Warmest oceans ever recorded

November 14, 2014
Figure 1: a) NOAA Sea Surface Temperature anomaly (with respect to period 1854-2013) averaged over global oceans (red) and over North Pacific (0-60oN, 110oE-100oW) (cyan). September 2014 temperatures broke the record for both global and North Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures. b) Sea Surface Temperature anomaly of September 2014 from NOAA's ERSST dataset. Credit: Axel Timmermann

"This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year," says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing . This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann's analysis of ocean temperature datasets.

"The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value (Figure 1a) and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands," explains Timmermann.

He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat—heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.

"Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer , which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in . The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 1b)," says Timmermann.

The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in has come to an end.

Explore further: Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

Related Stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

April 15, 2014

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

August 3, 2014

New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which ...

Study links changing winds to warming in Pacific

September 22, 2014

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related ...

Ocean primed for more El Nino

November 13, 2014

The ocean is warming steadily and setting up the conditions for stronger El Niño weather events, a new study has shown.

Recommended for you

Monsoon intensity enhanced by heat captured by desert dust

July 28, 2016

Variations in the ability of sand particles kicked into the atmosphere from deserts in the Middle East to absorb heat can change the intensity of the Indian Summer Monsoon, according to new research from The University of ...

Keep a lid on it: Geologists probe geological carbon storage

July 28, 2016

Effective carbon capture and storage or "CCS" in underground reservoirs is one possible way to meet ambitious climate change targets demanded by countries and international partnerships around the world. But are current technologies ...

96 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Feyn Man
4.3 / 5 (28) Nov 14, 2014
Are you a 'commie'? You're off to a good start if bs is your quota.

If the oceans warm and acidify too much, it's game over for the human race as we know it. This is priority number 1, or at least it should be.
RWT
1.5 / 5 (24) Nov 14, 2014
"The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end."

ROFLMAO Wishful thinking or an ignorant statement...or both! Here we see once again warmists jumping on an uptick in noisy data to proclaim something that isn't true. What will they be saying when this El Nino is over and SST plummet?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.1 / 5 (23) Nov 14, 2014
RWT, if you truly cared about this from a scientific perspective, shouldn't you wait a few years to see if the pause does end before criticizing them?
And that graph only looks "noisy" as you put it, because it has a lot of data points, if it only marked every decade, it wouldn't be noisy you retard.

jwbrighton,
Considering we've understood that CO2 causes the planet to be warm since the 1880's and our knowledge of planetary atmospheres has only grown cause of that space age thing, I wouldn't hold your breath on this going anywhere.
Or maybe you should and let the people who want life to be good after there's is over keep on doing there thing. Get with it or get forgotten.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (17) Nov 14, 2014
Are you a 'commie'? You're off to a good start if bs is your quota.

If the oceans warm and acidify too much, it's game over for the human race as we know it. This is priority number 1, or at least it should be.


It should be our number one priority, but it's been MUCH warmer than it is now in the geologic past (Google PETM), and mammals actually did much better during that time. 90% of the Earth's geologic history there have been no permanent ice caps at the poles. The human race is in no danger. Modern civilization might be...

We need to be careful about exaggeration on this issue, this is a small part of the reason the deniers don't take things as seriously as they should. We need to keep our statements factual, realistic, and to the point...and drop the histrionics.
indio007
1.7 / 5 (23) Nov 14, 2014
RWT, if you truly cared about this from a scientific perspective, shouldn't you wait a few years to see if the pause does end before criticizing them?
And that graph only looks "noisy" as you put it, because it has a lot of data points, if it only marked every decade, it wouldn't be noisy you retard.

jwbrighton,
Considering we've understood that CO2 causes the planet to be warm since the 1880's and our knowledge of planetary atmospheres has only grown cause of that space age thing, I wouldn't hold your breath on this going anywhere.
Or maybe you should and let the people who want life to be good after there's is over keep on doing there thing. Get with it or get forgotten.

CO2 rise lags temperature rise. Try again.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.5 / 5 (18) Nov 14, 2014
You are partially correct mystic, it's not the end of life or whatever you want to make it out as.
But the simple fact of the matter is that although the ice caps and cool oceans are a new phenomenon, life since the cretaceous as evolved to live in oceans of a certain temperature and a specific PH.

Just because a climate existed before and there was life, doesn't mean you can write it off because it was different life. If we create a different climate now that means there would need to be different organisms. Where are those plants and animals going to come from? How would anything have time to evolve and adapt if the climate is constantly warming? Ecologically global warming is a mass extinction because niches can't be filled like they used to now with people populating the planet.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (29) Nov 14, 2014
"CO2 rise lags temperature rise. Try again."
------------------------------

No, it doesn't. The disparity with ice cores was found with the diffusion of gases to the surface before the snow is compacted into ice. The studies have cleared it up.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2014
CO2 rise lags temperature rise. Try again.


What do you mean? it's just a green house gas thats made when oxygen is mixed with hydrocarbons.
agsb2
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 14, 2014
I live next to an ocean and the temp is constantly on TV and other sources and the ocean temp is cooler than previous years. This brings up a question, where did your author get his info-Colorado!
gkam
3.6 / 5 (28) Nov 14, 2014
agsb2 is a good examaple of what we up against. A decent science course would have answered his question about local versus global changes.
peter_piasecki_92
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 14, 2014
When they start using satellite readings for land temperature instead of the old outdated temperature stations that are placed in heat island effect area's, maybe I might believe what they are stating, these close nit scientist live off the fear mongering of doom and gloom, weather is not any more extreme than it is has been since man has been around, climate change has been around since there has been a climate, it is never static, what we are experiencing is natural..........
gkam
3.3 / 5 (24) Nov 14, 2014
What is your field, peter? I want to know before I debate this with you. You seem to project the ethics of other professions onto science.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (16) Nov 14, 2014
@Peter:

Here is an infra-red photo of the earth in 2012:
climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/678_newsPage-678.jpg
(Note the concentration of heat in the equatorial oceans, a similar picture is also at the top of the article)

The atmosphere is only 62 miles thick, its an hour drive to space.

gkam
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 14, 2014
Peter, I did not intend to ridicule your profession, but to use the concepts used in it to make my points for you. I am a generalist.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 14, 2014
Hi Modernmystic & peter_piasecki_92. :)

Past climate/environments suited appropriately adapted ANIMALS which lived off the environment/foods around them naturally.

