This is how out of touch or simply dishonest you are.
Weather is not climate. One year of data is meaningless. The US is only like 2% of the globe. Obama has nothing to do with 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming' and is nothing but a straw man argument. Again you bring politics to a scientific fight. I'm so surprised...
Again you post junk science, and this time I am not being fesetious, the surface area of the US is 9,826,675 km² and the surface area of the earth is 510,072,000 km² but the surface are of the land mass of the earth is 148,300,000 km2 so if you are comparing the area of the US compared to the oceans and continents you aren't comparing it to other land masses which are 148,300,000 km2 which is a more correct corelation. The influence on the world's climate by the US is a pittance along side the oceans which are more like 75% of the surface of the earth.
And don't accuse Fierobear of bringing politics to scientific arguement. That was started by East Anglia, and the IPCC. Fierobear and others are arguing against the politicalization of the climate discussion. The political junk is exactly what you are promoting. That is the reason you disregard, write off, and criticize any scientist or other person who disagrees with the political agenda you represent
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again you post junk science, and this time I am not being fesetious, the surface area of the US is 9,826,675 km² and the surface area of the earth is 510,072,000 km² but the surface are of the land mass of the earth is 148,300,000 km2 so if you are comparing the area of the US compared to the oceans and continents you aren't comparing it to other land masses which are 148,300,000 km2 which is a more correct corelation. The influence on the world's climate by the US is a pittance along side the oceans which are more like 75% of the surface of the earth.
And don't accuse Fierobear of bringing politics to scientific arguement. That was started by East Anglia, and the IPCC. Fierobear and others are arguing against the politicalization of the climate discussion. The political junk is exactly what you are promoting. That is the reason you disregard, write off, and criticize any scientist or other person who disagrees with the political agenda you represent.
So you are lining up on the same side as Flyin'Fieros..? Flyin'Fieros just said that there has been no leveling off of ocean temperatures, that the oceans are continuing to absorb heat energy and increase in temperature, at the same time that surface temps over land masses (reduced to GMT) have been flat or stationary. Seems like you are making an argument for MMGW yourself. Because if the oceans are warming, some of that heat will eventually be reflected as higher temps on the land masses, even if it takes some time for that equilibrium to complete itself.
You are saying that the oceans are "the elephant in the room" and Flyin'Fieros is saying that the oceans warming is continuing and unabated.
?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-05-2013).]
Your points have even been debunked with evidence YOU cited. For instance in this post you cited this link to support your position that climate change is having no effect on polar bears. From your own link: "Climate change continues to have a negative impact on polar bears in some portions of their range and remains the most important threat to their long-term range-wide security."
Anyone familiar with this thread realizes this. You're fooling no one by acting like you actually make sense. You refuse to acknowledge the fact you have no real point to make. You've completely discredited yourself with senseless claims like "CO2 isn't responsible for plant growth." You just claimed that scientists are "lining up" to reject CO2's greenhouse effect - something so irrational I don't even have a word that describes it with justice.
Notice how I used citations to substantiate my point and discredit your post? You should try that.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again you post junk science, and this time I am not being fesetious, the surface area of the US is 9,826,675 km² and the surface area of the earth is 510,072,000 km² but the surface are of the land mass of the earth is 148,300,000 km2 so if you are comparing the area of the US compared to the oceans and continents you aren't comparing it to other land masses which are 148,300,000 km2 which is a more correct corelation. The influence on the world's climate by the US is a pittance along side the oceans which are more like 75% of the surface of the earth.
You have no point here.
9,826,675 is 6.6% of 148,300,000.
2% vs 6.6% - WOW that's a major difference except not really..
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And don't accuse Fierobear of bringing politics to scientific arguement. Fierobear and others are arguing against the politicalization of the climate discussion.
Oh, and to flyinfieros trying to say the point about Obama being only one year...it IS NOT just one year, it is 16+ years of flat temperatures that appear to be related to an overall flattening or dropping of extreme weather events. But flyinfieros can't get that basic point either.
