotPark. Lets debate another day. You don't want the dingbat Pussy stinking up your arguments.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
In an earlier post, I had asked Vendicar_De Idiot if spirochete is a worm and he said yes. He lies.throwing words around for which he doesn't even understand the definition and usage thereof. It is a BACTERIA, fool.

When it comes to a potential spirochetes bacteria infection, many things need to be taken into consideration before classifying it as such. Spirochaetes, also known as spirochete disease, belong to the Gram-negative bacteria family, which are comprised of long, helically coiled cells.
http://www.rightd...ntro.htm

It wouldn't come as a surprise to be told that Vendicar_De Idiot suffers from spirochete's disease in some form with its accompanying symptoms. He seems obsessed with it.

Global warming? It's summer, so of course it's warm. Tell me about it in January.
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 16, 2012
"Tell me about it in January." It was the hottest January in recorded US history.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2012
spirochetes; Yeah that is a good description of your thought processes pussy. Have you ever thought about getting it treated?
Estevan57
2 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2012
The comments section has gone pretty far downhill when people talk about each others genitals.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2012
howhot.....are you aware that you do NOT come off sounding like a scientist AT ALL? You talk more like a common street thug who is into "flash mobs". Tell us then, how many times do you run into a store with your gang and steal everything in sight, huh? Or maybe you're into occupying a place like Oakland or D.C.? I'll bet you sleep in a tent on the sidewalk and don't bathe for weeks.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2012
Uh oh....someone has called the genitalia police. OK....who's the informer? Had to be Vendicar_De Idiot and his band of merry men in pink tights doing perouettes.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 16, 2012
"Tell me about it in January." It was the hottest January in recorded US history.
- howhot

So, does this mean that every January for the next hundred years is sure to be hotter than the year before. Oh my god.....the sky is falling...the sky is falling (says Chicken Little)
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2012
Well bite my Hamiltonian pussy. You know if I had a gang and needed a spoiler, You would be my first choice. I've never seen ad-homin's as well done (except in a comedy club). So why aren't you using your skills pissing off somebody that counts; like the Syrians?
CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2012
Well, since this thread's gone to the dogs...

What's new pussyTard?
Woah, Woah
pussyTard, pussyTard
I've got flowers
And lots of hours
To spend with you.
So go and powder your cute little pussyTard nose!
Woah, Woah...
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
So, does this mean that every January for the next hundred years is sure to be hotter than the year before.

Yes. Somewhere in the world, yes.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
Well howhot, I would've talked with you further about this global warming fantasy, but I guess GhostofOtto1923/cardacianneverid owns this thread now. Enjoy him/them.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2012
Storms dissipate energy. Energy increases storms emerge. Dissipation does not equal negation. That "heat" energy would only get spread around. So what is the natural balancing agent for an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas content? Chemistry. Water and carbon dioxide combine to produce acid rain. The increase of co2 causes cloud formation. The water pulls the carbon back to solid (and liquid) ground. The Earth washes the atmosphere and regulates heat retention. When it gets really cold water evaporates less (no clouds) allowing co2 to fill the atmosphere to increase retention of solar energy. The energy level gets higher and clouds form pulling the energy retainer back to the ground.
Turritopsis
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2012
H2CO3 (carbonic acid) is produced from the combination of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water).
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2012
I have seen perhaps 2 poss from ParkerTard since PusyCatEyes has started posting it's nonsense.

It is refreshing to see less and less of ParkerTards trade mark non-stop stream of lies, but then PussyCatLies seems to have it's own.
3432682
2 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2012
"...approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."

In other words, the Earth has barely warmed in the last 50 years. Skeptics vindicated. The deniers are those who still believe in significant, threatening warming. What do you claim has happened to Earth temperatures? Is it more than 1/10 degree?

The authors' conclusions that man must be responsible for this 1/10 warming is simply unsupported and gratuitous politics. Their conclusion should have been that warmist fears are false.
IronhorseA
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2012
howhot....sorry to inform you, but that was a silly thing you've said, "must hate parks". I think his name is Parker. A real scientist would use a lot more finesse in his criticism.


It may also be a reference to the television show "Parker Lewis Can't lose". ;P
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2012
"...approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."

In other words, the Earth has barely warmed in the last 50 years. Skeptics vindicated. The deniers are those who still believe in significant, threatening warming. What do you claim has happened to Earth temperatures? Is it more than 1/10 degree?

The authors' conclusions that man must be responsible for this 1/10 warming is simply unsupported and gratuitous politics. Their conclusion should have been that warmist fears are false.


It is important to note that 1C up and down fluctuations in Sea Surface Temperatures within a year or two are normal.

