• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does anyone have a database of earth temperatures?

Lord of Planar said:
Will you please stop with such unfounded insults please?

I do know what I speak of. You clearly do not. Please stop being a jerk.
Click to expand...
Then why dont the scientists who wrote an incredibly comprehensive review of the topic, and who have done so with revisions for the past 30 years not find ‘what you know of’ of important enough to include in their documents?

Hint… it probably ain’t because you’re a genius in the field.
 
Threegoofs said:
Then why dont the scientists who wrote an incredibly comprehensive review of the topic, and who have done so with revisions for the past 30 years not find ‘what you know of’ of important enough to include in their documents?

Hint… it probably ain’t because you’re a genius in the field.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me you cannot think of any scenario?

I'm not surprised. You don't bother to follow the money. And when you do, you only point out things like right wing think tanks, when the total amounts spend are only about 1/20th the amounts of money the AGW agenda gets.

The scientists will not bite the hand that feeds them. they know where the gravy train is, and they will milk it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you telling me you cannot think of any scenario?

I'm not surprised. You don't bother to follow the money. And when you do, you only point out things like right wing think tanks, when the total amounts spend are only about 1/20th the amounts of money the AGW agenda gets.

The scientists will not bite the hand that feeds them. they know where the gravy train is, and they will milk it.
Click to expand...
You mean all the scientists in the world are part of a giant conspiracy to hide the science that only you know about?

Listen to yourself sometime.
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean all the scientists in the world are part of a giant conspiracy to hide the science that only you know about?
Click to expand...
Why would you think that? There are only a very small percentage that write for the IPCC. The largest percentage, the silent majority, stay silent as not to be treated like Judith Curry. Anyone who rocks the boat of AGW is effectively ostracized.
Threegoofs said:
Listen to yourself sometime.
Click to expand...
You should listen to yourself. Nothing you say is based in reality.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why would you think that? There are only a very small percentage that write for the IPCC. The largest percentage, the silent majority, stay silent as not to be treated like Judith Curry. Anyone who rocks the boat of AGW is effectively ostracized.
Click to expand...

Shows how much you know about the IPCC. I doubt if theres an experienced climate scientist in the world who doesnt at least comment on the peer review section, and if something that was as substantial as you allege was ignored in it, I can guarantee there would be a published paper - or ten- not to mention constant mentions in AGU and other conferences about the significant omission. But theres not. Hell, you cant even be bothered to come up with a single reference.

Curry is absolutely involved in the IPCC in terms of peer review - if she's not, its her fault.

Then again, I cant recall, but you may have been one of those who claim there is no peer review of the IPCC (despite me posting the extensive peer review procedures done). Maybe Im confusing you with some other denier though....you guys all tend to blend together with your misunderstandings and downright ignorance.
Lord of Planar said:
You should listen to yourself. Nothing you say is based in reality.
Click to expand...
LOL.

I'm not the one claiming something about photosynthesis (its not albedo, apparently, and its not carbon sequestration, I guess, so its some other special thing - and only partially your fallback - evapotranspiration) that the IPCC missed.... or is HIDING from all the other scientists. I guess your reality has a sky thats not blue colored.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm not the one claiming something about photosynthesis (its not albedo, apparently, and its not carbon sequestration, I guess, so its some other special thing - and only partially your fallback - evapotranspiration) that the IPCC missed.... or is HIDING from all the other scientists. I guess your reality has a sky thats not blue colored.
Click to expand...
The cooling by photosynthesis is real. Cooling by evapotransiration is real. I'm sorry you think the IPCC covers everything.

If you understood chemistry, and the formulas I presented in that post 182. You would know what I say is a fact.
 
longview said:
I saw and responded to your quote in post # 184,

But you did not want to understand my reply,
the statement does not change what I said, that the majority of ocean warming is from shortwave radiation.
Click to expand...
You are an amusement to me.

Using the word majority now are you. Slight step backwards for you there. An admittance that there may be something else heating the oceans besides your precious sun.


It changes everything in that you admit you are telling lies . You are dishonestly representing that link.
longview said:
How do you think I lied, when I cited and quoted a NOAA source stating that,
NOAA Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

Yes they went on to say more things, but that does not invalidate that "the main source of ocean heat is sunlight."
Remind everyone what portion of the spectrum Sunlight represents, oh Yea Shortwave radiation!
Click to expand...

I do not think you lied. I am stating as a fact that you have lied. Read the entire link not just cherry pick one sentence and then claim you are vindicated.

What you have said is a complete lie. It is invalid. You tried the most dishonest of fallacies,. And lack the wit to understand logic. But of course it is the clumsy way you lie that got you caught.
 
soylentgreen said:
You are an amusement to me.

Using the word majority now are you. Slight step backwards for you there. An admittance that there may be something else heating the oceans besides your precious sun.


It changes everything in that you admit you are telling lies . You are dishonestly representing that link.


I do not think you lied. I am stating as a fact that you have lied. Read the entire link not just cherry pick one sentence and then claim you are vindicated.

What you have said is a complete lie. It is invalid. You tried the most dishonest of fallacies,. And lack the wit to understand logic. But of course it is the clumsy way you lie that got you caught.
Click to expand...
Your errors are adding up.
And you do not even know it!
 
longview said:
Your errors are adding up.
And you do not even know it!
Click to expand...
Throwing out a taunt is about your level of understanding science.

Have you run out of ways of pretending that you did in fact quote mine that link.
 
soylentgreen said:
Throwing out a taunt is about your level of understanding science.

Have you run out of ways of pretending that you did in fact quote mine that link.
Click to expand...
It is all you have! I do not need anything else, because you cannot show where I am wrong!
 
longview said:
It is all you have! I do not need anything else, because you cannot show where I am wrong!
Click to expand...
By the very fact that I have shown that you quote mined a link in order to lie is where I have shown you are wrong.

How laughable not only can I accuse you of complete incompetence with science but can now add that you have no idea how logic works and what a fallacy is.

You truly have zero credibility left.
 
soylentgreen said:
By the very fact that I have shown that you quote mined a link in order to lie is where I have shown you are wrong.

How laughable not only can I accuse you of complete incompetence with science but can now add that you have no idea how logic works and what a fallacy is.

You truly have zero credibility left.
Click to expand...
You have not shown me to be in error, the majority of ocean warming comes from direct sunlight!
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course I have. I have quite clearly caught you out telling a lie.

You have no credibility left.
Click to expand...
Not at all, nothing I stated was a lie, and I supported the statement with a cited quote, which is more than you have done!
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

You must be reading the invisible parts.

It doesn’t say the warming is mostly coming from sunlight. The warming mostly comes from diffusion.
Click to expand...
Post # 242 where I cited and quoted.
“The main source of ocean heat is sunlight.”
 
longview said:
Not at all, nothing I stated was a lie, and I supported the statement with a cited quote, which is more than you have done!
Click to expand...
Everything you say should be considered a lie from now on. Now that you have been exposed as a person who will dishonestly quote mine.

You have zero credibility.
 
Threegoofs said:
(Citation needed)
Click to expand...
Its called understanding science. No citation is needed for 5 + 5 = 10. Why should it be needed for simple science?

The oceans are opaque to longwave.

The oceans are transparent to shortwave.

Most of the longwave changes get radiated back away.

Most of the shortwave changes affect the oceans heat content.

It's really annoying to have someone who does not understand these science to claim those who do are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom