Climate panel: Warming 'extremely likely' man-made (Update 3)

Sep 27, 2013 by Karl Ritter
In this Dec. 16, 2009 file photo, steam and smoke rises from a coal power station in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. Scientists are more confident than ever that pumping carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. By how much is something governments and scientists meeting in Stockholm will try to pin down with as much precision as possible Friday Sept. 27, 2013 in a seminal report on global warming. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner, File)

Scientists now believe it's "extremely likely" that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

"If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

The IPCC, which has 195 member countries, adopted the report Friday after all-night talks at a meeting in Stockholm.

In its previous assessment, in 2007, the U.N.-sponsored panel said it was "very likely" that global warming was due to human activity, particularly the CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

The change means that scientists have moved from being 90 percent sure to 95 percent—about the same degree of certainty they have that smoking kills.

"At 90 percent it means there is a 10 percent probability that it's not entirely correct," said Chris Field, Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn't involved in the report released Friday. "And now that's 5 percent. So it's a doubling of our confidence. That's actually a consequential change in our level of understanding."

One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with what appears to be a slowdown in warming if you look at temperature data for the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this "hiatus" casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, even though the past decade was the warmest on record.

Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.

In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don't in general reflect long-term trends.

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), during the presentation of the U.N. IPCC climate report, in Stockholm, Friday Sep. 27, 2013. Scientists can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said Friday. Calling man-made warming "extremely likely," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the strongest words yet on the issue as it adopted its assessment on the state of the climate system. (AP Photo/ TT News Agency, Bertil Enevag Ericson)

"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

Many scientists say the temperature data reflect random climate fluctuations and an unusually hot year, 1998, picked as a starting point for charting temperatures. Another leading hypothesis is that heat is settling temporarily in the oceans, but that wasn't included in the summary.

Stocker said there wasn't enough literature on "this emerging question."

The IPCC said the evidence of climate change has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, the other co-chair of the working group.

The full 2,000-page report isn't going to be released until Monday, but the summary for policymakers with the key findings was published Friday. It contained few surprises as many of the findings had been leaked in advance.

As expected, the IPCC raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century. The previous report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches (18-59 centimeters).

But it did acknowledge that the climate may be less sensitive to CO2 emissions than was stated in 2007. Back then, the IPCC said that a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would likely result in 2-4.5 C (3.6-8.1 F) degrees of warming. This time it restored the lower end of that range to what it was in previous reports, 1.5 C (2.7 F).

French Michel Jarraud, left, Secretary-General of World Meteorological Organization, WMO, and Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), during the presentation of the U.N. IPCC climate report, in Stockholm, Friday Sept. 27, 2013. Scientists can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said Friday. Calling man-made warming "extremely likely," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the strongest words yet on the issue as it adopted its assessment on the state of the climate system. (AP Photo/ TT News Agency, Bertil Enevag Ericson)

The IPCC assessments are important because they form the scientific basis of U.N. negotiations on a new climate deal. Governments are supposed to finish that agreement in 2015, but it's unclear whether they will commit to the emissions cuts that scientists say will be necessary to keep the temperature below a limit at which the worst effects of climate change can be avoided.

Using four scenarios with different emissions controls, the report projected that global average temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C this century. That's 0.5-8.6 F.

Only the lowest scenario, which was based on major cuts in CO2 emissions and is considered unlikely, came in below limit that countries have set as their target in the climate talks to avoid the worst impacts of warming. That limit is a warming of 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared with before the industrial revolution in the 18th century.

At this point, emissions keep rising mainly due to rapid growth in China and other emerging economies. But those nations say rich countries should take the lead on emissions cuts because they've pumped carbon into the atmosphere for longer.

Media representatives follow the U.N. IPCC climate report presentation, in Stockholm, Friday Sept. 27, 2013. Scientists can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said Friday. Calling man-made warming "extremely likely," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the strongest words yet on the issue as it adopted its assessment on the state of the climate system. (AP Photo/ TT News Agency, Bertil Enevag Ericson)

Climate activists said the report should spur governments to action.

"There are few surprises in this report but the increase in the confidence around many observations just validates what we are seeing happening around us," said Samantha Smith, of the World Wildlife Fund.

The report adopted Friday deals with the physical science of climate change. Next year, the IPCC will adopt reports on the impacts of global warming, strategies to fight it and a synthesis of all three reports.

Explore further: Microplastics in the ocean: Biologists study effects on marine animals

More information: Key findings of IPCC report on climate change

3 /5 (49 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

10 things to know about the IPCC climate panel

Sep 26, 2013

Here are 10 things to know about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.-sponsored scientific group that will present a landmark report on global warming Friday.

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

14 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

14 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 174

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Agomemnon
2 / 5 (36) Sep 27, 2013
it is not possible or logical to make claims of 'confidence' or 'extremely likely' in regards to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. There has been no statistacal warming of the earth since 1998 even though CO2 emmissions have continued to increase unabated.
Perhaps physics is correct and CO2 is not a dominant greenhouse gas.
It's my opinion that CO2 should never be a concern. We have real issues affecting life, that are man-made, but CO2 and global-warming-cooling-whaterver isn't it.
shavera
3.7 / 5 (27) Sep 27, 2013
except we've measured the deep ocean temperatures and found that those waters are holding the increased warming during one of the natural warming/cooling cycles. While deep ocean waters hold it, it's plateaued surface ocean temperatures for a time. But when the cycle reverses, and deep ocean waters cycle back toward the surface, the warming increase will continue on as the long term observed trend has shown. See also global surface temperatures ca. 1940 when there was a similar "plateau" within an overall trend of warming.
vlaaing peerd
3.6 / 5 (25) Sep 27, 2013
it is not possible or logical to make claims of 'confidence' or 'extremely likely' in regards to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Yes there is.

There has been no statistacal warming of the earth since 1998 even though CO2 emmissions have continued to increase unabated.
Yet on even weaker basis you make an assumption that implies the otherwise. Interesting way of debating, mr agomemnon...

Perhaps physics is correct and CO2 is not a dominant greenhouse gas.
wth ever gave you that idea?

It's my opinion .

that says quite about enough...
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (20) Sep 27, 2013
Pity. I am going to miss the pseudo-skeptics.
What a wonderful rationalizer the Left Brain is.
DeadCorpse
2.1 / 5 (38) Sep 27, 2013
40 plus years of bad climate models, failed predictions, fake data, and outright fraud...

Now, 15 years of flat temps in defiance of EVERY model they thought was solid.

Yeah, I'm still in the skeptic camp.
Agomemnon
1.6 / 5 (32) Sep 27, 2013
it is not possible or logical to make claims of 'confidence' or 'extremely likely' in regards to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Yes there is.
fine. show the confidence interval. Show your work.

Perhaps physics is correct and CO2 is not a dominant greenhouse gas.
wth ever gave you that idea?

It's a fact. See Water Vapor.

It's my opinion .

that says quite about enough...

Ah! But don't you see. I had first reported facts and then clarified where it went to an opinion. Of which, you are free to reject...the facts not quite so. This panel and reported conclusion are nothing but opinion and ideology. You should prefer the clarity.
wealthychef
3.7 / 5 (25) Sep 27, 2013
Here come all the armchair climatologists to try to show why their opinions trump those of scientists who have devoted years of detailed and thoughtful study to this matter. How about accepting the results as the good science that they are? It's not a conspiracy, folks, this is happening.
djr
3.7 / 5 (22) Sep 27, 2013
Agomemnon: " Ah! But don't you see. I had first reported facts"

No you didn't - you cherry picked the facts. Show us the data for ocean temps, ice sheets, glaciers, ocean levels. All show that the warming is continuing. So you picked the surface temps - that are just one part of much bigger system. How many times do we have to repeat this reality.
Agomemnon
1.8 / 5 (35) Sep 27, 2013
djr -
FACT - there has been no statistical warming of the earth for 15 years.
FACT - man-made CO2 emissions have not stopped.
FACT - CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas by far
FACT - ice sheets are growing in the north and south pole. (not that I care but that's a fact)
FACT - all the models and predictions have been extremely wrong. not even close.

It's only by OPINION that think CO2 increase is bad.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) Sep 27, 2013
40 plus years of bad climate models, failed predictions, fake data, and outright fraud...

Now, 15 years of flat temps in defiance of EVERY model they thought was solid.

Yeah, I'm still in the skeptic camp.

You were never a real skeptic.
Mr_Science
2.5 / 5 (27) Sep 27, 2013
List of people in these comemtns that have went off topic:
Egleton, wealthychef, Neinsense99

It's very simple people, talk about the article, science related to the article, or shut up.

Religion, politics, economics, and people bashing have no place in pure science unless it's about getting funding for science. A topic that is rearly covered in these articles. So can we please have a discussion about science and only science?