Originally posted by fierobear: He is an arrogant prick who thinks he can unilaterally declare victory.
It's not arrogance, it's confidence. You only perceive it that way because you don't like me bringing reality to your phony skeptic party.
And I'd rather be known as an 'arrogant prick' by you than someone scared of debate by the entire forum.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Meanwhile, since he obviously loves insulting opposing sites, let's look at his favorite site and the awfully creepy folks running it
You're seriously trying to manufacture a controversy over a halloween costume and photoshopped pictures?
So rather than address all the various problems brought to light with your inaccurate and misleading posts you resort to an ad hominem. Who would have guessed...
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, and to flyinfieros trying to say the point about Obama being only one year...it IS NOT just one year
If you read the actual blog post instead of the climate denial website you linked to, the title is "2013 - A YEAR with minimal extreme weather events in the US"
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: it is 16+ years of flat temperatures
This statement is worse than inaccurate, it's misleading. Only surface temperatures that make up less than 10% of the record have been on a temporary "hiatus" - this is according to a study YOU cited.
Surface temperatures make up less than 10% of the record. There has been no hiatus in 90% of the temperature record- the oceans. Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: that appear to be related to an overall flattening or dropping of extreme weather events.
Weather is not climate. Extreme climate events ARE on the rise. Before you shrug off the following graph, keep in mind it comes from the same source as most of the data used in the blog post you are defending, NOAA. Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But flyinfieros can't get that basic point either.
No I perfectly understood the poor point you attempted to make. You need to take a step back and realize your position holds as much water as a wicker basket.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-06-2013).]
Thank you flying Fieros for taking up the issue with this close minded pair. I gave up awhile ago. They have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with facts. I stand firmly on the side of the 95% of scientists. The only part worth discussing in my opinion is what do we do about it. I have no confidence at all that our government will find the right solution. Both parties are about as corrupt as they can be even though there are a few in both parties I admire and respect. Very few! Edited for typos.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-07-2013).]
There were 19 events in 2012 & 2011, 21 in 2010, 11 in 2009, 17 in 2008, 17 in 2007, 9 in 2006, 30 in 2005 16 in 2004 16 in 2003.
So while the hurricane activity is up and down this year is not particularly violent. with 9 storms and only 2 hurricanes. Last year there were 10 hurricanes out of 19 and that was a heavier year.
Ice grew at rates faster than average throughout October, at 103,500 square kilometers (40,000 square miles) per day compared to the 1981 to 2010 average of 87,500 square kilometers per day (33,800 square miles per day). However, this rate is slower than last year, when ice extent doubled during the month of October. Nevertheless, the ice cover is more extensive than in 2012. At the end of the month the extent was 710,000 square kilometers (274,100 square miles) below average and 1.1 million square kilometers (424,700 square miles) above the same time last year.
Of course the ice is thinner than if it were held over from previous years. Water always freezes first at the top and then proceeds downward toward the ocean (or pond) floor. We won't know the extent of the recovery until next season.
In short the IPCC predictions of the arctic ice pack disappearing enough to warrant commercial freighter traffic, and glaciers melting enough to raise the ocean levels a matter of 3 feet is just pure nonsense.
All the propoganda used to leverage money out of the US, and Canada is purely false.
And by the way, CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and is basic to the preservation of life on the planet. It is not something to be taxed.
There were 19 events in 2012 & 2011, 21 in 2010, 11 in 2009, 17 in 2008, 17 in 2007, 9 in 2006, 30 in 2005 16 in 2004 16 in 2003.
So while the hurricane activity is up and down this year is not particularly violent. with 9 storms and only 2 hurricanes. Last year there were 10 hurricanes out of 19 and that was a heavier year.
Ice grew at rates faster than average throughout October, at 103,500 square kilometers (40,000 square miles) per day compared to the 1981 to 2010 average of 87,500 square kilometers per day (33,800 square miles per day). However, this rate is slower than last year, when ice extent doubled during the month of October. Nevertheless, the ice cover is more extensive than in 2012. At the end of the month the extent was 710,000 square kilometers (274,100 square miles) below average and 1.1 million square kilometers (424,700 square miles) above the same time last year.
