Explain it to Dr. Judith Curry, the Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has stated there has been no significant global temperature rise in the air, ocean, or anywhere on the earth over the past couple of decades - and presents the data to back up the assertion.
Actual New York Times Article entitled "The end of snow?"
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Explain it to Dr. Judith Curry, the Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has stated there has been no significant global temperature rise in the air, ocean, or anywhere on the earth over the past couple of decades - and presents the data to back up the assertion.
You mean that the over 800 scientists including Nobel prize winners who signed up to support the Senate report stating that AGW does not exist don't "know the most basic fundamentals of the science of GW".... Simply absurd assertion on your part.
No, they are deluded asshole Republicans. Like you.
97%
all the world's science orgs
one paper out of 2400 denies AGW
common sense
So what, she is wrong .
I'll believe NOAA thank you very much.
How many times are you going to re-cycle that debunked meaningless chart. Adding 30 x 10^22 Joules to the ocean heat content over 50 years is nearly meaningless.
Let's see what Dr. Judith Curry has to say about ocean temperature.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/
"Well, I haven’t worried very much about this sequestered heat. Without having done the arithmetic, I figured that the actual temperature increase when averaged over the global ocean is probably pretty small. Further, with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface.
Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 degrees C.
So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?"
man fc you are willing to lie about everything.
the before and after politicans graphs only came out about 6 mos to 1 year apart. the graphs are different because the polticians fudged the graphs not because temperatures changed in any significant manner.
you ipcc has been lowering temperature projections consistently as their models fail.
so are you going to apologize yet for being wrong and being an abnoxious jerk.
the before and after politicans graphs only came out about 6 mos to 1 year apart. the graphs are different because the polticians fudged the graphs not because temperatures changed in any significant manner.
you ipcc has been lowering temperature projections consistently as their models fail.
so are you going to apologize yet for being wrong and being an abnoxious jerk.
the ipcc fudged the graph...
if you want to know more...
here is a run down...
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/201...ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/
man fc you are willing to lie about everything.
the before and after politicans graphs only came out about 6 mos to 1 year apart. the graphs are different because the polticians fudged the graphs not because temperatures changed in any significant manner.
you ipcc has been lowering temperature projections consistently as their models fail.
so are you going to apologize yet for being wrong and being an abnoxious jerk.
Take your fraudulent charts and shove them you lying dickhead. Unless it's from an authoritative source it's worthless lies. Which Koch bro funded site is that one from?
According to FC -- any chart drawn with data and representing the actual facts is "fraudulent" - whether it is this chart with the IPCC data, or charts showing the actual ocean temperature over 50 years with data from ARGO/NOAA.