Thank you.
djr
3.9 / 5 (28) Sep 27, 2013
Agomemnon

FACT - there has been no statistical warming of the earth for 15 years.
FACT - ice sheets are growing in the north and south pole. (not that I care but that's a fact)

These two facts are easily proven to be not facts. Do you understand that the oceans hold a great deal more heat than the atmosphere? Here is some data - that took me 2 seconds to pull up with a google search. http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

You are wrong.
shavera
3.9 / 5 (21) Sep 27, 2013
Agomemnon, your "facts" are absolutely false. The "plateau" is only global average *surface* temperatures. Since most of the planet's surface is ocean, an unusually cool ocean surface temperature lowers the overall average. Unlike land, however, Oceans circulate. This means that they can have heat circulate into deep ocean water, which has been observed to be the case. When that heat returns to the surface, you'll see the long-term trend line continue. Compare this to a similar pattern observed around 1940.
Aaron1980
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 27, 2013
I think the article also says that the question is now moot.

So I guess it's now ... burn baby burn and drill baby drill!
Aaron1980
1.5 / 5 (26) Sep 27, 2013
I'm going out an buying the biggest Hummer I can find.... the price of gas should drop like a rock ... tax it no more... since its too late any way
Agomemnon
1.9 / 5 (35) Sep 27, 2013
djr and shavera. Neither of you are dealing with anything called science, math, or fluid thermodynamics.

djr subscribes to the 'heat hidden magically in the ocean theory' and shavera contradicts that by stating that the colder ocean is bringing down temperatures.

The issue is fraud of Global Warming Crisis Catastraphe....not that there has been any warming at all. Which I'm happy to have the warmer rather than cooler earth. The problem is money has flowed to those that screach the crisis. Not to those that do anything like the scientific method.
Michael Mann is one such fraud. The NYT just pointed out an MIT article (http://muller.lbl...ell.htm) in its title "A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change
turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics". The reason I say fraud is...you can't make those mistakes. Its by intent.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (31) Sep 27, 2013
IPCC and physorg must be quite desperate posting all these articles.
They are following the advice of expert propagandists. Keep repeating the big lie regardless of the evidence.
djr
3.9 / 5 (22) Sep 27, 2013
djr subscribes to the 'heat hidden magically in the ocean theory'

I provided you with plenty of data. This data directly contradicts your claim that there has been no warming in the past 15 years. This data was available to anyone with basic google skills. You are clearly pushing a political agenda - and not interested in science. You clearly do not have basic google skills - but want to influence the debate around science with your ignorance.
Agomemnon
1.9 / 5 (29) Sep 27, 2013
can't we talk about real issues and problems that human activity is doing?
why don't we talk about how the EPA has dramatically increased the allowable amount of glyphosate and other carcinogens in the water supply?
why don't we talk about the over-use of artificial (and can i say group 1 carcinogen) contraceptive pill that are polluting the water supply and f'ing up wildilfe?
why don't we talk about how GMO's are damaging the environment?
djr
3.9 / 5 (22) Sep 27, 2013
Why don't we talk about the issue at hand. You stated that there had been no warming for the past 15 years. This is not true. The data is readily available. Many of us are just tired of constantly dealing with never ending lies being pushed by the anti-science commenters on this site and others.
Aaron1980
1.3 / 5 (25) Sep 28, 2013
who cares? can't do anything about it anyway. Don't worry. Be happy. Waste energy. Use fossil fuels as much as you can since it wont last much longer. Government can't justify taxing it anymore so the price at the pump should drop by 50% just from removing the now unjustifiable taxes.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (24) Sep 28, 2013
People that *believe* that global warming has flat-lined for the past 15 years are DENIERS or at a minimum self-deluded. For example the past August; global temperature ties for fourth highest on record! Global ocean temperature ties for record highest! The fools that think the Earth is cooling are delusional nut cases.

@DJR don't waste your time with the wing nut. He's a pin-head doorknob sucker.


rwinners
2.2 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2013
Alas alac, it is a slower warming, but more steady.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (28) Sep 28, 2013
Global ocean temperature

How have the ocean temperatures been measured at 500m, 1000m, 2000m 5000m, 10,000 m,....for the past 30 years?
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (23) Sep 28, 2013
@Agomemnon
why don't we talk about how the EPA has dramatically increased the allowable amount of glyphosate and other carcinogens in the water supply?

YES PLEASE TELL US ALL ABOUT IT. WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW EPA IS AT FAULT WHEN IT'S THE OIL COMPANIES AND POLLUTERS THAT PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! TELL EVERYONE YOU SOB!
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (20) Sep 28, 2013
Global ocean temperature

How have the ocean temperatures been measured at 500m, 1000m, 2000m 5000m, 10,000 m,....for the past 30 years?

DOES IT MATTER R2? It's still the tied with the highest!
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (21) Sep 28, 2013
"How have the ocean temperatures been measured at 500m, 1000m, 2000m 5000m, 10,000 m,....for the past 30 years?" - RyggTard

By military submarine, and more recently by the ARGO series of ocean monitoring buoys.

The don't go to 10,000 meters of course, since there are few places in the ocean that are that deep.

You were far too stupid to know that, weren't you?
djr
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 28, 2013
Ryggy asks - How have the ocean temperatures been measured at 500m, 1000m, 2000m 5000m, 10,000 m,....for the past 30 years?

There is some interesting data in here - wonder if Ryggy can come up with any data to counter.

http://phys.org/n...sea.html
meBigGuy
3.5 / 5 (22) Sep 28, 2013
"djr subscribes to the 'heat hidden magically in the ocean theory' and shavera contradicts that by stating that the colder ocean is bringing down temperatures."

Lol --- Agomemnon is so scientifically handicapped (that means stupid, BTW) that he thinks that "heat hidden in the ocean" and "colder ocean bringing down temperatures" are contradictory.

meBigGuy
3.7 / 5 (21) Sep 28, 2013
can't we talk about real issues and problems that human activity is doing?
why don't we talk about how the EPA has dramatically increased the allowable amount of glyphosate and other carcinogens in the water supply?
why don't we talk about the over-use of artificial (and can i say group 1 carcinogen) contraceptive pill that are polluting the water supply and f'ing up wildilfe?
why don't we talk about how GMO's are damaging the environment?


How did you find out about all that if NO ONE is talking about it? I doubt you are doing the original research. Could it be that corporations are supressing truth and spreading propaganda? Could it be you are helping them regarding AGW? Don't you see the parallel? Should the world only address the things you think are a problem (that someone else told you about)
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2013
This is what Good Christian RyggTard has in store for women all across America.

http://americanli...NMC0.png
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 28, 2013
djr subscribes to the 'heat hidden magically in the ocean theory' and shavera contradicts that by stating that the colder ocean is bringing down temperatures.


Err...... the ocean has long term circulation cycles. Sea water is readily stratified and does not want to mix at depth. Salinity and temperature differentials cause this. An interaction between the Trade winds in the equatorial east Pacific and the sea surface causes a cyclic variation of SST of the order of +/- 2-3C. Vis stronger SE trades move the warm waters west and allow colder underlying water to surface. When weak Trades are present the warm waters "flow back". That part of the Globe adds enormous energy to the Atmosphere ( via release of LH ).
Hence cooler at surface while able to store heat below. And while cooler the surface Ocean is still of course warming.
meBigGuy
3.3 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2013
Another analogy regarding ocean temeratures. A glass of cold water sitting in a room cools the room while (by) storing energy. No layering required, just be cooler than the room.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (28) Sep 28, 2013
Boycott the class of 2013, entrepreneurs. More than usual, now.
roldor
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2013
This is a wisdom, like someone is saying
- After running his oven for hours at full power -
"It is quiet likely, that this terrible heat in here,
comes from the oven!
Who could know this from before??"
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (16) Sep 29, 2013
"Boycott the class of 2013, entrepreneurs. " - NikkieTard

What are you yammering about now, Mr. Braindeath?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
And while cooler the surface Ocean is still of course warming.
Hmm...

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

...could I be looking at the graph upside down then...?

djr
3.8 / 5 (16) Sep 29, 2013
Looky looky - uba appears - cherry picking some data. Look at this graph.

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

And yes - we understand that the surface temps are on a plateau - and uba wants to keep beating that dead horse - none the less, the system overall is clearly still warming - so one wonders what is the point - besides obfuscation. Read this article and understand that the oceans are warming. http://phys.org/n...sea.html
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
Ocean is still of course warming.

How has the temperature been measured over 70% of the earth's surface, 5000 meters below sea level?
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (22) Sep 29, 2013
Global ocean temperature

How have the ocean temperatures been measured at 500m, 1000m, 2000m 5000m, 10,000 m,....for the past 30 years?

