Does anyone have a database of earth temperatures?

[longview]

Of course it does. Are you so clueless in logic that you do not know that your quote mining not only invalidates what you have said but also questions your honesty.

Can you tell the difference between my thoughts and what I quote?
I quote things that support what I am saying.
Have you said anything that that you supported with a citation and a quote?

 

[longview]

LOL.

No time to do a 30 second literature search, but lots of time to claim you did it before and somehow the number on your head means something.

Newflash dude…. Photosynthesis has been happening for a billion years- I’m pretty sure we’re close to a steady state equilibrium there.

Learn from your betters. It might educate you.

So you do not think the Increased Greening of the Earth might have changed the ratio of photosynthesis?

 

[Threegoofs]

So you do not think the Increased Greening of the Earth might have changed the ratio of photosynthesis?

Enough to impact warming? No.

Why would you think so if literally the only person who ever mentioned this was some anonymous dude in a chat room?

Oh right. Because you want to believe it.

 

[longview]

Enough to impact warming? No.

Why would you think so if literally the only person who ever mentioned this was some anonymous dude in a chat room?

Oh right. Because you want to believe it.

How would you know if they were not considering photosynthesis as a possible energy sink before?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is not nature that is the problem. it is human made pollution that is the problem.

Then why do you guys keep blaming AGW for nature's actions?

Yes. Pollution, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why would I demonstrate science to you when you will clearly misrepresent it.

LOL...

You are joking, right?

When is the last time you demonstrated you have a clue about science?

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.

No time to do a 30 second literature search, but lots of time to claim you did it before and somehow the number on your head means something.

Newflash dude…. Photosynthesis has been happening for a billion years- I’m pretty sure we’re close to a steady state equilibrium there.

Learn from your betters. It might educate you.

Well, you are in error,

Photosynthesis continues to sequester heat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you do not think the Increased Greening of the Earth might have changed the ratio of photosynthesis?

Even at that, the sequestered heat from photosynthesis isn't returned until we burn fossil fuel, or other similar actions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How would you know if they were not considering photosynthesis as a possible energy sink before?

Because his Bible tells him so.

 

[Threegoofs]

How would you know if they were not considering photosynthesis as a possible energy sink before?

Because his Bible tells him so.

LOL.
You guys so resemble the quote in my .sig

Your coherent arguments (which honestly, not all are) are utterly dependent on the data from people who are in a system that you neither understand or appreciate.

 

[Threegoofs]

How would you know if they were not considering photosynthesis as a possible energy sink before?

Do you think these people are so stupid they dont understand photosythesis is important in sequestering carbon?

Did you think carbon offsets by planting trees is done just because people think trees are nice and shady to sit under?

 

[soylentgreen]

How would you know it was misrepresented?

I just quoted some of the link. And I read the link. You must of too in order to find the one sentence you could use to lie that the link backs you.

 

[soylentgreen]

Can you tell the difference between my thoughts and what I quote?
I quote things that support what I am saying.
Have you said anything that that you supported with a citation and a quote?

Do not be even more ridiculous. Now you are just telling me you do not understand what a fallacy is. You made an out right lie. You took a sentence from a link and tried to pretend that the whole link backs you from that one sentence. It does not.

Your thoughts are obvious. You think people are not going to see through your tricks. But as I keep pointing out. You really are obvious at being disingenuous.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then why do you guys keep blaming AGW for nature's actions?

Yes. Pollution, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

LOL...

You are joking, right?

When is the last time you demonstrated you have a clue about science?

I do not need to make any such demonstration about science. Because when dealing with deniers such as you the discussion is more about pointing out which debate trick you are trying when you pretend you do understand the science.

 

[longview]

Do you think these people are so stupid they dont understand photosythesis is important in sequestering carbon?

Did you think carbon offsets by planting trees is done just because people think trees are nice and shady to sit under?

It is not photosynthesis capability to sequester carbon that is being discussed, which shows how little you
understand about the conversation.
The discussion is about how photosynthesis affects the energy balance!
The energy stored at plant sugars, is sequestered, but does represent energy that arrived, but did not leave,
but does not contribute to warming directly like a land use change.
This would actually agree with the data that shows the energy imbalance since 2000 is mostly in the shortwave radiation.
Earth is less reflective, and one of the reasons is all those extra leaves are capturing and storing energy.
And they would be capturing nice high energy blue light, and converting that energy to sugars.