Of course the ice is thinner than if it were held over from previous years. Water always freezes first at the top and then proceeds downward toward the ocean (or pond) floor. We won't know the extent of the recovery until next season.
In short the IPCC predictions of the arctic ice pack disappearing enough to warrant commercial freighter traffic, and glaciers melting enough to raise the ocean levels a matter of 3 feet is just pure nonsense.
All the propoganda used to leverage money out of the US, and Canada is purely false.
And by the way, CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and is basic to the preservation of life on the planet. It is not something to be taxed.
Arn
Why is it you continue to link the Arctic sea Ice extent yet ignore the scientific assessment on the same page??
quote
Arctic sea ice continued to expand during October as temperatures dropped and the number of daylight hours diminished, gaining 3.21 million square kilometers (1.24 million square miles) of ice since the beginning of the month. Average ice extent for October was 8.10 million square kilometers (3.13 million square miles), making it the 6th lowest October extent in the 35-year satellite data record. This was 810,000 square kilometers (313,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent. The October 2013 extent remains within two standard deviations of the long-term 1981 to 2010 average.
Better yet why should we believe your conclusions over the experts??
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Last year was the lowest, up 6 positions already? Pretty good I'd say
CU-Boulder-led study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic: Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.
“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said Miller, also a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-07-2013).]
JMHO, but when someone refers to someone else on this forum as idiots or arrogant p*icks I think that those phrases fit the name callers better than the person referred to. I think that when we are having a civilized discussion and someone reverts to those tactics they have either lost their temper or ran out of defensible arguments. Or both.
CU-Boulder-led study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic: Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.
“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said Miller, also a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Once again, junk science. Who in their right mind would ask somebody in Boulder for accurate data for Canadian sovereign territory? Why not ask the Government of Canada?
They say
"After record-breaking low extents during Summer 2012, Arctic-wide and Canadian Arctic sea ice coverage was closer to normal in Summer 2013.
Arctic-wide sea ice extents1 reached a minimum of 5.099 million km2 on September 13, 2013, just slightly less than the minimum of 5.129 million km2 recorded on the same date in 2009, making it the 6th lowest minimum extent recorded during the satellite era."
In other words it is in recovery. It was not the warmest on record. Those guys in Boulder are undoubtably feeding the American Democrats what they want to hear to try to get bigger research dollars. I see
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Once again, junk science.
Actually Arn it's your posts that are becoming indistinguishable from "junk science." Yet again I will demonstrate this by explaining these rather simplistic matters to you. Really, the best thing you can do for my side is keep talking, keep discrediting yourself, and keep discrediting the anti-science views you represent.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Who in their right mind would ask somebody in Boulder for accurate data for Canadian sovereign territory?
Anyone with minor reasoning skills.
These scientists traveled to the Baffin Island to conduct research. The ONLY picture in the article is of the lead scientist on Baffin Island collecting samples.
But next time I have questions about the Andromeda Galaxy I'll be sure to only ask someone from there, not astrophysicists here on Earth.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Why not ask the Government of Canada?
Well you previously cited Environment Canada as proof that climate change isn't impacting polar bears. You must have really poor comprehension of your own governments website because on the exact same page you linked to it says: "Climate change continues to have a negative impact on polar bears in some portions of their range and remains the most important threat to their long-term range-wide security."
Let's see if this is any different... (SPOILER ALERT: it's not any different.)
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In other words it is in recovery.
They don't say that at all. The word "recover" is completely absent from the entire article. The reason is they understand how averages work and you don't. One year of data is meaningless. The trend is clearly still below normal. In fact it's such a big deal they were ALMOST normal they wrote an article about it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: It was not the warmest on record.
Did you even read your own link? It says: "Ice coverage in the Canadian Arctic is variable from area to area and from year to year."
It's also amazing you're attempting to peddle unusual weather as a 'recovery'. Also from your link: "average daytime temperatures... were 1-2°C below normal. As a result, ice melt was slow and new ice formation began early in northern sections near the end of August."