Your unwillingness to learn the answer does not mean the answer is wrong, or that there is the uncertainty that you desire to imply that there is.
djr
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2013
"How has the temperature been measured over 70% of the earth's surface, 5000 meters below sea level?"

No amount of data is going to be sufficient for denialist contrarians like Ryggy - who don't really want to educate themselves - they just want to participate in holding the human race back in the stone ages. If Ryggy knew how to use google, Ryggy would check out the Argos program, and the BIOS program - and learn how the scientists are studying the deep ocean conditions.

It is interesting that on one side you have Nik - claiming that research funds spent on climate research are starving more deserving programs of funds. Ryggy et al on the other side saying that we do not have enough data - so cannot form any understanding of the system. What asshats we have to deal with. Which do you want guys - more or less research?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
The claims is made the entire ocean is warming.
The ocean is large and difficult to attain great depths.
If scientists just recently discovered a huge volcano under the Pacific, how is the temperature of the ocean at <5000 m measured to assert oceans are warming?
more or less research?

NIST and the NPL both want calibrated IR radiometers launched, TRUTHS and CLARREO to collect more precise radiometric data, which means the data they have now is more uncertain.
LEVI506
2 / 5 (26) Sep 29, 2013
It's amazing how many supposedly intelligent people show pictures of STEAM coming off COOLING TOWERS and think it'sSMOKE. OK, skip the intelligent part. Steam may be a form of pollution, "thermal", but NOT particulate! Tells you what kind of "scientists" are being turned out by our liberal school today. Common sense and the ability to reason are a scarce commodity in this day and age,
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
It's amazing how many supposedly intelligent people show pictures of STEAM coming off COOLING TOWERS and think it'sSMOKE. OK, skip the intelligent part. Steam may be a form of pollution, "thermal", but NOT particulate! Tells you what kind of "scientists" are being turned out by our liberal school today. Common sense and the ability to reason are a scarce commodity in this day and age,

You make naked assertions about what you claim others assume, with no evidence. That's just meaningless political sniping, a straw man attack, not science, and it say much more about you than it does about the scientists you are here to malign.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
It's amazing how many supposedly intelligent people show pictures of STEAM coming off COOLING TOWERS and think it'sSMOKE. OK, skip the intelligent part. Steam may be a form of pollution, "thermal", but NOT particulate! Tells you what kind of "scientists" are being turned out by our liberal school today. Common sense and the ability to reason are a scarce commodity in this day and age,

It's amazing the depths to which some will sink to deny the obvious fact that there are different types of towers visible in the photo, the fact that steam is mentioned in the caption, the fact that the scientists you attack did not write the caption, and the fact that a coal burning power plant must emit smoke by the very nature of imperfect combustion. You are being deceitful, or have a serious inability to read, or both.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
Scientists have been quite effective at maligning themselves to support their cause.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
Scientists have been quite effective at maligning themselves to support their cause.

Paul Ehrlich, Mann and Jim Hansen are at the top of the list.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
Scientists have been quite effective at maligning themselves to support their cause.

Paul Ehrlich, Mann and Jim Hansen are at the top of the list.

When you can't rebut the points, offer empty opinion about persons far more qualified than yourself. How typical of your posts.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (26) Sep 29, 2013
Ehrlich lost his bet about population, Mann was wrist slapped by the NAS for poor quality data on his hockey stick and Hansen shilled for Enron.
But, integrity is not important to AGWites.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
Again, you changed the subject from the original comment which exposed the straw man attack from Levi. That's the difference between sincere discussion and intellectual dishonesty.
Facts:
1, there are multiple structures in the photo, not just the cooling towers, so the commenter misrepresented the photo
2, all coal plants have smoke stacks because they burn coal, not magic pixie dust
3. Levi attacked the quality of scientists based on a photo and caption that they did not choose or compose

But you cannot address the facts, so you sling mud and play change the subject. Not only is that insulting to the intelligence of the reader, it demonstrates a level of intellectual rigor not very much above that of a rotting sheep corpse.
Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 29, 2013
for those interested in math
http://rps3.com/F...v4.3.pdf
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 29, 2013
And while cooler the surface Ocean is still of course warming.
Hmm...

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

...could I be looking at the graph upside down then...?
Looky looky - uba appears - cherry picking some data.

...And yes - we understand that the surface temps are on a plateau - and uba wants to keep beating that dead horse
You must not have understood. The claim was, "...the surface Ocean is STILL (emphasis added) of course warming." This claim is clearly false, as you just admitted (by acknowledging the temperature plateau, yourself)!

Therefore all you're really saying is, I'm right! LOL!

cont...

djr
3.9 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2013
Therefore all you're really saying is, I'm right! LOL!

No - I am saying you are irrelevant - trying to keep beating a dead horse. Yes - the surface temperatures are on a plateau - around and around uba goes - thinking that uba has won the grand prize. We know the surface temps are on a plateau - we also know that the system is very clearly still warming. Around and around you go - what a baby.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 29, 2013
...cont...
- none the less, the system overall is clearly still warming - so one wonders what is the point - besides obfuscation.
Apparently the definition hasn't sunk in. Let's try it again:

Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

...nope, no warming lately!

Read this article and understand that the oceans are warming.
This isn't "the oceans" (plural), this is one relatively small sea. And apparently you don't understand that as the oceans circulate (much like the atmosphere) it's normal for there to be temperature fluctuations (or maybe you think temperatures are always fixed and rigid, across the globe?).

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (23) Sep 29, 2013
for those interested in math
http://rps3.com/F...v4.3.pdf
Excellent!
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (27) Sep 29, 2013
Therefore all you're really saying is, I'm right! LOL!

No - I am saying you are irrelevant - trying to keep beating a dead horse. Yes - the surface temperatures are on a plateau - around and around uba goes - thinking that uba has won the grand prize. We know the surface temps are on a plateau - we also know that the system is very clearly still warming. Around and around you go - what a baby.
There you go again, stil having a problem with definitions...

LOL!

runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
And while cooler the surface Ocean is still of course warming.
Hmm...

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

...could I be looking at the graph upside down then...?


Aside from if you put in a year before/after 1997.5 you get a rising trend (of course you knew that). You do understand how heat reaches the deeper Ocean?
That it comes ultimately from the surface Ocean?
So by corollary if the deep ocean is heating then the surface must have first and transfered the heat below. Comprede. LOL.
Put simply the Ocean can/does warm but transfers that heat elsewhere.
That is - you confuse measured temperature with receipt of heat. That is how your car's cooling system stays near constant while it ventilates heat through the radiator.
Basic thermodynamics.

Oh dear Mr Twain won't be pleased - slipped up again.
Koen
1.9 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
Climate panels are political organisations, selling us unscientific lies:

1) Global temperature changes are natural
2) greenhouse gases don't exist, because a greenhouse is based on SOLID glass that stops hot air convection. Higher concentration of the gas CO2 can't have the same effect, every child can understand this.
3) The hypothesis, that extra atmospheric CO2 causes a higher earth surface temperature globally, is impossible to prove yet, because the physics behind such a hypothetic effect is extremely complicated and can't be SIMULATED realistically. So all the climate models that are in used by "climatologists" for simulations on computers are oversimplified and unrealistic.

There are fine realistic reasons to kick out fossil fuels out of the window, such as World War Three, such as energy powerplay that enslaves most people.
Mankind HAS global impact on ecological systems, which is a REAL danger, but where are the "Intergovernmental panels on Eco system destruction"?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
And while cooler the surface Ocean is still of course warming.
Hmm...

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

...could I be looking at the graph upside down then...?
Aside from if you put in a year before/after 1997.5 you get a rising trend (of course you knew that). You do understand how heat reaches the deeper Ocean?
That it comes ultimately from the surface Ocean?
So by corollary if the deep ocean is heating then the surface must have first and transfered the heat below. Comprede. LOL.
Put simply the Ocean can/does warm but transfers that heat elsewhere.
That is - you confuse measured temperature with receipt of heat. That is how your car's cooling system stays near constant while it ventilates heat through the radiator.
Basic thermodynamics.
So now you're trying to cover your incompetence with misdirection?

The "surface Ocean" is still the surface, period.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
Mankind HAS global impact on ecological systems, which is a REAL danger, but where are the "Intergovernmental panels on Eco system destruction"?
Excellent point!
Agomemnon
1.7 / 5 (22) Sep 29, 2013
Mankind HAS global impact on ecological systems, which is a REAL danger, but where are the "Intergovernmental panels on Eco system destruction"?
Excellent point!


exactly!!
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 29, 2013
djr -
FACT - there has been no statistical warming of the earth for 15 years.

The Earth is not a piece of steel that warms when you apply a match.

FACT - man-made CO2 emissions have not stopped.