We modern humans depend on mass agriculture; managed food growing/storing/distribution; associated infrastructure; planning/sowing/flowering/ripening/harvesting systems; CURRENT overall GLOBAL climate and LOCAL weather patterns. If compromised by new extremes/patterns, will create havoc/costs which we cannot 'absorb' as global species.

Unreliable patterns/seasons (wet for planting; warm for ripening/harvesting etc) is already effecting spread/behavior of good insects; bad insects/diseases; out-of-season flowering/ripening crops/fruits (vulnerable to returning cold/frosts and rains/winds).

OK for 'wild animals' to adapt/die in such transitional, unusually RAPID (geologically speaking) warming GLOBAL climate changes.

Is it OK for you/humanity to live/adapt/die like those animals?

Think about all that. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 14, 2014
When they start using satellite readings for land temperature instead of the old outdated temperature stations
@peter_piasecki_92
according to NASA, they are using both sattelite & land temp readings, so this means you are ignoring a lot of data for the sake of... what?
these close nit scientist live off the fear mongering of doom and gloom
1- spellcheckers are free to DL
2- personal conjecture without evidence
are you stupid? the world is NOT conspiring against you
what we are experiencing is natural
and what about all the EVIDENCE that proves otherwise?
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://www.resear...53347878
http://www.annual...8.163834
http://naosite.lb...69/20919
http://onlinelibr...abstract
http://onlinelibr...abstract
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (23) Nov 14, 2014
Hey forum, the "saposjoint" moron just AUTOMATICALLY downvoted me "1" for my above post! :)

How silly and dishonest can such obvious trolls get, hey?

Makes a mockery of science and humanity ethics whenever such trolls pretend to be relevant to either science or humanity, but 'vote down' irrespective of what was posted!

What a densely tragically malignant maroon and goon-shite this 'saposjoint' automatic downvoter troll is proving himself to be, yet again for all the forum to see! Sad headcase troll, isn't he? Pity the stupid nitwit; wasting any 'education' he may have got before his descent into his egotistically/mercenarily driven, sad, malignant, trolldom.

When will this sapo wise up to his own malignancy and start to repair the damage he has done to himself and others, not to mention to the science and humanity ethics? Let's hope it's sooner rather than too late, hey forum? :)
tpilewski
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2014
"This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started"

Actual systematic measurement of sea surface temperatures began in 2007, when the ARGO system reached its initial goal of 3,000 floats. A seven year record is not very impressive, and does nothing to indicate the warming isn't just a continuation of the Earth's overall warming trend that started about 1650.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2014
Hey forum
irrelevant
off topic
baiting
trolling
reported
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 14, 2014
and does nothing to indicate the warming isn't just a continuation of the Earth's overall warming trend
@tpilewski
but if you had read the links and studies already provided, you would see
An improved method has been developed for the separation of the anthropogenic CO2 from the large natural background variability of dissolved inorganic carbon (C) in the ocean
as well as
Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn
which is evidence that directly refutes you

there is an abundance of science out there for you to find from reputable peer reviewed sources, so why do you continue to promote fallacies from sources with no evidence? especially in the face of powerful scientific evidence which undermines the whole thing?
http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (20) Nov 14, 2014
Hi CapS. :)

I see your self-serving hypocrisy and bias is alive and flourishing as ever!
irrelevant
off topic
baiting
trolling
reported


Of course it was relevant and on-topic.

That 'saposjoint' AUTOMATICALLY downvoted my post, even though he agrees with the contents/observations in my post!

That TROLL is OBVIOUSLY bringing PERSONAL issues to SCIENTIFIC discussion. That is UNscientific and against all ethics of objective discourse.

POINTING THAT OUT so that all readers can judge 'saposjoint' for themselves is a service to the discussion and the science. But you aren't interested in that, are you, CapS? Else you would be condemning 'saposjoint' cowardly trolling irrelevant downvoting.

So, CapS, do you think that such automatic personality-based automatic downvoting is good or bad for proper objective and irrelevance/bullying-free science and humanity discourse? :)

Consider the answer/your next post carefully, mate!

Bye for now, forum. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2014
Hi CapS
@rc
TL;DR
irrelevant
off topic
no science
no links/studies
no evidence

REPORTED
IGNORED

p.s. consider all your off topic posts like this reported from this point out, especially if you see me 1 star you
it is not relevant unless there is evidence that ties it into the topic at hand, which you have none (nor do you have evidence usually anyway)

go back to your ToE's
good bye forever
TROLL
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (20) Nov 14, 2014
Hi CapS.

More of your obviously self-serving rationalizations for being hypocritical, mate? Why so shy to answer my straightforward question, CapS?
tpilewski
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 14, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,

You showed evidence that humans have added CO2 to the oceans. I made no comment about the amount of CO2 in the oceans, just the temperature, so you have refuted nothing.

skepticalscience assumes that the solar contribution depends only on the TSI, completely ignoring that changes in the solar spectrum would also change the energy absorbed. Prior to 2003 and the launch of SORCE, there was no real on spectral variability. The data they have so far shows that while TSI is relatively steady, the variation at different wavelengths is Natural causes of warming are not fully understood - we simply don't have long term data on solar variation.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 14, 2014
you have refuted nothing
@TP
your comment
and does nothing to indicate the warming isn't just a continuation of the Earth's overall warming trend
is directly refuted in the studies i gave the quotes from- because it differentiates the cause of warming as being from anthropogenic sources and not natural ones, which, had you read the studies, you would have known
skepticalscience assumes
it doesn't matter what they assume
i showed how it relates

there are studies that directly link CO2 to AGW: http://www.scienc...abstract
so then when you state that the warming is natural, but the science states otherwise by showing how to separate natural from artificial, and proves it by empirical evidence, then your logic is trumped with evidence and peer reviewed sources

feel free to give the equivalent evidence supporting your position refuting the science if you have it
that is what science is all about
condolf52
4.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
I sure hope this El Nino brings much needed rain to the west coast of California.
tpilewski
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,
- My posts with links are pending manual review-

My comment was that the information in the article provided no real evidence due to the fact that the entire systematic measuring history for the ocean only goes back seven years ; not only have not refuted that, you haven't even demonstrated that you understood it.