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Those guys in Boulder are undoubtably feeding the American Democrats what they want to hear to try to get bigger research dollars.
Ahh, the last resort of a denier after they realize they have no real point: bring up politics ad hominem style.
Again you prove nothing except you have no clue what you're talking about.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-07-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again, your Boulder data on this being the warmest Arctic summer (in how many thousand years?) is bs
A swing and a miss.
That's not what the study says at all. Your bias is clearly evident when it's obvious you didn't comprehend what the study says but you're sure it's 'bs' anyway. Especially when you have a history of horrible comprehension.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You are the guy posting junk
I'm honestly sitting here wondering how many times I have to embarrass you before you sit down and be quiet. You're like a kid who keeps grabbing a hot stove.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-07-2013).]
Haiyan! Sandy! Things are heating up. Just guessing that climate change is happening. What percent is man made or what actions we should take is out of my area of expertise. Even if I had an area of expertise!
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-08-2013).]
It certainly looks like ocean warming is playing a role. From a link in another thread: "Haiyan got so strong because "it has everything working for it," McNoldy said. First, it formed in the open ocean, and thus no land mass prevented it from forming a symmetrical circular pattern, which helps a cyclone form and gather steam, he said.
Second, ocean temperatures are incredibly warm, topping out at 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius). Just as important, the warm water also extends deep into the ocean, meaning that upwelling caused by the winds will not churn up cold water, which dampens cyclone power, McNoldy said. Tropical cyclones are basically giant heat engines, powered by the transfer of heat from the ocean to the upper atmosphere."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-08-2013).]
I don't really understand the point of this argument. The planet is warming. The planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years, and we're now coming out of an ice age. Humans "may* be contributing to an extent, but if we never started another car, never turned on another light, or outlawed farting, the planet will still warm. It's what it does on the back side of an ice age. Who's gonna get the blame in a few hundred years when it starts to cool again?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-08-2013).]
I don't really understand the point of this argument. The planet is warming. The planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years, and we're now coming out of an ice age. Humans "may* be contributing to an extent, but if we never started another car, never turned on another light, or outlawed farting, the planet will still warm. It's what it does on the back side of an ice age. Who's gonna get the blame in a few hundred years when it starts to cool again?
The point is, are humans are having a significant effect on the climate? The evidence is pretty clear, it's not just natural variation.
If CO2 output dropped to zero tomorrow, the planet would continue to warm - but if CO2 output doesn't drop to zero tomorrow, it's going to warm more.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Once again junk science
Is your strategy to say the most irrational and senseless things you can come up with just to troll this thread? Post after post you continue to embarrass yourself and show your very poor understanding of this issue.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The ocean does not have homogeneous temperatures. Moreover it varies widely between oceans.
The topic being discussed is the unprecedented rise in ocean heat content. No where on your link does it say ocean warming isn't happening. In fact your own source NOAA says the complete opposite. One of NOAA's climate change indicators is ocean heat content which clearly has risen dramatically: Source.
According to the article I quoted, the second biggest contributor to Haiyan is ocean warming. The article even discuses why deep ocean warming will create larger and more powerful tropical cyclones because. This is constant with peer reviewed research that shows the deep oceans are also warming: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy: The planet is warming. The planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years, and we're now coming out of an ice age. Humans "may* be contributing to an extent
It's the rate of warming that's alarming. If life cannot adapt to the rate of change it will die. We are already seeing this in coral reef systems where warm waters and CO2 making the oceans acidic is threatening entire ecosystems there. As a marine aquarium hobbyist you surely know the consequences of your tanks getting too hot and too acidic. Source.
Can you spot the industrial revolution in this graph? Source.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy: Who's gonna get the blame in a few hundred years when it starts to cool again?
Now that's an interesting question.
According to studies that I've read CO2 emissions are expected to delay the next ice age. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-08-2013).]
I don't believe it! Flyinfieros posted Marcott AGAIN! He must have some kind of memory problems or maybe brain damage.