No, and they are trumped by Water, the blessed Element is 12x more prevalent in the driest desert, and 25x more powerful greenhouse gas.
FACT - CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas by far

Even the devil can quote scripture.
FACT - ice sheets are growing in the north and south pole. (not that I care but that's a fact)

Nay, but but "heat" (Delta H) is increasing.
FACT - all the models and predictions have been extremely wrong. not even close.

It's only by OPINION that think CO2 increase is bad.

True, models have been designed to mislead, what has, is and will happen is simple to predict if you start with the truth and build up.
djr
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2013
There you go again, stil having a problem with definitions...

I just checked - no problem with definitions - everything just fine on that front. Chronic problem with childlike posters on the physorg web site - they don't know what they are talking about - keep posting the same rubbish over and over - other posters provide data to refute the rubbish - childlike posters run of and hide under a rock for a few days - then come back out and start the whole cycle over - very tedious.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
So by corollary if the deep ocean is heating then the surface must have first and transfered the heat below.


So the deep ocean's temperature is not measured.
For water to sink, it must be more dense. Water density is dependent upon salt content, temperature and pressure.
"The ocean waters can be divided into three layers, depending on their densities. Less dense waters form a top layer called the surface mixed zone. The temperature and salinity of this layer can change often because it is in direct contact with the air. For example, water evaporation could cause an increase in salinity, and a cold front could cause a drop in temperature.
The next layer is the pycnocline, or transition zone. The density here does not change very much."
"The bottom layer is the deep zone, where the water remains cold and dense"
http://www.onr.na...ity1.htm
Is the deep ocean zone warming?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 29, 2013
Put simply the Ocean can/does warm but transfers that heat elsewhere.
That is - you confuse measured temperature with receipt of heat.


What part of the ocean?

You stated the deep ocean is warming. How can it when there is little movement of water from the deep ocean to the surface to transfer heat?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
"What part of the ocean?" - RyggTard

What part of the ocean can/does warm?

Only a moron would ask such a question.

What part of the ocean does transfer heat elsewhere?

Only a moron would ask such a question.

Only a Moron like RyggTard would ask two such questions in a row.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
"So the deep ocean's temperature is not measured." - RyggTard

You were told it was measured, and how. Your conclusion is that it isn't measured.

You are truly an idiot among denialist idiots.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
"Is the deep ocean zone warming?" - RyggTard

Nope. But it would have to be if the denialist idiocy about tens of thousands of new and invisible volcanoes under the ocean were to be true.

As always, you are an idiot.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
"The "surface Ocean" is still the surface, period." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He just can't figure out the difference between heat flow and temperature.

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

http://www.realcl...warming/
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2013
"greenhouse gases don't exist, because a greenhouse is based on SOLID glass" - KlodKadiddleHopper

Bahahahahahahahahahahhahahah..........

Oh, man... What's next Klod? You gonna try and tell us that temperature doesn't exist like the Deniliasts tried a decade ago?

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2013
"...nope, no warming lately!" - UbVonLiar

0.25'C since 2003

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your Life TardieBoy?
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2013
"The claim was, "...the surface Ocean is STILL (emphasis added) of course warming." This claim is clearly false," - UbVonTard

UbVonTard remains blissfully unaware that something can absorb heat without changing temperature.

He made the same mistake months ago when he argued for two weeks that ice increases it's temperature as it melts.

His knowledge of science is beneath that of the average grade 7 student.

He is a pathetic, denialist, moron.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (27) Sep 29, 2013
I just checked - no problem with definitions - everything just fine on that front. Chronic problem with childlike posters on the physorg web site - they don't know what they are talking about - keep posting the same rubbish over and over - other posters provide data to refute the rubbish - childlike posters run of and hide under a rock for a few days - then come back out and start the whole cycle over - very tedious.
Yes. Providing the data to refute your childlike rubbish does get tiresome.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2013
"..could I be looking at the graph upside down then...?" - UbvonTard

No. You are just looking at a statistically insignificant sample.

Here is a better one that includes just 4 more years of data that you magically decided not to include.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

Lying is your stock and trade.
Lying is what you do.
Lying is what you live for.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 29, 2013
VendicarE:

He made the same mistake months ago when he argued for two weeks that ice increases it's temperature as it melts.


So you think ice cannot exist at a temperature below freezing? LOL!

meBigGuy
3.9 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2013
"So you think ice cannot exist at a temperature below freezing? LOL!"

Wow --- you are truly scientifically illiterate and don't even know it. If you can't understand what was being said you are a sad sad case. But, I already knew that since the garbage that you post is beyond belief.

I've worked with conspiricy theorists. If someone, step by step, carefully, and fully, disproves their theory, they just forget it and continue to say the same thing the next day. You obviously have that disease. And, a disease it is. Denying AGW is who you are and you are incapable of learning and adjusting.
meBigGuy
4.1 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2013
"2) greenhouse gases don't exist, because a greenhouse is based on SOLID glass that stops hot air convection. Higher concentration of the gas CO2 can't have the same effect, every child can understand this."

Wow, that's some scary stupidity. Please read the wikipedia article on radiative forcing. Even the most adamant scientific skeptic accepts the reality of greenhouse gasses.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (26) Sep 30, 2013
"So you think ice cannot exist at a temperature below freezing? LOL!"

Wow --- you are truly scientifically illiterate and don't even know it. If you can't understand what was being said you are a sad sad case. But, I already knew that since the garbage that you post is beyond belief.

I've worked with conspiricy theorists. If someone, step by step, carefully, and fully, disproves their theory, they just forget it and continue to say the same thing the next day. You obviously have that disease. And, a disease it is. Denying AGW is who you are and you are incapable of learning and adjusting.
On the contrary, this appears to be an AGWite problem. As global temperatures refuse to budge upward as predicted, they desperately try to rationalize it in regards to their original hypothesis, rather than simply admit there may be a problem with the hypothesis, which needs to be investigated.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2013
"As global temperatures refuse to budge upward as predicted," - UbVonTard

As you have been repeatedly told, Climate models do not "predict" yearly increases in global average temperature. Rather they are run multiple times with varying initial conditions to produce a statistical distribution of results.

The projected trend is projected from the mean of the peak probabilities of those distributions.

So once again, your claim is a lie, since the observed fluctuations in yearly temperatures remain inside the bounds of the trends two sigma statistical envelope.

Lying is what UbVonTard Does.
Lying is what UbVonTard lives for
Lying is his reason for being
Lying is the only tool he has.
Lying is life to him.
JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (23) Sep 30, 2013
VendicarE:

He made the same mistake months ago when he argued for two weeks that ice increases it's temperature as it melts.


So you think ice cannot exist at a temperature below freezing? LOL!


LOL Ubavontard doesn't know what a phase transition is!
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2013
"LOL Ubavontard doesn't know what a phase transition is!" - JohnGee

He didn't at the time. And he spent two weeks calling me a liar and a fool for pointing out the fact that ice doesn't change temperature as it melts.

He is a walking, talking poster child for Dunning-Kruger.

I have seriously seen children who at 10 years old, know more about natural science than he does.

Like most self proclaimed "free thinkers", he is spectacularly ignorant, and proud of it.

Howhot
4 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2013
The famous @Ubba says "On the contrary, this appears to be an AGWite problem." In your dreams @Ubba. There is no AGWite problem. But there IS an AGW denier problem!
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 30, 2013
"LOL Ubavontard doesn't know what a phase transition is!" - JohnGee

He didn't at the time. And he spent two weeks calling me a liar and a fool for pointing out the fact that ice doesn't change temperature as it melts.
This is a lie, as the discussion concerned water vapor, not ice.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2013
@Ubbatuba, you are starting to sound like a weasel. Why don't you just admit the science? Admit it. Fold unto the science that is the truth! Kneel down unto the the truth. The truth that global warming is man-made --- corporate made --- global warming.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (24) Sep 30, 2013
@Ubbatuba, you are starting to sound like a weasel. Why don't you just admit the science? Admit it. Fold unto the science that is the truth! Kneel down unto the the truth. The truth that global warming is man-made --- corporate made --- global warming.
So you actually believe AGW is a matter of worship? That's just sick, man...
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2013
"You're not getting it. If you take the temperature of the ice and the water separately, and calculate them together into a measurement of the system, you'll get the same answer as if the ice was dissolved into the water to begin with." - UbVonTard

from

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

Lying is what UbVonTard Does.
Lying is what UbVonTard lives for
Lying is his reason for being
Lying is the only tool he has.
Lying is life to him.
Sinister1811
2.4 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2013
@Ubbatuba, you are starting to sound like a weasel. Why don't you just admit the science? Admit it. Fold unto the science that is the truth! Kneel down unto the the truth. The truth that global warming is man-made --- corporate made --- global warming.