As far as climate change theories the references you put in reply to my post, and most of your others, only dealt with ocean acidification, not warming. The paper from Science only shows that CO2 can force warming and that the effect diminishes greatly at added concentrations, but no evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of modern warming. It is impossible to separate natural from artificial when the natural mechanism is unknown. Google NASA SORCE

tpilewski
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2014
The warming trend of the last decade is far below the 0.2 deg/dec predictions made based on the assumption that human CO2 is currently the principle driver of climate driving (see the skepticalscience trend calculator), showing that either CO2's effects are overestimated or there are significant natural factors unaccounted for.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 14, 2014
The warming trend of the last decade is far below the 0.2 deg/dec predictions made based on the assumption that human CO2 is currently the principle driver of climate driving (see the skepticalscience trend calculator), showing that either CO2's effects are overestimated or there are significant natural factors unaccounted for.


Or it might show that you don't really have a handle on how the climate changes. Short term temperature changes (like the last decade) aren't really about climate change. They're about internal variation in the climate as energy moves from one area to another. Over the last decade, the total energy in the climate still increased at a rate that corresponds well with the way CO2 is known to affect the climate.
tpilewski
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2014
zz5555 - It shows that the IPCC doesn't have a handle on how the climate changes. The prediction was given a wide range for confidence intervals to account for short term changes due to known variations, and the real world data falls outside of that range.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (20) Nov 14, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I was getting worried about you.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
zz5555 - It shows that the IPCC doesn't have a handle on how the climate changes. The prediction was given a wide range for confidence intervals to account for short term changes due to known variations, and the real world data falls outside of that range.


1st: What predictions? The models only make projections because there are a number of factors that can't be predicted (e.g., CO2 emissions). 2nd: How are they outside of real world data? The real temperatures are still within the range of the models (http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg - keep in mind the "observed" temperatures in this plot are likely lower than the actual observed temperatures). 3rd: Again, models don't model internal variability well. There's no confidence intervals to account for short term changes. But over the long term, where the models are applicable, these short term changes average out and the models are quite accurate.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
the entire systematic measuring history for the ocean only goes back seven years ; not only have not refuted that, you haven't even demonstrated that you understood it
@TP
PART ONE
lets go back and look again at your comment
and does nothing to indicate the warming isn't just a continuation of the Earth's overall warming trend
1- you make unsubstantiated conjecture and claim it is natural warming which is directly refuted with ScienceMag CO2 study
2- your "natural" claim is ALSO refuted with all the studies linked, specifically because the studies show the way to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic warming
3- just because the systematic studies only go back a short time doesn't mean there is no way to learn what previous temps were, especially with regard to corroborating evidence found in the studies (like ice cores etc)
you are providing conjecture without evidence and you lack any scientific means of proving your claims
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
The paper from Science only shows that CO2 can force warming ..but no evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of modern warming
@TP
IOW - you didn't read the study, did you? it even spells out in the abstract that
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures
but further on includes
This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change.
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
The paper from Science only shows that CO2 can force warming and that the effect diminishes greatly at added concentrations
@TP
the study also showes a forced feedback between CO2, water and how the combinations work with each other and more
the fractional attribution is sufficiently precise to clearly differentiate the radiative flux contributions due to the noncondensable GHGs from those arising from the fast feedback processes. This allows an empirical determination of the climate feedback factor as the ratio of the total global flux change to the flux change that is attributable to the radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
so your claims with regard to CO2 and there being "no evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of modern warming", the study gives empirical evidence that you are 100% wrong and that you didn't read it at all
in fact, you likely didn't read the abstract, either, considering your comments

cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
now as for your claim
It is impossible to separate natural from artificial when the natural mechanism is unknown
What part of stupid did that comment crawl out of?
1- the study showed how to differentiate from the anthropogenic sources and the KNOWN natural ones, not any unknown sources
2- if you aren't going to actually read the studies, then why are you going to try to refute them with conjecture?

so far you have claimed that warming is natural and that CO2 is not proven as a primary cause, of which i have directly refuted you with scientific studies showing you are wrong

your other comments are also proven wrong simply by reading the studies and knowing how to apply the information within to correct the wrong assumptions you are making

so what we are seeing above is scientific evidence provided from studies that show you are making fallacious claims but you are incapable/unable/intentionally not reading them

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
lastly
- My posts with links are pending manual review-
@TP
your posts are nothing but conjecture without evidence
there are conclusions we can draw from them though:

you are being paid to undermine science- http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
or you are a conspiracy nut- http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
or you are spineless and voting with peers- http://arstechnic...nformed/

one thing we know for certain: you are NOT reading the studies or the science and learning about the evidence

on this site, you've given no reason to continue to listen to your conjecture, and you've failed to read relevant information which makes you look really bad

this is a science site, not a political forum
substantiate your claims or quit TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 15, 2014
zz5555 - It shows that the IPCC doesn't have a handle on how the climate changes. The prediction was given a wide range for confidence intervals to account for short term changes due to known variations, and the real world data falls outside of that range.
@TP
post script

basing your argument on articles and fringe sites will only lead you to failure, especially with regard to scientific arguments

when you argue a point, like what i quoted, it shows your lack of knowledge with regard to the scientific method as well as general science

skip the conjecture and the articles... articles CAN support your conclusions, but are best left as circumstantial support with regard to the evidence
what you want for substantiation is peer reviewed studies from reputable sources with impact in climate science (which articles are NOT-media is biased and not scientifically literate most of the time)

you need to change your sources of information

read more studies

Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (21) Nov 15, 2014
Can any avid denier, especially those preoccupied with politics, oh and I won't leave out the religious nuts who claim "god wouldn't let AGW happen 'he' made it that way", answer this question:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

For those that haven't studied a degree such as electronics, mechanics, physics etc (& most of them are in the denier camp by far) U should make yourselves aware of the [basic] relationship between resistivity & potential difference.