These are the temperatures most commonly linked to the PDO cycle:

http://bobtisdale...fic1.png

http://bobtisdale...-update/

IronhorseA
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2012
@NotParker

try this instead http://thinkprogr...obile=nc
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
Hey Not Parker and IronhorseA.....now all we need is Mike_Massen to come in. LOL he thinks I'm paranoid about China and other political stuff.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
I love Chinese food....does that count?
I plan to bring some thermometers to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to take their temperatures in different places.You know how these oceans are....very temperamental little buggers. If they're running a fever, I'll have to call a climate doctor.
;P
SatanLover
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2012
but its warming 0.17 per decaded since 30 years ago. not 0.025.
This rise is faster than the P-Tr extinction event.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (23) Jun 16, 2012
I see that Phys.org admin has purged your stupid lies and imaginings from the above thread. At least they had the common sense to do THAT.
Sorry but you are confused again as usual. My stuff is all still here.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2012
but its warming 0.17 per decaded since 30 years ago. not 0.025.


Dropping in the East Pacific. -.16C/decade

http://bobtisdale...fic1.png

There is evidence the East Pacific SST drives temperatures.

The 1998 peak is there, as is the 2008 and 2011 low.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
http://www.fathom...on1.html

Temperature The surface temperatures of the oceans range from 40Celsius or so in shallow tropical lagoons to -1.9C, the typical freezing point for sea water, in polar regions. Most of the water in the deeper layers is very cold. On the whole, any warm water in the open ocean is restricted to a shallow, near-surface band. No matter how warm the surface layers are, between 300 and 1,000m beneath the surface the temperature falls to about 5C and then continues to fall slowly with increasing depth. As a result, even beneath the hottest tropical regions the water at a depth of 2,000-3,000m almost never rises above 4C--with one dramatic exception. In some places along the oceanic ridge systems, extremely hot sea water gushes out of fissures in the underlying rocks.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2012
(contd) The water from these hydrothermal vents emerges at incredibly high temperatures--up to 300-400C but, because of the vast mass of surrounding cold water, the temperature drops to the normal 3-4C within a metre or so of the vent opening.
http://physicswor...-warming
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2012
Seems like the sea creatures who live in the icy depths of the oceans have no problem with global warming at all. They are thriving and reproducing....no problemo.

OMYGOD....we're all gonna dieeeee.......
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2012
The worst part of these articles is that people who deny global warming fight tooth and nail to prove the study is flawed or has an agenda. However, if the study was "absolutely no link found between humans and global warming", they wouldn't have any of those problems with it. In that case, it would be a well conducted and factual scientific report. They way to conduct science is not to pick your stance and wait until the science agrees with you, it's to look at the study and take your stance based on the conclusions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jun 16, 2012
Also from pussy/russkiye/pirouette/ritchieguys very informative link:

"The Earth from space. The dominance of the oceans, and why the Earth is called the 'Blue Planet,' becomes obvious from this viewpoint. The oceans cover two-thirds of the Earth's surface to an average depth of almost 4 km and to an extreme depth of more than 11 km. Life on Earth almost certainly evolved in the ocean and the whole ocean environment, down to the very greatest depths, is populated by living organisms."

-Learning is good and fun isnt it?

From another of his/her/its links:

"Earth and the other planets exist inside the outer layer of the Sun - the heliosphere.

For more information, do a search for: Earth's heat source - the Sun.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel"

-So this is where oliver has been hanging out? Could piro/pussy/russ/ritchie be an elaborate construct by an even more demented mind...??? Naw
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2012
The worst part of these articles is that people who deny global warming fight tooth and nail to prove the study is flawed or has an agenda.


The worst part of these articles is that it is SO EASY to prove the study is flawed or has an agenda.
Michael_Rivero
2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2012
How many active volcanoes are there on the floor of the oceans?

Don't know?

Hmmm.

Okay, how many active thermal vents are there on the mid-ocean ridges around the world?

Don't know that?

Don't worry; it's a trick question. NOBODY has any idea how many active volcanoes and thermal vents are pouring heat into the oceans.

And if nobody knows how much heat from volcanoes and thermal vents to subtract from ocean warming, then it is impossible to calculate what the human contribution is.

Which means this article is not science, it is just more carbonazi propaganda to trick you out of money and obedience.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 16, 2012
How many active volcanoes are there on the floor of the oceans?


3,000,000 is a recent guess.