Well, you know what they say...
http://cdn.meme.li/i/ou60q.jpg
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 30, 2013
"You're not getting it. If you take the temperature of the ice and the water separately, and calculate them together into a measurement of the system, you'll get the same answer as if the ice was dissolved into the water to begin with." - Uba
Yeah? ...so? ...what's wrong with that?

And why did you leave out the rest of it: "The system temperature isn't affected by melt "false negative" or otherwise."

It looks to me like Vendi-chatterbot is the one not understanding phase transitions! LOL!

meBigGuy
3.5 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2013
"You're not getting it. If you take the temperature of the ice and the water separately, and calculate them together into a measurement of the system, you'll get the same answer as if the ice was dissolved into the water to begin with." - Uba
Yeah? ...so? ...what's wrong with that?

And why did you leave out the rest of it: "The system temperature isn't affected by melt "false negative" or otherwise."

It looks to me like Vendi-chatterbot is the one not understanding phase transitions! LOL!


OMG OMG OMG That is so sad! Uba --- shut up -- you're just making it worse.
Read this: http://chemed.che...842.html
meBigGuy
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2013
It takes 100 calories to lower 100 grams of water by 1 degree C. It takes 8000 calories to just melt 1 gram of ice by barely changing its temperature. 1.25 grams of ice at 0 degrees C can lower the temperature of 100g of water by 1 degree. Another basic principle is that as you add energy to a closed water-ice system in equilibrium, it's temperature doesn't change until the ice is all melted.
djr
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2013
Vendi:

"So the deep ocean's temperature is not measured." - RyggTard

You were told it was measured, and how. Your conclusion is that it isn't measured.

You are truly an idiot among denialist idiots.

Ryggy - look carefully at Vendi's statement above. It is accurate. I told you how the deep ocean temps are measured. Your conclusion is that it is not measured - despite being shown very specific information to the contrary. Now you continue to try to argue around in circles. No amount of data will be sufficient for you. All we can end up doing is either ignoring you - or being rude to you - reason is futile.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2013
Uba "Yes. Providing the data to refute your childlike rubbish does get tiresome."

Now you are back to 'I know you are, but what I am'

4 other posters on this one thread have commented on your scientific ignorance. Let me give you one quote that sums it up.

"Wow --- you are truly scientifically illiterate and don't even know it."

I am not a trained scientist, and have to acknowledge that my high school education was very poor in the area of science. I have some basic college science - and am trying to pick up as much as I can through reading today. Much of what I post here is gleaned from google searches. BUT - I am not the one telling 10's of thousands of highly specialized scientists that they are stupid. I am not the one being told by multiple posters that I seem to be suffering Dunning Kruger. I can at least look up phase change - and yes - you were clearly wrong on that thread.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 30, 2013
Ryggy - look carefully at Vendi's statement above

No. I ignore VD.
I told you how the deep ocean temps are measured.

Where?
This?
Argos program, and the BIOS program - and learn how the scientists are studying the deep ocean conditions.


Argos is a satellite. How does a satellite measure the temperature at 5000m below sea level?
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (21) Sep 30, 2013
@Ubbatuba, you are starting to sound like a weasel. Why don't you just admit the science? Admit it. Fold unto the science that is the truth! Kneel down unto the the truth. The truth that global warming is man-made --- corporate made --- global warming.


Well, you know what they say...
http://cdn.meme.li/i/ou60q.jpg

For those profoundly lacking in a sense of humor, that might be appropriate.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (22) Sep 30, 2013
@Ubbatuba, you are starting to sound like a weasel. Why don't you just admit the science? Admit it. Fold unto the science that is the truth! Kneel down unto the the truth. The truth that global warming is man-made --- corporate made --- global warming.
So you actually believe AGW is a matter of worship? That's just sick, man...

Sarcasm Detection Deficiency Syndrome. That, or a pathological need to twist everything into a political talking point.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (20) Sep 30, 2013
The famous @Ubba says "On the contrary, this appears to be an AGWite problem." In your dreams @Ubba. There is no AGWite problem. But there IS an AGW denier problem!

He probably thinks the 'AGWites' are a heathen tribe keeping him from his ordained place in some promised land.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2013
On the contrary, this appears to be an AGWite problem. As global temperatures refuse to budge upward as predicted, they desperately try to rationalize it in regards to their original hypothesis, rather than simply admit there may be a problem with the hypothesis, which needs to be investigated.



Typical Uba: "No I don't, you do."

What a pathetic case.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2013
Where?
This?

Argos program, and the BIOS program - and learn how the scientists are studying the deep ocean conditions.


Argos is a satellite. How does a satellite measure the temperature at 5000m below sea level?


"........the Atlantic Explorer, which is funded primarily with money from the U.S. National Science Foundation. On this trip to "S," like the other 1,159 trips before it, BIOS will record the ocean's temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen levels. "It's a checkup for the deep ocean," says Knap."

Does it come naturally or are you willfully obtuse?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2013
So now you're trying to cover your incompetence with misdirection?

The "surface Ocean" is still the surface, period.


This is the tennis ball is tossed back by Uba from his Alice in wonderland world....

Which, of course, I was expecting.

And which is why I included this at the end of my post....

"Oh dear Mr Twain won't be pleased - slipped up again."
(for those puzzled ):http://www.mediaw...p?id=237

QED
djr
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2013
Ryggy: "Argos is a satellite. How does a satellite measure the temperature at 5000m below sea level?"

ARGO is a serious of floats that keep a record of the temp and salinity of the top 2000 meters of our oceans. If you knew anything about the subject that you pretend to be an expert on - you would have known that - wouldn't you??????
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
OMG OMG OMG That is so sad! Uba --- shut up -- you're just making it worse.
Read this: http://chemed.che...842.html
Yeah? So how does that disagree with my contention that the temperature isn't affected by the melt (as it remains at the freezing point)?

Maybe you're confusing thermal energy and temperature?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 01, 2013
Another basic principle is that as you add energy to a closed water-ice system in equilibrium, it's temperature doesn't change until the ice is all melted.
How's that different from what I said?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (25) Oct 01, 2013
So now you're trying to cover your incompetence with misdirection?

The "surface Ocean" is still the surface, period.


This is the tennis ball is tossed back by Uba from his Alice in wonderland world....

Which, of course, I was expecting.
LOL. Wouldn't the idiot be; the one arguing the deep ocean temperatures and the surface ocean temperatures are the same thing?

runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2013
So now you're trying to cover your incompetence with misdirection?

The "surface Ocean" is still the surface, period.


This is the tennis ball is tossed back by Uba from his Alice in wonderland world....

Which, of course, I was expecting.
LOL. Wouldn't the idiot be; the one arguing the deep ocean temperatures and the surface ocean temperatures are the same thing?



This is just obvious reflexive posting in retaliation at being found out Uby, Something you do time and again, and which makes it impossible to accept you are a member of the sane section of the Human race - You are either unaware of your stupidity or are willful in it.

Tip - do try not to dig a deeper hole when found out. Just accept it in good grace and move on.

Having a monumental Dunning-Kruger syndrome is one thing but stupidity on top makes for a mighty mind-boggling combination.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 01, 2013
Ryggy: "Argos is a satellite. How does a satellite measure the temperature at 5000m below sea level?"

ARGO is a serious of floats that keep a record of the temp and salinity of the top 2000 meters of our oceans. If you knew anything about the subject that you pretend to be an expert on - you would have known that - wouldn't you??????

But I was asking how the temperature was measured at 5000meters.
According to the US Navy, 80% of the ocean's water is below 2000 meters and the mixing occurs above 2000m.

http://www.onr.na...ity1.htm

The question remains, how is the deep water zone temperature being measured and, according to the Navy, this water mixes very slowly, over centuries, with the water above it.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2013
"But I was asking how the temperature was measured at 5000meters."

And that question was answered - with BIOS. Again - if you knew anything about the subject you pretend to be an expert on - you would have known that - wouldn't you??

And think about this - if the zone 2000 meters and above is absorbing heat - and it is a lot of heat - and it is measured by ARGO - and the 80% that is below that mixes very slowly - over centuries - then the point is just that it has been demonstrated that the ocean is absorbing the heat. As usual you are just being an asshat.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
What's BIOS?
demonstrated that the ocean is absorbing the heat.

Where is the data?
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2013
"Where is the data?" - RyggMoron

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2013
"But I was asking how the temperature was measured at 5000meters." - RyggMoron

And you were given an answer, at least twice.

Yet, like the MORON you are, you continue to demand.

Were you born with most of your brain missing, or was it removed when you became an old man?

djr
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2013
Vendi: "Yet, like the MORON you are, you continue to demand."