Increased resistivity in electrical circuit increases voltage, in a mechanical system it increases force or pressure, in basic physics ADDING resistance to heat flow Must increase potential difference & in that case it is temperature.

Argument from any educated deniers (where r they ?) should be focused upon "where is the heat going", several sources of evidence point to oceans immense capacity.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
RWT, if you truly cared about this from a scientific perspective, shouldn't you wait a few years to see if the pause does end before criticizing them?
And that graph only looks "noisy" as you put it, because it has a lot of data points, if it only marked every decade, it wouldn't be noisy you retard.

jwbrighton,
Considering we've understood that CO2 causes the planet to be warm since the 1880's and our knowledge of planetary atmospheres has only grown cause of that space age thing, I wouldn't hold your breath on this going anywhere.
Or maybe you should and let the people who want life to be good after there's is over keep on doing there thing. Get with it or get forgotten.

CO2 rise lags temperature rise. Try again.

Only if you don't add it artificially ... as is the case with AGW (google the "A" bit sunshine).
And guess what ... in the geological past there wer'n't humans to do that.
Does that scan in your enormous but ignorant deniers brain?
FFS
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2014
...... skepticalscience assumes that the solar contribution depends only on the TSI, completely ignoring that changes in the solar spectrum would also change the energy absorbed. Prior to 2003 and the launch of SORCE, there was no real on spectral variability. The data they have so far shows that while TSI is relatively steady, the variation at different wavelengths is Natural causes of warming are not fully understood - we simply don't have long term data on solar variation.


Yes there is a 30% reduction in the UV spectrum at solar minimum but that does not equate to a 30% reduction in W/m^2 or even a 0.3% reduction.
It is known that UV affects the Stratosphere (O3) and causes cooling (deltaT) and hence a weakening in the Strat jet in the NH winter ... leading to a weaker PV which mixes down to the Trop. Causing REGIONAL cooling/warming. NOT a global average change.
The laws of thermodynamics rule. W/m^2 add energy. Changes in specific frequencies don'r
movementiseternal
Nov 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2014
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

So, the AGW Cult's LIE that all the heat was going into the oceans, has finally been revealed.
This is a measure of the kind of idiots, the AGW Cult thinks of their Chicken Littles.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2014
"So, the AGW Cult's LIE that all the heat was going into the oceans, has finally been revealed."

How does the surface of the ocean (a very tiny part of the ocean) represent the entire ocean? Even if the ocean as a whole is warming due to the increase of greenhouse gases (which it is), there is no reason that the surface of the ocean can't stay the same temperature (or even cool down). Haven't you ever heard of convection?
tpilewski
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Your reference for evidence that 'refuted' natural warming said this- "As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was."

You also quoted this :"the fractional attribution is sufficiently precise to clearly differentiate the radiative flux contributions due to the noncondensable GHGs from those arising from the fast feedback processes."

It wasn't me that suggested it must be CO2 because it can't be natural causes are completely known, it was you. The reality is that the natural radiative forcing is an unknown.

tpilewski
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2014
@CS "basing your argument on articles and fringe sites will only lead you to failure, especially with regard to scientific arguments"

My posts were based on NASA's description of their missions and the links YOU provided. skepticalscience is a tenuous fringe site, but that's not really my fault.

All of you replies have been to a third of my comment, taken out of context
"A seven year record is not very impressive, and does nothing to indicate the warming isn't just a continuation of the Earth's overall warming trend that started about 1650."

One thing we know is that you are either too stupid to comprehend basic logic, or just an AGW shill.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
It wasn't me that suggested it must be CO2 because it can't be natural causes are completely known, it was you
@TP
1- ?wtf?
2- you do realise that i used your very words quoted, right? i am not making up your words, i am quoting them verbatim
3- i am not saying that you suggested CO2, i am saying that your claims, AS QUOTED, are refuted

your assumptions are that the current warming is natural
it is not
you said there was no way to differentiate natural from artificial warming (when the natural is not known)
i stated that the natural methods that ARE known CAN be separated

you really should try actually reading the whole post and not making stuff up

your first post is gibberish and attempt at redirection and obfuscation
you are not making sense because you are not actually trying to read for comprehension, which makes me think you are here to cause disruption and obfuscation
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
My posts were based on NASA's description of their missions and the links YOU provided
@TP
and again, we see logical fallacy and delusion
your posts were assumptions without scientific reference
your claims are directly refuted by reading the links i gave with the references i gave, and your continued insistance that you are posting based upon NASA and my links shows that you are not reading them
skepticalscience is a tenuous fringe site, but that's not really my fault
when there is no links/references to studies in their posts, i try not to use the link, however, there was supporting evidence in MY links and studies that supported their conjectures

so whereas you don't believe the site because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions, it is correct and the evidence is in front of you

you are ignoring the science because...????
just because you believe in something doesn't mean that it is real

back up your claims with science
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2014
All of you replies have been to a third of my comment, taken out of context
[sic]@TP
your comments are not backed up by SCIENCE

it is not taken out of context and anyone reading the whole argument can see above where i have tried to give you plenty of evidence refuting your fallacious claims
One thing we know is that you are either too stupid to comprehend basic logic, or just an AGW shill
I support SCIENCE...
lets examine your argument style:
you made unsubstantiated claims
i responded to them with science
you didn't like that so you attacked me/my character
(its not like noone can just READ the exchange above, moron)

i can now conclude that you are likely just another paid idiot posting anti-science, justified by your comments, lack of evidence and the fact that we KNOW people are being paid to sow confusion and undermine science ( http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 15, 2014
One thing we know is that you are either too stupid to comprehend basic logic, or just an AGW shill
@USED-TP
at least we now know that you are illiterate, as proven with your comments above where you think your comments are taken out of context when they are quoted using the site