"The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed."

http://www.newsci...ves.html
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2012
Good find, NotParker

And, "In 2006, a team of researchers from Japan discovered a new type of volcano which also defied conventional theories of volcanism. The "petit-spot" volcanoes, aged between one to eight million years old, did not sit at tectonic plate boundaries or over volcanic hotspots (see New type of volcano fires imaginations)."

Not sure, but this might mean that magma tunnels are running parallel to the ocean floor away from 'hotspots' and subduction zones, which might also mean that volcanism isn't limited to those areas like the "ring of fire" and they can pop up anywhere on earth...even far under NYC.
howardtlewisiii
1 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2012
The queen lizard's accountants are D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E. A national debt which is ten times GDP with no relief in sight and America is waking up to the treachery, murder, and pillage of Wall Street and the Fed by The Bernanke. Under sea volcanoes far outnumber above sea heat releases. CFRtv scientist FAIL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2012
Not sure,
Ha! Of course you're not.
but this might mean that magma tunnels
???
are running parallel to the ocean floor
'Parallel to the ocean floor' -???
away from 'hotspots' and subduction zones, which might also mean that volcanism isn't limited to those areas like the "ring of fire" and they can pop up anywhere on earth...even far under NYC.
Let's see... the nearest 'hotspot' might be the mid-Atlantic ridge which is a whole lot farther away than the mantle... isnt it??

If even NYC, perhaps LA...
http://www.youtub...a_player

One question - if you know you have no idea what you are talking about, why on earth would you attempt to speculate when chances are that this would only make you look like an idiot? Re the above example.

WHY DO YOU DO THIS? Sorry this is maddening.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2012
It seems that the NAZI-LOVING TheGhostofOtto1923 appears sans his sock puppet at this time to repudiate my SPECULATIONS. He believes that nobody else knows what they're talking about.....BECAUSE HE SAYS SO.
WHAT A LOSER. He always fails to comprehend my meaning and that of others, but never fails to look stupid for his efforts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (24) Jun 17, 2012
:)
OK. So explain how 'magma tunnels' run for hundreds of miles 'parallel' to the ocean floor to reach NYC. I will refrain from calling you a carking dimwit until I see your explanation. Fair enough?

You WILL need to provide refs. Please refrain from citing buzzle unless it pertains to Ashton kutcher.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2012
Oh....you think Ashton Kutcher is sexy too? I just ADORE that man, don't you?
As for the magma tunnels, as I've said the tunnels run parallel to the ocean floor.....oh wait....could it be that you don't understand a thing that's blatantly obvious and you think that the tunnels are ABOVE the ocean floor? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.
The tunnels would have to run UNDER the ocean floor....parallel meaning that they don't run obliquely or perpendicular to the ocean floor. They run UNDER the ocean floor PARALLEL to it so that they follow the contours of the flat ocean terrain. Got it, numbnuts?
Your mind is obviously stuck on magma chambers under the ocean floor that are pockets of magma where the magma has risen from the mantle and then create vertically inclined tubes to the surface. The magma coming from the pockets or chambers fill up from the tubes in the mantle.
Was that easy enough for you to understand, dickhead? Read my post again. The "NOT SURE" is a qualifying statement.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2012
And before you complain, provide me with proof that those ;magma tunnels do NOT exist. There have been earthquakes in the NYC area in the past. There was one earthquake under Long Island, and that's only a glorified sandbar moraine.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2012
It's obvious that you also don't understand the principles of stratigraphy. Magma doesn't pop up just ANYWHERE. It goes along, parallel to the ocean floor until it finds a WEAK AREA that allows it to flow upwards to break through the ocean floor. A very thick layer of the right type of rock under the ocean floor will prevent magma from breaking through it. The magma must travel PARALLEL to that layer to find an opening.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2012
I see that Phys.org admin has purged your stupid lies and imaginings from the above thread. At least they had the common sense to do THAT.
Sorry but you are confused again as usual. My stuff is all still here.
- NAZI-LOVER GhostofBlotto1923

And as usual, you are confused about which threads I was referring to....and it was NOT this one.
I posted the links to 3 threads in which you brought your foul stench. In the third one, Phys.org had removed your nastiness as I had requested.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2012
The U.S. national debt is roughly equal to it's GDP.

"A national debt which is ten times GDP" - HowardTard
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2012
The U.S. national debt is roughly equal to it's GDP.