No wonder Ryggy ignores Vendi - it is no fun playing in the sand box - stealing all the toys for yourself - kicking all the other kids - and then along comes the teacher and tells you to stop it. Maybe if Ryggy ignores Vendi - Vendi will go away and stop being a bother. (Vendi is the teacher in the above analogy - just in case you thought you were the teacher Ryggy.)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
No, VD is a typical 'liberal' bully.
No wonder dj likes VD.
djr
3.8 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2013
VD has your number Ryggy - and you don't like it that someone is willing to call a MORON a MORON. You just want to be free to mess with the physorg comments section - and don't like being challenged. VD is correct - you were given the information about the ocean temp measurements twice - and continued to be obtuse. If the moderators of Physorg tollerate your rubbish - it is appropriate that they tollerate VD's directness. I think it is fine to have an unmoderated board - but you can suck it up when people call your bullshit.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
don't like being challenged

I have been welcoming a rational discussion at phys.org. Old Venereal Disease just drips...drips...and when dj can't support his faith, he cries "racist", another typical, 'liberal' response.
Kiwini
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 01, 2013
I have been welcoming a rational discussion at phys.org. Old Venereal Disease just drips...drips...and when dj can't support his faith, he cries "racist", another typical, 'liberal' response.


Yup, they seem to do that a lot... ie: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

And one group's point of view here seems to use all the bad/inappropriate language that they can muster.

Go ahead and down-vote me, boys; it just proves that we're getting under your oh-so-thin skin.

djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2013
"and when dj can't support his faith, he cries "racist",

Just chaps your ass that you got caught - don't it Ryggy?

"I have been welcoming a rational discussion at phys.org"

No you have not. You use obfuscation, circular argument, contradiction etc. There is nothing rational about your conversation. Take this one thread. You keep asking the same question. That question is answered - and you ask it over. You are not interested in truth - only poisoning the physorg comments. So when you are busted - suck it up.

djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2013
Kiwini "And one group's point of view here seems to use all the bad/inappropriate language that they can muster."

Same tired argument over and over. The pro science people say bad words - we the anti science boobies are just pure as the virgin snow. Do we have to repeat this bullshit. Here is a quick list. Uba - 'you lying scumbag hypocrite" Antigoracle - calls everyone turds. Nik - loves to throw the 'asshole' word around. Obammasocks calling people 'fucking nazis.' I could go on.

I wish we could have rational discussions about the science - but the uba's and the ryggys of the world just poison the comments with endless circular bullshit. It becomes like pop a mole. Refute an argument on one thread - and up it comes again on another. So it is understandable that folks like Vendi get kind of prickly - if you exclude the possibility of rational discourse - you get prickly.....

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2013
"I have been welcoming a rational discussion at phys.org. " - RyggTard

And yet you haven't advanced a single scientific argument challenging global warming in the last 5 years.

Your idea of "rational argument" seems to consist of you whining that Climatologists are closet Communists who are stealing your money and seeking to impose a global dictatorship onto the citizens of the world.

You live in a Tea Bagger alternate Reality, that is devoid of reason and rationality.

You are incapable of rational argument, and especially incapable of rational scientific argument given that your understanding of science is inferior to that of a well educated 12 year old.

Even when it comes to your favorite subject - Politics you have shown yourself incapable of rational argument.

For example, Your political hero - Ayn Rand (heavy smoker), died from lung cancer while accepting free government health care, even though she spent her life expressing hate towards doctors who CONT...
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2013
CONT... doctors who claimed that smoking caused cancer, and expressing her hate for those "parasites" who could not fend for themselves and relied on government handouts to survive.

In her denial of the causial link between smoking and cancer, Rand claimed that the scientists were stealing her money and were closet communists seeking to impose a global dictatorship onto the citizens of the world.

Her idiocy resulted in her death. Your identical idiocy will foster the death of millions.

You refuse to respond to the facts above, just as you refuse to respond to any other truth that depicts the irrationality and non-reality of your idiotic political ideology.

On all fronts you are incapable of rational debate.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2013
"Go ahead and down-vote me, boys; " KeyWeenie

Done.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2013
"No, VD is a typical 'liberal' bully." - RyggTard

Science is a contact sport, TardieBoy.

You don't have what it takes to play the game, and are so technically inferior that you have no business even being on the field.

So get lost - inferior - come back when you acquire an ounce of brains and are capable of thinking rationally.
Ralp
3.6 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2013
Go ahead and down-vote me, boys; it just proves that we're getting under your oh-so-thin skin.
Someone must have gotten under your skin a long time ago Kiwini.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
@runrig, djr, & VendicarE,

Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers
and not the message (rhetorical)?

Oh yeah, this is why:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL!

JohnGee
2.3 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
I found a site that may settle your fears Uba:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
djr
3.9 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
Uba "Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers
and not the message."

We do address the message (see the example above regarding ocean heat absorption). But the boobies don't (or choose not to) understand the information presented - start running around in circles - using contradictory arguments - you know - your kind of down the rabbit hole stuff - so we cut our losses - call you boobies - and wait for the whole cycle to begin on the next thread. My take these days is that it is not worth many minutes of my day - but I enjoy letting the boobies know that they don't have total carte blanche to spread their unchallenged message of antiscience.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (21) Oct 02, 2013
We do address the message (see the example above regarding ocean heat absorption).
Not really. Using a model to claim the deep ocean is heating (more than normal) without ascribing a direct correlation with an anthropogenic cause is irrelevant information. And claiming it is heating more than normal using a model, without significant observational evidence is highly suspect.

Even if the deep ocean is heating (it has been doing so naturally since the last ice age), how is this linked to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? How does a small percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 affect portions of the ocean where the sunlight simply cannot penetrate, all the while NOT heating the surface? Is it magic?

meBigGuy
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2013
Another basic principle is that as you add energy to a closed water-ice system in equilibrium, it's temperature doesn't change until the ice is all melted.
How's that different from what I said?


WOW --- it's totally different from what you said. You said the following:

"You're not getting it. If you take the temperature of the ice and the water separately, and calculate them together into a measurement of the system, you'll get the same answer as if the ice was dissolved into the water to begin with." - Uba

Merely the temperature of the ice and water together cannot possibly include the higher amount of energy stored in the ice. The energy stored in the ice is not evident until after it melts. The temperature will go down more than expected by your calculation --- WAY WAY more. That's what you don't get. It takes more energy to lower water from +1C to -1C than to lower from -1C it to -80C. Melting ice is a big deal.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
WOW --- it's totally different from what you said. You said the following:

"You're not getting it. If you take the temperature of the ice and the water separately, and calculate them together into a measurement of the system, you'll get the same answer as if the ice was dissolved into the water to begin with." - Uba
Obviously you missed that VendicarE did not provide the complete quote. Try reading further...

meBigGuy
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
Imagine a room with a pool of water filled with ice. As you very slowly transfer heat into the room the temperature of the room and water stays the same, but a little ice melts. This goes on until there is no ice, and then the room begins to rapidly heat. It takes LOTS of energy to melt the ice, 80 times more than what it would take to heat the water alone, and of course many times again what it would take to heat the air.

Now, this analogy (it is just an idealized thought experiment) illustrates one of the principles at work in the global climate system. The real system is much more complex, in that the ocean is a dynamic circulatory system, and ice is not evenly distributed.
meBigGuy
3.7 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2013
The point is that melting ice is as important to climate change assessment as air temperatures. Air temperatures could go down, but if the ice was melting the system energy could still be increasing. There is a LOT of energy being pumped into the system to cause melting. And it isn't just ocean ice that is melting. Glacier Ice, frozen tundra, etc.

The fact that there is more energy in the overall system will always result in wilder extremes. There is no doubt there is warming in spite of the garbage you read. I won't debate the cause, since I personally don't care. The climate is warming .... period.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (21) Oct 02, 2013
...cont...

But it should be noted, the temperature of the unexposed portions of the ice does not have to be at the freezing point. It can be colder (or even, surprisingly, warmer). And water which is not in direct contact with the ice, can be warmer (or even, surprisingly, colder). It's the interface where the temperature is relatively stable.

The melting point of sea ice is actually around -2 degrees C (due to salt content).

And freshwater can be supercooled to less than -40 degrees C before freezing (without nucleating sites/particles).

So it's more complicated than you might think.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 02, 2013
The fact that there is more energy in the overall system will always result in wilder extremes. There is no doubt there is warming in spite of the garbage you read. I won't debate the cause, since I personally don't care. The climate is warming .... period.
Well how is this possible when the temperature remains unchanged, and ice has recently and significantly increased?

Doesn't your own contention therefore indicate global cooling?