PLUS you are ignoring all the blatantly obvious evidence in the studies linked

this means that either you are PAID to act stupid and obfuscate reality with unsubstantiated claims and blatantly false accusations
OR
you really are stupid and cannot read

your choice
your political dream world is not allowing you to see reality and the only way to clear the blinders is to read the science
PERIOD

the choice is yours now, used TP
quit being stupid
learn some real science (you can go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm )
step back into reality

or continue to believe in fairies, unicorns, and honest politicians

but whatever you do

QUIT TROLLING
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 15, 2014
skepticalscience is a tenuous fringe site


Only if you are a denier.
It's 100% a science site with most articles linked to said peer-reviewed science.
JoeBlue
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2014
El Nino is specifically the warming of the Northern Pacific. Why are people surprised when El Nino happens and it's warm....

skepticalscience is a tenuous fringe site


Only if you are a denier.
It's 100% a science site with most articles linked to said peer-reviewed science.


It amazes me that you guys still use that term like the NAZI's used the word Jude. As if somehow you could generate a hysteria with the rest of populace by propagandizing the whole situation.

I guess you kids never learned that no one likes cranks, and you kids are behaving like cranks.
nevermark
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2014
@tpilewski,

You keep sidestepping even the most basic responses from Captain_Stumpy.

Apparently your agenda has nothing to do with understanding science or the climate.

A real (honest and well-informed) skeptic would not downplay or ignore how much evidence and scientific consensus is against their viewpoint. They would have a specific testable credible reason for suggesting that climate change or CO2's contribution to it was systematically misunderstood across thousands of different experiments and measurements.

They would have the humility to ask that their insight tested before claiming it had explained away climate change (and likely won them a Nobel Prize).

Your mindless trolling is just making it more difficult for any real (honest well-informed) contrarian to be heard.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2014
I still don't see any counter-evidence against my theory, that the global warming is initiated with dark matter at the galactic plane, which is accelerating nuclear reactions of elements inside of soil and marine water and contributing to heating of Earth by its own heat in this way. The recent hiatus in global temperatures of atmosphere just support this model even more. Despite of it, this discussion is entertaining: both sides of discussion have apparently no idea what's actually going on ;-)

For your theory to be correct there would need to be heat rising from the ocean depths (convection). And a noticeable warming of land with vastly increased night minima as geothermal heat maintained ground temps. Volcanoes would be going off left right and centre. I short your theory is bollocks.
And no, science knows what's going on. Don't transfer the deniers ignorance to the science they are ignorant of (and don't want to enlighten themselves with) with the science.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2014
antigoracle with his disgusting LIE again
So, the AGW Cult's LIE that all the heat was going into the oceans, has finally been revealed.
Own up FFS, which scientist or peer reviewed journal claimed 'all' ???

antigoracle put himself squarely in the deep
This is a measure of the kind of idiots, the AGW Cult thinks of their Chicken Littles.
Your puerile attempts at downright lies & anti-science obfuscation incl. incompetently claiming oceans R not subject to acidification because U found only ONE article about a LAKE - shows U don't read & negligible intellect to assist anyone even offer ANY sort of hypothesis.

Therefore (if) its unlikely U R a complete idiot then U must be PAID to lie & should NOT be here !

"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with known thermal properties of re-radiation, to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Where's Science antigoracle, how R U NOT a waste of time doing this for YEARS. U should thus be banned ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2014
imido claimed
I still don't see any counter-evidence against my theory, that the global warming is initiated with dark matter at the galactic plane, which is accelerating nuclear reactions of elements inside of soil and marine water and contributing to heating of Earth by its own heat in this way.
U have so many failures in combination logic & science education.

To give any [basic] credence to such idea U need to examine [basic] maths re heat, Eg. specific heat of 'soil', thermal resistivity, issues of homogenous vs heterogeneous thermal distribution correlated with crust thickness etc etc.

So far there is NO evidence any localised heating could integrate globally of energy needed.

imido
The recent hiatus in global temperatures of atmosphere just support this model even more.
No as U ignore oceans specific heat ~4000x > atmosphere !

imido affirmed
.. no idea what's actually going on..
Others know, been there done that, obviously U need education.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2014
I still don't see any counter-evidence against my theory
@ZEPHIR
there is no evidence supporting your theory either
all you gave is conjecture
this discussion is entertaining: both sides of discussion have apparently no idea what's actually going on
i can understand why you are confused
after all, you never read actual science, why start reading it now, right?

there is only ONE side to the story: the science

anything else is simply people (like zephir) sticking their heads in the sand ignoring the elephant in the room
the science is real (not your pseudoscience aw/daw crap, zephir... that is falsified here: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf )

only those willing to live in a DELUSION will ignore the science

Chicken Little
@antiG
no science
no evidence
all lies
TROLLING
reported
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2014
Haven't you ever heard of convection?


You gotta to love it when the ignorant AGW Chicken Little opens it's mouth and confirms it.
Obviously that lone neuron you share with the rest of your cult has heard the word, but it is beyond your comprehension.


Ah, the ad hominem - the favorite refuge of those who know they've lost the argument.

So you seem to be claiming that you know and understand convection. So that would mean that you knew that it was stunningly wrong to claim that just because the top layer of the ocean wasn't warming, that there was no heat going into the ocean as part of global warming. So why did you lie, then, when you said, "So, the AGW Cult's LIE that all the heat was going into the oceans, has finally been revealed"? Is it because you know that lying is the only way you have to rebut the science?

I am interested in your reasoning here. Why did you decide to lie?
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
And so, against my better judgement, I proceed to argue with the AGW Cult's Chicken Little idiot.
Tell me, how in AGW Cult "science" can convection warm the lower levels of the oceans, without warming the top layer?
JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
So you seem to be claiming that you know and understand convection. So that would mean that you knew that it was stunningly wrong to claim that just because the top layer of the ocean wasn't warming, that there was no heat going into the ocean as part of global warming. So why did you lie, then, when you said, "So, the AGW Cult's LIE that all the heat was going into the oceans, has finally been revealed"? Is it because you know that lying is the only way you have to rebut the science?

