Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism

[futurecurrents]

What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing.

You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.

What is your fixation with the satellite data? That's something a paid shill would focus on. I didn't need to read past this first sentence.

It's pretty clear to me that on this issue you are intellectually dishonest.......................................................................................... Ah hell, why mince words, you're a goddamn liar.

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh, got to the second sentence. Here you go from a red herring to an outright falsehood. The ocean temps ARE rising and even they weren't the fact that you can't understand how the heat content can increase without the temps going up means that you simply don't know what you are pretending to know.

What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing.

You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.

 

[futurecurrents]

What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing.

You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.

Third sentence, no the heat content of the oceans is NOT unimaginably large. Another very stupid thing to say. It can be determined fairly accurately.

 

[futurecurrents]

What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing.

You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.

^"But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans?"


Because, the volume increases. But you knew that.

 

[futurecurrents]

"You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? "


No I don't agree. Again you display shocking levels of misunderstanding and disinformation. For one, CO2 is NOT uniform, it is higher in the NH because that is where most of the emissions are.

For another more basic one that even the dullest of scientists understand bit apparently you can't, the oceans control the climate. So no, we should not expect even warming.

But I like how to pretend to not know this. Some good shilling there. Bravo. Hope they are paying you well.

What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing.

You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.

 

[gwb-trading]

Another thing the climate alarmists should be thankful for...

Morning Caffeine Fix Gets Cheaper as Rains Boost Brazil Supplies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

[Tsing Tao]

I didn't need to read past this first sentence.

But curiosity (and the need to parrot) got to him.

Oh, got to the second sentence.

Third sentence, no the heat content of the oceans is NOT unimaginably large. Another very stupid thing to say. It can be determined fairly accurately.

And then two more posts (for a total of 5) to answer your one. That right there is an insight into how fraudboy thinks.

 

[gwb-trading]

And then two more posts (for a total of 5) to answer your one. That right there is an insight into how fraudboy thinks.

It is all about drowning about the "deniers" with a large volume of posts from the "crusher crew". It has nothing to do with posting actual facts or politely debating the merits of information.

 

[futurecurrents]

But curiosity (and the need to parrot) got to him.





And then two more posts (for a total of 5) to answer your one. That right there is an insight into how fraudboy thinks.

Ask me if I give a shit. Go ahead. Shouldn't you be playing with your guns?

Oh and liehole likes your post but can't respond to my destruction of his obvious lies. He never responds after I show his statements to be lies. He will now post some other huge pile of bullshit.

That's exactly what his handlers have told him to do.

 

[futurecurrents]

It is all about drowning about the "deniers" with a large volume of posts from the "crusher crew". It has nothing to do with posting actual facts or politely debating the merits of information.

Yes, liars and fools should be called out, drowned out and insulted. Dickhead. lol