And how did it warm before all the ice is melted? Doesn't this falsify your contention, entirely?

meBigGuy
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
If what you said was true
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
If what you said was true
What part do you doubt?
meBigGuy
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2013
All of it.
1. Sea ice volume has decreased, even as sea ice extent has not. (think about the ice in the pool. Always shows the same extent as it melts. Small change in temp would increase extent significantly giving the appearance of more ice). All the claims of increase are increase in extent.
2. Thawing tundra
3. Lower volumes of glacier ice (global average --- of course some glaciers are growing)

You can show me all the peer reviewed papers you want that refute the above, but don't bother to link to your trashy websites. I've sifted through too much of that crap. It's cherry picked, distorted, offset-scaled crap produced by expert propagandists.
Of course you think you are one of the elite few who know that crap to be the truth and that thousands of climate experts are lying for the research money.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
That question is answered -

I asked how the ocean temperatures at 5000 meters, all over the planet, are being measured.
One response was ARGO which only measured to 2000m and a reference was made to BIOS, whatever that is.
Still no data provided or referenced for deep water (5000m) ocean temperatures to support the assertion the oceans are warming.
Oceans are quite dynamic with many gradients. I was diving off La Jolla beach, CA in Aug. the surface temperature, down to 10 feet was ~65F. Below 10 feet it was 50 F or lower requiring a wet suit hood. And this was just 10s of feet off the beach.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2013
Uby baby...You're giving me laugh again.
"The melting point of sea ice is actually around -2 degrees C (due to salt content)."
Err, No. The FREEZING POINT is sub-zero due to salt content but NOT the melting point.
Basic physics still applies and the molecular arrangement of H2O still requires the same amount of energy to break it. That is when it reaches 0C.
http://www.whoi.e...id=30588
And again..
Even if the deep ocean is heating (it has been doing so naturally since the last ice age), how is this linked to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? How does a small percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 affect portions of the ocean where the sunlight simply cannot penetrate, all the while NOT heating the surface? Is it magic?

Because the heat can come from nowhere else!
Unless some enormous geothermal input is discovered it HAS to have come from the Ocean surface ... which HAS to have come from the Sun or atmosphere. Given we know it's NOT the Sun then it's the atmosphere.

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2013
cont
or the GHG content of it.
The Oceans circulate and so mix via turbulence .... slowly but they do. If you put in an excess of heat at the top ( air/sea system out of thermal balance) then that heat will mix to depths below.
Well how is this possible when the temperature remains unchanged, and ice has recently and significantly increased?

If you mean the Arctic sea-ice this year, a 60% increase on an outlier year (2012) is not statistically significant. It is the trend that reveals -- and you know it's on a downward curve. If you mean a Global air temp -- again you've been told it's (mostly) the cool ENSO. You know, put cold water water in an oven and it'll heat up more slowly. Nevertheless that cool ocean surface is absorbing solar energy and must warm, whilst the process of sweeping the warm waters westward by the SE Trades continues then the heat input with be masked/mixed into waters below. This post is not up for discussion - with you anyway - the effort is futile.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (19) Oct 02, 2013
If what you said was true
What part do you doubt?

Why assume he only doubts a part of it? :)
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (19) Oct 02, 2013
don't like being challenged

I have been welcoming a rational discussion at phys.org. Old Venereal Disease just drips...drips...and when dj can't support his faith, he cries "racist", another typical, 'liberal' response.

Is that the Laughter Is The Best Medicine quote today?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2013
"Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers" - UbVonTard

We don't like congenital liars such as yourself, and we don't like the willfully ignorant such as RyggTard.

Such attitudes and behaviors are against the fundamental precepts of the scientific method, of reason, and morality.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
Ryggy: "and a reference was made to BIOS, whatever that is."

Everyone see the problem right? Ryggy ties up the comments section - pretending to be knowledgeable about the climate - and to refute the consensus position on climate change (meaning - look at me - I know better than thousands of highly trained scientists). Then Ryggy asks a very basic question (how is the deep ocean temp measured?) An answer is provided mutlitple times. Rather than take 2 seconds to use google - Ryggy then makes the above idiotic statement - translated means 'I don't want to know the answer to these questions - I am just a lazy little asshat - and I am purposely screwing with people on the comments section. Do you wonder that Vendi calls you out for the MORON that you are?
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
Uba: "Not really. Using a model to claim the deep ocean is heating (more than normal) without ascribing a direct correlation with an anthropogenic cause is irrelevant information."

And down the rabbit hole we go....

Here is the deal. Uba has demonstrated on several threads recently an innability to understand some basic physics concepts such as phase change. Numerous other commenters attested to their observation of this reality. HOWEVER - Uba - sitting in the living room - eating potato chips - knows better than all those fancy pants scientists with their Phd's, and the fancy satelites. We could try and discuss the actual science - but it is a waste - just down the rabbit hole. What a rube.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Oct 02, 2013
Rather than take 2 seconds to use google -

There are many BIOS to choose from.
But if deep ocean temperature data at 5000m is so easy to find it should be quite easy for someone to refer to it.
I DID search for such data and did not find it.
So many of you claim to be sooo smart, you should be able to post a link to such data, if it exists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (18) Oct 02, 2013
"The UN's climate panel (IPCC) released its latest warning about "catastrophic" climate change on Sept. 27, garnering the frantic attention of all three broadcast networks that night. CBS even aired a claim about temperatures rising "more than 200 degrees."
"Christy said he has examined the climate models used for the latest IPCC report, all of which failed to account for the lack of warming since 1996. He told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the latest IPCC report (Fifth Assessment Report or 5AR) and not one accurately predicted that the Earth's temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996."
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
Ryggy: "But if deep ocean temperature data at 5000m is so easy to find it should be quite easy for someone to refer to it."

I did a simple google search for 'bios deep ocean temperatures'

Stacks of results - here is one for you "http://www.window...mp.html"

I would suggest you read that site - but you are clearly too stupid to understand it. Why don't you find a 5th grade web site that may have some information on it you can comprehend.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
"CBS even aired a claim about temperatures rising "more than 200 degrees." - RyggTard

The CBS claim is correct, but it isn't the claim that RyggTard makes it out to be.

The reporter was trying to illustrate how much heat the oceans had absorbed, and stated that if all of that heat had been absorbed by the atmosphere, the temperature would rise 200'.

CNS news - a chronically dishonest right wing news service, and a favorite of RyggTard, is lying in it's statements made against CBS.

Similarly Drudge Report is reporting that 9 out of 10 IRS workers were sent home today, and that 1,350,000 of them are still on the job.

This immediately implies of course that the IRS employs 13.5 million people which of course is a lie.

In reality the IRS has a staff of approximately 75,000 people, or 180 times smaller than reported by the Drudge Report.

Dishonesty in the reporting of news by Conservative news outlets is one of the principle reasons why Conservatives like RyggTard are so ignorant.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 02, 2013
All of it.
but of course...

1. Sea ice volume has decreased, even as sea ice extent has not. (think about the ice in the pool. Always shows the same extent as it melts. Small change in temp would increase extent significantly giving the appearance of more ice). All the claims of increase are increase in extent.
Well I wouldn't argue that VOLUME increases and decreases proportionately with area, but if you want to ascertain more than that you're going to need to show evidence.

2. Thawing tundra
Interestingly there is some summer thawing, but only to an extent that existed before, as evidenced by the lost forests and archeological evidence being found.

3. Lower volumes of glacier ice (global average --- of course some glaciers are growing)
There's argument to be made here, but supposing it's true, again there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's been warmer in the relatively recent past.

cont...

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
...cont...

You can show me all the peer reviewed papers you want that refute the above, but don't bother to link to your trashy websites.
I've sifted through too much of that crap. It's cherry picked, distorted, offset-scaled crap produced by expert propagandists.
Of course you think you are one of the elite few who know that crap to be the truth and that thousands of climate experts are lying for the research money.
To what "trashy" websites do you refer?

It appears you may have confused me, with another.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
Uby baby...You're giving me laugh again.
"Laugh it up, fuzzball." LOL.

"The melting point of sea ice is actually around -2 degrees C (due to salt content)."
Err, No. The FREEZING POINT is sub-zero due to salt content but NOT the melting point.
Err, No... Sorry, but your incompetence is showing again:

"When the "characteristic freezing point" of a substance is determined, in fact the actual methodology is almost always "the principle of observing the disappearance rather than the formation of ice", that is, the melting point."

http://en.wikiped...ng_point

Basic physics still applies and the molecular arrangement of H2O still requires the same amount of energy to break it. That is when it reaches 0C.
Obviously, you've never made hand churned ice cream. That's just sad.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=30588
This is about a much simplified model (not real sea ice). It's much more complex than that:

http://books.goog...;f=false

Because the heat can come from nowhere else!
That's pure conjecture (not science).