I am interested in your reasoning here. Why did you decide to lie?


I'd be more interested in how you guys can rationally call those of us that ask questions deniers and then rationalize complaining about Ad-Homs.

Also, there is good mathematical evidence that Gravitation is caused by entropic decay, which would indicate that thermal transfer from the core of the planet to the open air is actually occurring.
RobPaulG
5 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2014
I feel sorry for those that would be believe PAID FOR PROPAGANDA.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2014
"Tell me, how in AGW Cult "science" can convection warm the lower levels of the oceans, without warming the top layer?"

I'm sorry, I thought you knew what convection was. Convection just refers to the movement of properties of a substance through the movement of the substance itself. In this case, water moves and the heat in the water moves along with it. So you've got heat coming in to the surface via global warming and heat going out (to the deeper ocean) through convection. There are a lot of ways that convection occurs in the ocean and a lot of ways that convection varies with different short term cycles in the ocean. Of course, being part of a cycle they don't affect long term climate changes, but over short periods like the last 14 years there can be an affect. Given that we know that the ocean as a whole has heated up over the last 14 years (and more), and given that we know that heat isn't coming from the earth, it's obvious that the heat is convected from the surface.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2014
@Joe

"Also, there is good mathematical evidence that Gravitation is caused by entropic decay, which would indicate that thermal transfer from the core of the planet to the open air is actually occurring."

Best laugh I've had all day.

JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2014
@Joe

"Also, there is good mathematical evidence that Gravitation is caused by entropic decay, which would indicate that thermal transfer from the core of the planet to the open air is actually occurring."

Best laugh I've had all day.



Which explains why no one should take anything you say seriously. Anyone in physics would know that Gravitation can readily be calculated from thermodynamics thanks to Professor Verlinke's work.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2014
@Joe

"Also, there is good mathematical evidence that Gravitation is caused by entropic decay, which would indicate that thermal transfer from the core of the planet to the open air is actually occurring."

Best laugh I've had all day.



Which explains why no one should take anything you say seriously. Anyone in physics would know that Gravitation can readily be calculated from thermodynamics thanks to Professor Verlinke's work.


Joe: First, it is Professor "Verlinde" not "Verlinke." Second, the calculations are difficult, not "readily calculated." Third, they are based on gravity being emergent and thermodynamics being fundamental, There is no proof of this.

This is a fringe theory - that could eventually be shown to be true, but has no evidence of that at this point. And, as you have presented it, your attribution is incorrect in that the heat transfer from the core is not proposed as the cause of gravitation in the theory.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
I'd be more interested in how you guys can rationally call those of us that ask questions deniers and then rationalize complaining about Ad-Homs
@one-eyed-joe
(for ALCHE- i am answering this & i am NOT zz5555)
1- you are not asking questions, you are trolling
2- you blatantly ignore the empirical evidence and the science for the sake of ...what?
3- it is not really an ad hominem is you really are being STUPID, is it? it would eb a label or a logical deduction, or simply statement of fact
there is good mathematical evidence
and again, you make conjecture but offer no citations, no links, no evidence
(and your later citation is not even spelled correctly) and there is great dispute about it yet
(see Thermodynamic's post and http://arxiv.org/...40v4.pdf for more info)

when posting, perhaps you should take a little time to at least research the spelling of your comments, and then a LITTLE of the topic
https://en.wikipe..._gravity
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
Anyone in physics would know that Gravitation can readily be calculated from thermodynamics thanks to Professor Verlinke's work
@JoeBLOOPER
and again, to piggy-back on Thermodynamic's post:
it is Professor "Verlinde" not "Verlinke."
next, and again, as commented by Thermo
This is a fringe theory - that could eventually be shown to be true, but has no evidence of that at this point
See http://arxiv.org/...40v4.pdf for more detail
see also
the rather baroque construction needed to accurately reproduce n-body Newtonian gravity in a Verlinde-like setting certainly gives one pause
Matt Visser https://en.wikipe..._gravity

regardless of your mistake, you also offer no evidence that this is topically relevant other than conjecture

although speculation is a good thing at times it is not the same as evidence and in this case, it has no relevant application nor does it have experimental support
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
last point for joeblow
Which explains why no one should take anything you say seriously
at least he tries to get the facts correct before posting

your reference was misspelled, which means no one can verify your comments
your reference was also irrelevant and in this case, though you are attempting to bring assumption that it is topically relevant, you've only produced false information and unsupported conjecture which is equivalent to misspelling your own last name on an IQ test and then calling yourself a genius

so in retrospect, the last laugh is again upon you as Vietvet is at least relevant, factually correct and better versed in the subject than you appear to be

as far as i know, Google is not charging per search, you know... it si still free
you CAN fact check at least SPELLING errors that way

you can also go abck and learn a bit more about physics/science in general here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

enjoy
swordsman
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2014
All "nay-sayers" about Global Warming should ask themselves why a greenhouse can maintain high temperatures in winter. That was the first phenomenon that led to the realization of global warming 150 years ago. The time log has shown that there has been a nearly linear temperature increase over that time. This is not linear, however, since there are variables that affect the temperature, such as sun flares and measurement difficulties throughout the world.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
I'm sorry, I thought you knew what convection was. Convection just refers to the movement of properties of a substance through the movement of the substance itself. In this case, water moves and the heat in the water moves along with it. So you've got heat coming in to the surface via global warming and heat going out (to the deeper ocean) through convection. blah..blah., it's obvious that the heat is convected from the surface.
--AGW Cult Idiot
Wow!! That's the way convection works in AGW Cult "science"?
Tell us, is this convection process instantaneous?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2014
antigoracle trying so hard to misrepresent Science as cults with sheer idiocy
-AGW Cult Idiot
Wow!! That's the way convection works in AGW Cult "science"?
Please read, drop your political rubbish & 1D biting barf, focus & learn http://en.wikiped...nvection

antigoracle proves he/she/it Desperately needs not only introductory education in Science (darn - who has the patience?) but, Tutelage in Mature Communications (again)
Tell us, is this convection process instantaneous?
Although it can be mildly amusing watching neophytes put their foot in their mouth, give them rope & watch them follow robotic steps hanging themselves. In antigoracle's case its not possible, it also supplies the rope replete with disappointing barks but, whats even worse, is no further input required to pull the trap door to the depths below, ffs get a life, go away from here pronto, yuck :-(