"A national debt which is ten times GDP" - HowardTard


"Bloomberg BusinessWeek, in its current cover story "Why The Current Debt Crisis is Even Worse Than You Think", argues the true measure of U.S. debt ought to be the so-called fiscal gap. That's the present value of the difference between the nation's total revenues and its total obligations. That comes to $211 trillion."

http://abcnews.go...ospITbEI

14x

Smashin_Z_1885
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2012
This article is absolute, and one hundred percent un-provable hogwash. To assume that humans indeed have the power to heat up the unfathomable volume of water within the oceans of this planet is not only preposterous, but laughably absurd at the highest order of stupidity. There currently exists NO technology capable of heating the oceans to any measurable degree whatsoever, and, via the absurd means of heating the atmosphere to do so? Very simple experiments conducted at home can easily debunk this idiotic theory. Very simple physics will also make note, that, the best way to heat water is not by blowing hot air upon it's surface. This article is yet another infiltration of government controlled propaganda.
Smashin_Z_1885
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2012
During the 1880's, we assumed that few advances would be made after the year 1900, as the 1880's were now so incredibly modern, machines and factories so complex, fashion so highly advanced, and life in general so improved to such a high degree, that, after 1900, the curve would flatten, and we would have achieved utopia in a sense, becoming as modern as scientifically possible. Of course, here in 2012, such an idea appears absurd, as progression continues. Just think about that before assuming such articles, obviously crafted by government officials, are actually true, and that we shall all die from global warming, or, that it even exists at all, or, that if it does in fact, exist, that is is caused by human activities. During the era of old, midway between the first and second millennium, Northern latitudes were indeed warm enough for farming, and yet, humans survived, perhaps more easily than this era, as crops were easily produced where now, only ice exists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2012
:)
The tunnels... run UNDER the ocean floor PARALLEL to it so that they follow the contours of the flat ocean terrain.
But you have offered no reasons for why magma would find it's way underneath hundreds of miles of ocean floor, avoiding weak spots, climbing the continental shelf, and erupting in Brooklyn.

You have provided no sources for this 'idea' of yours and no evidence of precedence. You apparently linked the unrelated words 'magma', 'ocean floor', and 'NYC' and came up with what you thought was an hypothesis worth depositing in this thread.

What makes you feel you have a right to do this? This forum is not your toilet.

You did the same thing in the voyager 1 thread, suggesting that gyroscopes could actually be used to create gravity fields. This you provided a link for; apparently some dimwit (you?) asking some poor scientist the same idiot question. This is on a par with your calling NASA to ask for microphones on landers to eavesdrop on Martians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2012
:)
It's obvious that you also don't understand the principles of stratigraphy.
But you do because pussy/Ritchie/piro/russkiyes conjectures are equivalent to those of scientists. Because he/she/it says so...
Just like I and others speculate on ways and methods, the Astrobiologist and Engineers speculate on these things also.
Let's see what p/r/p/r found on google:

"Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers and layering (stratification). It is primarily used in the study of sedimentary and layered volcanic rocks."

-And this is all we need to know that volcanos can appear in Brooklyn. Sad.
Magma doesn't pop up just ANYWHERE. It goes along, parallel to the ocean floor
Funny I didn't see this in the wiki article. Maybe you got it from buzzle?
Good find, NotParker
sucksucksucksuck
3432682
1 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2012
"The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters) is approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."

One tenth degree C in 50 years. AGW false alarm. Everybody stand down. And to say mankind caused it? Even if we did, so what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2012
And before you complain, provide me with proof that those ;magma tunnels do NOT exist. There have been earthquakes in the NYC area in the past.
Naw these are caused by fracking in secaucus.
http://www.thever...ke-risks
There was one earthquake under Long Island, and that's only a glorified sandbar moraine.
-There has never been a documented earthquake centered under your 'glorified sandbar moraine' of long island. You dont read very well.

And your "petit-spot" volcanoes occur on the ocean floor near subduction zones and are not associated with lava tubes or somesuch plumbing. NYC is not on the ocean floor.

Got any more bullshit that needs vetting?
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
laughably absurd at the highest order of stupidity. There currently exists NO technology capable of heating the oceans to any measurable degree


Its called the SUN dim bulb.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
One tenth degree C in 50 years. AGW false alarm.

Your an idiot. You do realize that is GLOBALLY, and that the ocean(s) cover 2/3 of the Earths surface. Also the oceans are the largest solar heat sink.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2012
During the 1880's, we assumed that few advances would be made after the year 1900...


Screw that; who is "we"? That is such a grandiose piece of crap!
Science is telling us exactly what is happening now. We have engineering skills that dwarf anything previously, a work force equal to no generation prior, and an instant communications system to anyone in the world(more or less) at the press of a button. This is good stuff; you freaks just need to respect science more.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2012
Hottie, Lovelock is talking about you:

") Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion, Lovelock observed. I dont think people have noticed that, but its got all the sort of terms that religions use The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You cant win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air."
http://www.toront...n-drivel