Unless some enormous geothermal input is discovered it HAS to have come from the Ocean surface ... which HAS to have come from the Sun or atmosphere. Given we know it's NOT the Sun then it's the atmosphere. or the GHG content of it.
The Oceans circulate and so mix via turbulence .... slowly but they do.
Do you even understand how long it takes the deep water to circulate to the surface, and vice versa? Stop making it up as you go along and show the science.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
If you put in an excess of heat at the top ( air/sea system out of thermal balance) then that heat will mix to depths below.
But as we've already discussed, there is no such increasing heat to the surface, and certainly none within the time parameters needed to do this. So let me point out, that deep ocean heating claim is based on MODELS, not observation.

If you mean the Arctic sea-ice this year, a 60% increase on an outlier year (2012) is not statistically significant.
I would disagree, but since you think it's insignificant, why don't you give me 60% of your net worth?

It is the trend that reveals -- and you know it's on a downward curve.
I will agree this is currently the case.

If you mean a Global air temp -- again you've been told it's (mostly) the cool ENSO.
The ENSO is in a neutral phase (neither particularly warm or cold).

cont...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
You know, put cold water water in an oven and it'll heat up more slowly. Nevertheless that cool ocean surface is absorbing solar energy and must warm, whilst the process of sweeping the warm waters westward by the SE Trades continues then the heat input with be masked/mixed into waters below.
Again, you're making it up as you go along. Show the science.

This post is not up for discussion - with you anyway - the effort is futile.
LOL. Too late.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 03, 2013
So why do runrig, djr, Neinsense99, meBigGuy, & VendicarE, spend so much effort attacking the messengers and not the message (rhetorical)?

Oh yeah, this is why:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL!

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2013
"Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers" - UbVonTard

We don't like congenital liars such as yourself, and we don't like the willfully ignorant such as RyggTard.

Such attitudes and behaviors are against the fundamental precepts of the scientific method, of reason, and morality.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2013
"Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers" - UbVonTard

We don't like congenital liars such as yourself, and we don't like the willfully ignorant such as RyggTard.

Such attitudes and behaviors are against the fundamental precepts of the scientific method, of reason, and morality.


The AGWite theme
(sung to the tune of "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines")

♫ ♪ Those magnificent men in their lying machines,
CO2 goes up diddley up-up,
Temps go down diddley down-down!

They entrance all the fools
and steal all the scenes,
With their up diddley up-up
and their down diddley down-down.

Up! down! Lying again!
Looping the loop
and denying the truth.

They're all frightfully mean.
Those Magnificent men
in their lying machines! ♫ ♪

LOLOLOLOL

http://www.youtub...4kZoyEXw

Sinister1811
3 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2013
You need a slap in the face with the reality stick, I think.
Sinister1811
3.1 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2013
"Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers" - UbVonTard


And yet, he's the only one here attacking the messengers, by saying "99% scientists are wrong and I am right 100% of the time". He doesn't realize that it helps to practice what you preach. Pity he won't listen though - all ears are switched off and the mind if closed.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2013
"Why do you spend so much effort attacking the messengers" - UbVonTard


And yet, he's the only one here attacking the messengers, by saying "99% scientists are wrong and I am right 100% of the time".
Don't be ridiculous. I'm certainly not right 100% of the time.

However the facts are what they are. And the fact is, there's been no significant global warming for well more than a decade. Anyone not admitting so, is lying.

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2013
"Those magnificent men in their lying machines," - UbVonTard

Your song characterizes American Conservatives very well.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2013
Rather than take 2 seconds to use google -

There are many BIOS to choose from.
But if deep ocean temperature data at 5000m is so easy to find it should be quite easy for someone to refer to it.
I DID search for such data and did not find it.
So many of you claim to be sooo smart, you should be able to post a link to such data, if it exists.


Here Ryggy ... I've put you out of your misery (I only Googled as well ).

Now read, study, inwardly digest......... and then come back on here and say it's all rubbish, as is your modus operandi............

http://uwpcc.wash...2010.pdf
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2013
I see Uba posted a series of down the rabbit hole posts. I didn't read them and wont .......

As I keep saying to do that and respond is a sure way to join him in the asylum. Mind you at least I'll know I'm mad.... oh bugger he's won again.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2013
Thank's Kiwini.......... You read that linked paper quickly. Sure you studied it?

Here's another post to give a 1 to.

Ta dar

try a verbal discourse .... if you can.

vlaaing peerd
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2013
man... guys are you really still at it?

It's actually quite entertaining, but nobody here seems to ever change stance based on good arguments and discussions, which makes this 160+ posts article a little futile.

When it comes to physics news, the posts are mostly from crackpots going against the findings of well established scientists, which in many cases is just one big joke. Now....shouldn't it make some people here wonder about their posts integrity?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2013
It's actually quite entertaining, but nobody here seems to ever change stance based on good arguments and discussions, which makes this 160+ posts article a little futile.


Oh I'm fully aware of that VP.
However, I come on here to deny ignorance where my knowledge allows. Simple as that. There may/will be neutrals on here too, and a Physics website spammed with lies and disinformation should not be allowed where possible.

The hard-core Denials on here will never budge.
As Dean Martin once said... "Don't hit me with logic I don't want to chit chat."
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2013
So why do runrig, djr, Neinsense99, meBigGuy, & VendicarE, spend so much effort attacking the messengers and not the message (rhetorical)?

Oh yeah, this is why:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL!


Hundreds of posts, and you still don't realize or won't admit that your supposed window into the mindset of others is actually a mirror, and you're standing in front of it.
http://www.techsp...wer.html
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2013
You need a slap in the face with the reality stick, I think.

Don't be surprised if your arm gets tired, as repeated application may be necessary for a fully effective treatment.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2013
So why do runrig, Sinister1811, Neinsense99, & VendicarE, spend so much effort attacking the messengers and not the message (rhetorical)?

Oh yeah, this is why:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL!

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2013
Once again the chronic liar UbVonTard posts temps from the deprecated Hadcrut3 temperature series, and does so with a cherry picked year of 1997.6.

Changing the year to 1997.0 produces a positive slope, indicating that his claim of a temperature decline has ZERO statistical significance.

Changing to the HadCrut4 - which does not understate the effects of the polar regions as much, the warming since 1997 becomes quite self evident.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

Poor UbVonTard. He just can't stop lying.
Lying is life to him
Lying is what he does.
Lying is how he defines himself.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2013
Once again the chronic liar Uba posts temps from the deprecated Hadcrut3 temperature series, and does so with a cherry picked year of 1997.6.
It's not a cherry pick, it's going back a full 16 years.

Changing the year to 1997.0 produces a positive slope, indicating that his claim of a temperature decline has ZERO statistical significance.
Why would you cherry pick for 16.5 years? You do know there are seasonal signals, don't you?

Changing to the HadCrut4 - which does not understate the effects of the polar regions as much, the warming since 1997 becomes quite self evident.
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. It's not as valued as HadCRUT3 is, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 only, outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4 or it's change to the pause).

cont...

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
...cont...

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.

Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
Ubavontoobad: "It's not a cherry pick, it's going back a full 16 years."
In climate research, 16 years isn't a full anything, unless you are full of it. We have a Texas sharpshooter in the house: http://rationalwi..._fallacy

or http://rationalwi...nce_1998
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
Once again the chronic liar UbVonTard posts temps from the deprecated Hadcrut3 temperature series, and does so with a cherry picked year of 1997.6.

Changing the year to 1997.0 produces a positive slope, indicating that his claim of a temperature decline has ZERO statistical significance.

Changing to the HadCrut4 - which does not understate the effects of the polar regions as much, the warming since 1997 becomes quite self evident.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

Poor UbVonTard. He just can't stop lying.
Lying is life to him
Lying is what he does.
Lying is how he defines himself.

Better check a dictionary. He might even have lied about defining himself.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
Ubavontoobad: "It's not a cherry pick, it's going back a full 16 years."
In climate research, 16 years isn't a full anything, unless you are full of it. We have a Texas sharpshooter in the house: http://rationalwi..._fallacy
Funny, the IPCC states: "Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

All you're doing by avoiding the current trend is denying the current trend. Would you equally avoid the last 16 years if there was a sharp rise?

(aside) You'd think people who REALLY care about the environment would WANT to know what is currently happening. This is like claiming the Vietnamese Javan Rhino isn't extinct becasue they've been spotted in the last 30 years...

Get real.

Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
Ubavontoobad: "It's not a cherry pick, it's going back a full 16 years."
In climate research, 16 years isn't a full anything, unless you are full of it. We have a Texas sharpshooter in the house: http://rationalwi..._fallacy
Funny, the IPCC states: "Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

All you're doing by avoiding the current trend is denying the current trend. Would you equally avoid the last 16 years if there was a sharp rise?

(aside) You'd think people who REALLY care about the environment would WANT to know what is currently happening. This is like claiming the Vietnamese Javan Rhino isn't extinct becasue they've been spotted in the last 30 years...

Get real.


That exceeds my brick-talking limit for today.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.