Everything in nature/science has relative time aspect woven probabilistically..!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
And another AGW Cult Idiot grabs the lone neuron they share and chirps in.
So, again I ask. When the heat from the top layer of the ocean is transferred to the lower layers by convection, is it instantaneous?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2014
antigoracle troubled with english & deduction
So, again I ask. When the heat from the top layer of the ocean is transferred to the lower layers by convection, is it instantaneous?
Is your brightness setting on low, did u not pay your power bill ;-)

Sorry it was complex for U, I thought (maybe) U had some basic physics foundation:-
"Everything in nature/science has relative time aspect woven probabilistically..!"

It seems I was incorrect, your invective doesn't help U, U may be ill. I will elaborate for others watching this interaction however, I will make it as simple as possible but, with useful educative aspect to prompt U to go a bit further on your own (I hope):-

1. Physical world events never instantaneous, ie No evidence anything occurs in "zero" time from cause to effect
2. All events have relative time aspect, observation within a reference frame (RF)

Exceptions are pure math only (Eg In relativity: time of photon path re null geodesic).
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Hey Mike, I don't want to burn out that lone neuron you share, so a simple yes/no would have sufficed.
So this convection process is not instantaneous, now explain how:
The upper layer, continuously heated by the sun, does not show a rise in temperature?
Convection causes heat to flow from a hot upper layer down to a cold lower layer?
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
"The upper layer, continuously heated by the sun, does not show a rise in temperature?"

Consider an Eulerian viewpoint with a fixed volume at the surface of the ocean. The sun shines on it and water moves through it. All that is required is that the amount of heat absorbed from the sun be equal to the amount of heat that leaves the volume. This is pretty simple stuff that any student would learn in a basic fluid dynamics class. You also seem to believe these are perfectly balanced at all times. On the contrary, the temperature is measured fairly infrequently so at any given time the heat from the sun may overpower convection or visa versa.

"Convection causes heat to flow from a hot upper layer down to a cold lower layer?"

Buoyancy, the force that makes hot things rise, is pretty weak. It's pretty easy for convection to overcome it. Millions of people have downdraft furnaces (I have one) and that has no problem convecting hot air down.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
Thank god somebody is warm!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
So, the original AGW Cult Idiot, zzzzz, is back with that much depleted lone neuron.
Tell us, does your downdraft furnace NOT have a blower?
Seriously, do you even know what the convection process is?
Finally, you are claiming that the thousands of measurements, were all so infrequent that they never showed a temperature increase in 14 years.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
"Tell us, does your downdraft furnace NOT have a blower?"

Sure something needs to create the pressure difference to make the air move - just as something needs to create the pressure difference to make the water move. And you must agree there is something there to make the water move in the ocean, unless you deny the currents in the ocean.

"Finally, you are claiming that the thousands of measurements, were all so infrequent that they never showed a temperature increase in 14 years."

Umm, no, nothing I said was anywhere close to that.

I think at this point it's clear that your incompetence is beyond the help of any instruction. Goof luck with your life.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Hey zzz, I guess no one told you not to swallow the whole bottle of the AGW Cult's stupid pills.
Your furnace has a blower to move the air, but it is convecting air down.
http://www.vocabu...nvection
As I said at the start, it was against my better judgement to argue with an idiot. Thanks for justifying my concern.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2014
antigoracle cannot UNDERSTAND
The upper layer, continuously heated by the sun, does not show a rise in temperature?
You have been on these phys.org forums for >5 years yet U still haven't learned basic Science & seem to need things to be spelled out in toddler detail...

When thinking on questions U MUST address assumptions, often clarifying these results in the question being addressed, especially as so often; -ve science clods make so MANY errors !

1.Define 'upper layer' property ?
thickness
homogeneity eg Saline
currents in 3 axes
all wave effects
wind effects in 3 axes
temp distribution
mass of; rain, snow, hail
cloud effect
IR emission

2.Idiot claim sun heats "continuously" is FALSE !
- factor ALL attributes in 1. re transition to NIGHT !

antigoracle
Convection causes heat to flow from a hot upper layer down to a cold lower layer?
Only for simpletons.

Be SMARTER & more Complete antigoracle

http://en.wikiped...nvection
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
And AGW Cult Idiot #2 returns with the lone neuron they share, which obviously due to their utter stupidity does not retain anything when they pass it on. Hey Mike Idiot, were you born this special or dropped as a baby? Go and read the comments of your fellow cult idiot #1 and maybe, just maybe you might understand. MORON.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
I think at this point it's clear that your incompetence is beyond the help of any instruction. Goof luck with your life.

zz:
After years of trying (as i think you know), I gave up with the Troll.
Thankfully there is now an "ignore" button.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2014
I think at this point it's clear that your incompetence is beyond the help of any instruction. Goof luck with your life.

zz:
After years of trying (as i think you know), I gave up with the Troll.
Thankfully there is now an "ignore" button.

And you as well Uba....
zz5555
5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
zz:
After years of trying (as i think you know), I gave up with the Troll.
Thankfully there is now an "ignore" button.


I always wonder if these people are really this incompetent or if they are just willfully ignorant because science violates their personal philosophy. Of course, they could just be a troll - and given that nothing I wrote seemed that difficult, that's probably where antig fits in. I've always kind of thought that these people's real lives must be kind of pathetic to act this way in real life. Seems to me to be a pretty sad little life, but it does appear to be one that many do choose. Yes, it is nice to have the ignore button now.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2014
antigoracle blurted
Go and read the comments of your fellow cult idiot #1 and maybe, just maybe you might understand. MORON.
Comments offered by myself & others are consistent in content though differ in style & emphasis. Its up to U to be precise to point out any actual errors ?