Marcott, the author of the study of that graph with the upward spike, said his "20th century results were not robust", in other words, DONT USE THEM TO MAKE ANY CONCLUSION! But flyinfieros reposted it Anyway!
Dear Dr Marcott, Assembling Holocene proxies is a worthwhile endeavour. I appreciate the fact that you’ve archived your data as used – a definite improvement over past practices in the field.
First, as you describe your methodology, your reconstructions (other than RegEM) appear to be weighted averages of the various proxies, with all weights positive. Your NH Extratropics (NHX) reconstruction has a huge increase from 1920 to 1940 (1.92 deg C). There are only 10 NHX proxies that end after 1920, of which six have lower proxy temperatures in 1940. Only the Agassiz-Renland proxy has a major increase. I am baffled as to how you calculate a NHX reconstruction increase of 1.92 deg C given this data. Surely Agassiz by itself cannot account for such a large increase? Do you have any explanation or ideas? My own emulations of your methodology do not yield the pronounced downtick in the early 20th century or the profound 1920-1940 uptick. Do you have any suggestions on why I would not be replicating your results? More detailed methodological information would be helpful.
Second, in your SH Extratropics reconstruction (SHX), the highest value (1.22 deg C as a 1961-90 anomaly.) It seems odd that the reconstruction in the early 20th century has values that are so much larger than the 1961-90 reference zero and that the reconstruction values go down through the 20th century, seemingly at odds with what is known about actual temperatures. Also, virtually all of the positive 20th century values are contributed by the TN05-17 ocean core proxy. However, the underlying article (Nielsen et al, 2004) notes the dramatic inconsistency between present day temperatures and reconstructed temperatures and posit missing core. It seems troubling that the 20th century result should depend so much on such problematic data. Without TN05-17, recent SHX reconstruction values would be dramatically different. Any thoughts on this?
I would like to publish a blog article on the paper. I notice that you and your coauthors have responded quickly to information requests from various reporters and I would appreciate similar courtesy if possible.
Regards, Stephen McIntyre
=============================
Marcotts response
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence. (1) Comparison of the Standard5x5 reconstruction with the RegEM stack shows that they differ during this youngest 60-year interval, suggesting the reconstruction for the last 60 years is dependent on this methodology, whereas the agreement between the methods for the remainder of the reconstruction shows it is not dependent on this methodology. (2) Figure 1G shows the number of datasets going into the reconstruction in each time interval. In the online supplement, we evaluated in some detail the fidelity of global reconstructions based on the number of datasets included (for example, Fig. S13); that analysis notes a considerable reduction in the correlation of Monte Carlo reconstructions with an input global signal when the number of temperature time series becomes small. (3) In manuscript paragraph 5 (and in an extensive discussion in online supplement section 9), we evaluated effective smoothing of centennial to millennial scale variability, and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions. For these reasons, we do not use the reconstruction of the last 60 years shown in Figure 1 as the basis for any of our conclusions.
Regarding the NH reconstructions, using the same reasoning as above, we do not think this increase in temperature in our Monte-Carlo analysis of the paleo proxies between 1920 − 1940 is robust given the resolution and number of datasets. In this particular case, the Agassiz-Renland reconstruction does in fact contribute the majority of the apparent increase. The reason is that the small age uncertainties for the layer-counted ice core chronology relative to larger uncertainties for the other lake/ocean records. The Monte Carlo analysis lets the chronology and analytical precision of each data series vary randomly based on their stated uncertainties in 1000 realizations. In this analysis method, the chronologically well constrained Agassiz-Renland dataset remains in the 1920 − 1940 interval in all the realizations, while the lake/ocean datasets do not (and thus receive less weight in the ensemble). Again, this is why we were careful to include the analysis of sensitivity to number of datasets included.
Regarding the SH reconstruction: It is the same situation, and again we do not think the last 60 years of our Monte Carlo reconstruction are robust given the small number and resolution of the data in that interval.
Regards, Shaun
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-08-2013).]
