Climate Change... its the sun... again.

[gwb-trading]

So ocean temps are rising (just not as fast as expected)?

Why don't you just download the raw ocean temperature data from ARGO and figure out for yourself.

 

[Ricter]

Why don't you just download the raw ocean temperature data from ARGO and figure out for yourself.

How about I pay an EXPERT to do that?

 

[futurecurrents]

NASA is one the four most authoritative sources of climate information in the world.

NASA said:

1. AIR TEMPERATURES HAVE STALLED
2. TEMP IN TOP HALF OF WORLD'S OCEANS ARE NOT CLIMBING FAST ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR STALLED AIR TEMPS
3. WATER TEMP IN DEEP OCEAN HASN'T RISEN SINCE 2005

And you say that CO2 is not a GHG.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So ocean temps are rising (just not as fast as expected)?

TEMP IN TOP HALF OF WORLD'S OCEANS ARE NOT CLIMBING FAST ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR STALLED AIR TEMPS

IPCC said in Section D.1 of the AR5 WG1 SPM:

Bold and underline mine. To paraphrase the quote below - We don't fucking know.

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing
greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

To which the American Physical Society reasonably asked:

• This IPCC text lists internal variability, forcing inadequacies, and model over-responsiveness as all possibly contributing to the stasis, but without a quantitative resolution. To what would you attribute the stasis?
• If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
• What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?

To which Fraudcurrents will most likely reply something like 97% blablahblah.

 

[futurecurrents]

TEMP IN TOP HALF OF WORLD'S OCEANS ARE NOT CLIMBING FAST ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR STALLED AIR TEMPS

IPCC said in Section D.1 of the AR5 WG1 SPM:

Bold and underline mine. To paraphrase the quote below - We don't fucking know.




To which the American Physical Society reasonably asked:



To which Fraudcurrents will most likely reply something like 97% blablahblah.

So I guess then that you think that CO2 is not a GHG.

 

[WeToddDid2]

• This IPCC text lists internal variability, forcing inadequacies, and model over-responsiveness as all possibly contributing to the stasis, but without a quantitative resolution. To what would you attribute the stasis?

Paraphrased in regular people talk.

Hey, IPCC, you are making up all kinds of shit to account for the pause in global surface temperatures. You can't even fucking back up any of your bullshit with math. Do you have any fucking idea what has caused global surface temps to pause?

 

[Ricter]

Paraphrased in regular people talk.

Hey, IPCC, you are making up all kinds of shit to account for the pause in global surface temperatures. You can't even fucking back up any of your bullshit with math. Do you have any fucking idea what has caused global surface temps to pause?

Yeah. And while they're at it they should explain why rising global surface temps paused in the '50s.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So I guess then that you think that CO2 is not a GHG.

This is literally like playing checkers with a 2 year old.

You want me to respond in one of two ways:

1. The first way is "yes" CO2 is a GHG. In which you will probably reply something like; you righty moron CO2 is going up and is a GHG therefore there is global warming even a fucking 10 year old can get it.
2. The other way you want me to respond is "no" CO2 is not a GHG. In which you will probably reply something like - You don't even know what a GHG is? That is science 101. Righty moron.

I even made an attempt to replicate your gibberish.

 

[jem]

just in case people are scanning through this..

its like putting an IPCC writer on the stand and using his/her own writing to show he has no credibility.


and of course your kicker was awesome. in other words if the sun and the tides and other things can cause a stall... can't they cause the warming or cooling too?

• If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
• What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?

TEMP IN TOP HALF OF WORLD'S OCEANS ARE NOT CLIMBING FAST ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR STALLED AIR TEMPS

IPCC said in Section D.1 of the AR5 WG1 SPM:

Bold and underline mine. To paraphrase the quote below - We don't fucking know.




To which the American Physical Society reasonably asked:



To which Fraudcurrents will most likely reply something like 97% blablahblah.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So I guess then that you think that CO2 is not a GHG.

Your fish bait stinks.