Before u threw a tantrum I did (twice) offer:- http://en.wikiped...nvection
Which U obviously didn't read or couldn't understand or even ask to clarify, either way I'm at a loss as to what U imagine U are achieving by NOT educating yourself last 5 yrs & raising mindless rants.

Other than likely being paid, why are you here ?

Therefore, in some way to address & expose your behavior pattern re convergence.
If you do not explicitly deny, within the statutory seven (7) days, that you are paid to troll & obfuscate & disrupt interactions on these forums then we can only conclude you have sold your intellect & integrity & will be treated accordingly.

Science antigoracle, capisce ?
viko_mx
1.1 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
It is inexplicable for me this global warming hysteria in popular media, because all measures that can be taken to curb CO2 emissions will look funny if for some reason the sun activity is increased only by 1%. Must act reasonably and planned rather than to take emotional and hasty measures. More important is afforestation of large areas rather than to reduce the emissions through expensive and less efficient technologies, that can bring down the competitiveness of manufacturers. But if we talk about fundamental errors, the whole concept of industrialized societies is mistaken.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2014
It is inexplicable for me this global warming hysteria in popular media, because all measures that can be taken to curb CO2 emissions will look funny if for some reason the sun activity is increased only by 1%.

Must act reasonably and planned rather than to take emotional and hasty measures.

More important is afforestation of large areas rather than to reduce the emissions through expensive and less efficient technologies, that can bring down the competitiveness of manufacturers. But if we talk about fundamental errors, the whole concept of industrialized societies is mistaken.


Acting reasonably ... planning rather than taking hasty measures ... Like what Central Planning did in East Germany?

Never in history has increasing taxes changed the weather.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014
Other than likely being paid, why are you here ?

Ah, the ignoRANT of the AGW Cult's idiot.
Do me a favor and hit that Ignore user. Thanks.
BTW. Please explain to your fellow idiot zzz, how the movement of hot air in his furnace has nothing to do with convection.
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2014
"Never in history has increasing taxes changed the weather."

Of course it has - very often, in fact. Subsidies for fossil fuels has obviously changed the climate and what changes the climate changes the weather. Or did you think that subsidies were free? Taxes used to develop land, build roads and cut down trees obviously changes the weather. Or did you think urban heat islands were imaginary?

Don't you even know what your taxes are used for?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2014
antigoracle AGAIN doesnt understand as didnt read
BTW. Please explain to your fellow idiot zzz, how the movement of hot air in his furnace has nothing to do with convection.
Wrong.

If U had the presence of mind to stop being lazy & actually learn from this link, to U a 4th time:-
http://en.wikiped...nvection
Noticed it includes "Advection" ? proves yet AGAIN antigoracle won't read or understand, convection encompasses advection. Distinction described here:-

http://en.wikiped...dvection

Quoting to lazy antigoracle;

"The term advection sometimes serves as a synonym for convection, but technically, convection covers the sum of transport both by diffusion and by advection. Advective transport describes the movement of some quantity via the bulk flow of a fluid (as in a river or pipeline)."

From definitions then, zz5555 is absolutely correct to offer furnace example.

Caught, antigoracle so lazy & unread AGAIN an umpteenth time !

Education !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014
Wow!! Congrats Mike, you take stupidity to an art form.
It's one thing to know how to read, and quite another to know how to comprehend.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2014
A small quibble with the article, and again this is why "we" who accept climate change as fact need to watch our wording...

Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations..


Record-breaking in what sense? We know for instance that in the geologic past CO2 concentrations were as high as 2000 ppm some 100 million years ago...and possibly as high as 7000 ppm 500 million years ago. So, one has to couch these statements and put them in perspective in order to give the full force of intellectual honesty and transparency.

This does NOT mean climate change isn't a problem and that we don't need to be taking steps to address it.

I'll repeat that;

This does NOT mean climate change isn't a problem and that we don't need to be taking steps to address it.

Just to be COMPLETELY clear here;

This does NOT mean climate change isn't a problem and that we don't need to be taking steps to address it.

That might do it....
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
antigoracle has trouble being smarter with
Wow!! Congrats Mike, you take stupidity to an art form.
It's one thing to know how to read, and quite another to know how to comprehend.
U just might have a point (maybe) but its being destroyed by your preoccupation on schoolyard attack, if its case its across native language issues or reliance on misused misinterpreted popular press definitions or the like, then be smart & take it to a thoughtful conclusion.

Rather than dumb puerile name calling, point out comprehension issue !

Smarter to raise level, can't you do that, U touch on it but, so far failed to articulate/complete ?

U know, dialectic that drives convergence. Where is there any evidence of any mature & smart attempt at convergence in any of your one dimensional paid posts.

Note:
U still haven't explicitly denied U are paid to post here to obfuscate the scientific process, so on notice.

Also obviously after 5 yrs U have accepted core tenet of AGW.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014

U still haven't explicitly denied U are paid to post here to obfuscate the scientific process, so on notice.

The confirmation of the AGW Chicken Little's stupidity. Seriously Mike, how stupid do you have to be to believe we get paid, while you do it for free.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2014
antigoracle claimed, muttered & barked
... Seriously Mike, how stupid do you have to be to believe we get paid, while you do it for free.
Its not about belief as a deterministic certitude, doh, that's why I ask YOU to EXPLICITLY deny U are paid to appear so; dumb, stupid, unread, barking mad with intention to marginalize the process of science & probabilistic outcomes it reaches.

No one could survive in a civilized society for any length of time if they exhibited your nutty combination of attributes in practical existence having to interact with others & not be put in an insane asylum or at least prison for 'unsocial behavior', the conclusion is therefore given this observation & assessment of other interactions (unless you are Kazinsky hermit) that there is a high likelihood U are paid.

Has been reported lobby groups have paid people to obfuscate re AGW etc & I accept that likelihood as SAME happened with tobacco lobbyists !

Y not explicitly deny it then ?

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.