As for flyinfieros ocean heat graph that he keeps repeating, this has already been debunked. He attacks the author of the article, as if that invalidates the point, but the article is well documented with data and links.
Originally posted by fierobear: I don't believe it! Flyinfieros posted Marcott AGAIN! He must have some kind of memory problems or maybe brain damage.
Marcott, the author of the study of that graph with the upward spike, said his "20th century results were not robust", in other words, DONT USE THEM TO MAKE ANY CONCLUSION! But flyinfieros reposted it Anyway!
You fail again.
The '20th century spike' in the graph I posted is the highly robust Hadley CRU dataset. This dataset is in total agreement with other surface temperature datasets despite different scientists, different methods, and different funding.
The Berkeley Earth study showed this quiet clearly: Source.
Originally posted by fierobear: As for flyinfieros ocean heat graph that he keeps repeating, this has already been debunked. He attacks the author of the article, as if that invalidates the point, but the article is well documented with data and links.
Are oceans warming globally? Yes, he even admits this. What's the point of this entire post? To exaggerate misleading information. Seriously, if you read it and take it all into account, are oceans still warming globally? Yes.
To add to that, he's only looking at 8 years of data and half the globe. Oceans are still warming globally. Here's 50 years of data and the entire globe: Source.
Both the WUWT blog and the author of the post have been completely discredited already. Try citing scientific sources instead of politically biased ones.
The '20th century spike' in the graph I posted is the highly robust Hadley CRU dataset. This dataset is in total agreement with other surface temperature datasets despite different scientists, different methods, and different funding.
The Berkeley Earth study showed this quiet clearly: Source.
WRONG. The HadCRUT spike is the lower red colored spike. The higher orange colored spike is a COMPUTER MODEL PROJECTION.
Are oceans warming globally? Yes, he even admits this. What's the point of this entire post? To exaggerate misleading information. Seriously, if you read it and take it all into account, are oceans still warming globally? Yes.
To add to that, he's only looking at 8 years of data and half the globe. Oceans are still warming globally. Here's 50 years of data and the entire globe: Source.
Both the WUWT blog and the author of the post have been completely discredited already. Try citing scientific sources instead of politically biased ones.
WRONG. The data going back 50 years is a hodgepodge of mixed sources, but your graph tries to present them as one source.
Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG. The HadCRUT spike is the lower red colored spike. The higher orange colored spike is a COMPUTER MODEL PROJECTION.
So it's not Marcott like you just claimed? Get your story straight if you're going to tell lies.
The Hadley CRU data set clearly shows a spike as I said.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG. The data going back 50 years is a hodgepodge of mixed sources, but your graph tries to present them as one source.
Where's your peer reviewed study that says the oceans are not warming?
Oh it doesn't exist? The burden of proof is on you. I've provided clear scientific evidence that shows ocean heat content is unprecedented and synonymous with surface temperature data for the same time period.
Climate Depot is politically biased. The owner and founder of the website is Marc Morano, who has financial ties to ExxonMobil and was a former employee of Rush Limbaugh and Jim Inhofe.
Climate Depot is politically biased. The owner and founder of the website is Marc Morano, who has financial ties to ExxonMobil and was a former employee of Rush Limbaugh and Jim Inhofe.
Just received an email with a few facts that I was unaware of. Clean energy economy is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. Clean energy creates three times as many jobs as fossil fuel. If you have a heart condition and 95 out of 100 doctors recommend a certain treatment are you going to go with the 5 doctors who have a different view? I know that we can't make an instant conversion to clean energy, but the more we delay, the worse it will get. I prefer clean energy to dirty energy. What a nut huh?
Originally posted by fierobear: LOL, all the boilerplate bullshit arguments INCLUDING the Exxon Mobil funding crap.
It's clearly evident your posts have zero substance. Just a lot of conjecture. Your sources are clearly unqualified, biased, and political - not scientific.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Watching you flail away is fun.
Ocean acidification amplifies global warming Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ocean acidification may amplify global warming through the biogenic production of the marine sulfur component dimethylsulphide (DMS).