 

[longview]

I just quoted some of the link. And I read the link. You must of too in order to find the one sentence you could use to lie that the link backs you.

I saw and responded to your quote in post # 184,

Rising amounts of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to. Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean. As a result, upper ocean heat content has increased significantly over the past few decades.........In the present, warming of ocean water is raising global sea level because water expands when it warms. Combined with water from melting glaciers on land, the rising sea threatens natural ecosystems and human structures near coastlines around the world.

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.

 

[longview]

Do not be even more ridiculous. Now you are just telling me you do not understand what a fallacy is. You made an out right lie. You took a sentence from a link and tried to pretend that the whole link backs you from that one sentence. It does not.

Your thoughts are obvious. You think people are not going to see through your tricks. But as I keep pointing out. You really are obvious at being disingenuous.

How do you think I lied, when I cited and quoted a NOAA source stating that,
NOAA Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

The main source of ocean heat is sunlight. Additionally, clouds, water vapor, and greenhouse gases emit heat that they have absorbed, and some of that heat energy enters the ocean.

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!

 

[Threegoofs]

It is not photosynthesis capability to sequester carbon that is being discussed, which shows how little you
understand about the conversation.
The discussion is about how photosynthesis affects the energy balance!
The energy stored at plant sugars, is sequestered, but does represent energy that arrived, but did not leave,
but does not contribute to warming directly like a land use change.
This would actually agree with the data that shows the energy imbalance since 2000 is mostly in the shortwave radiation.
Earth is less reflective, and one of the reasons is all those extra leaves are capturing and storing energy.
And they would be capturing nice high energy blue light, and converting that energy to sugars.

So what youre saying is that its not abut how photosynthesis sequesters carbon, its about how photosynthesis makes sugars that store energy.

Gosh. How did I miss that giant difference.

 

[longview]

So what youre saying is that its not abut how photosynthesis sequesters carbon, its about how photosynthesis makes sugars that store energy.

Gosh. How did I miss that giant difference.

You clearly did! It is not about carbon sequestered but the energy captured to produce the sugars (which do include carbon).
How many times have you cited this AR5 SPM graphic?
Consider what would change if 1 W m-2 of plant based imbalance had to be accounted for?
IPCC AR5 SPM

 

[Threegoofs]

You clearly did! It is not about carbon sequestered but the energy captured to produce the sugars (which do include carbon).
How many times have you cited this AR5 SPM graphic?
Consider what would change if 1 W m-2 of plant based imbalance had to be accounted for?
IPCC AR5 SPM
View attachment 67441925

The only source for the 1w/m-2 is an anonymous amateur on an Internet forum.

I’m guessing that even if he has the number right,the change is only a slight increase, say 10%, which is 0.1 w/m-2 which is probably accounted for in the ‘other changes’ category.

Of course, I could be wrong and you two untrained amateurs might just have proved all the climate scientists in the world wrong.

But I doubt it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You clearly did! It is not about carbon sequestered but the energy captured to produce the sugars (which do include carbon).
How many times have you cited this AR5 SPM graphic?
Consider what would change if 1 W m-2 of plant based imbalance had to be accounted for?
IPCC AR5 SPM
View attachment 67441925

I need to jump in and clarify something.

That 1 W/m^2 is the photosynthesis energy sequestration. Not the net amount after decay of plants. I haven't seen the net amounts, but it is still a significant amount. Probably around half that number.

What I think is significant about this, is if we assume the amount is 0.7 W/m^2 as a net result, then with a 0.7 W/m^2 energy imbalance at the TOA, we might be at the right equilibrium for no warming in the future from now.

If the net sequestration of energy os 0.5 W/m^2, and the TOA imbalance at 0.7, then we would be warming at a far slower rate than assumed.

These sciences are till in their infantile state. We most certainly need more studies that are not being funded by the AGW activists.

 

[longview]

The only source for the 1w/m-2 is an anonymous amateur on an Internet forum.

I’m guessing that even if he has the number right,the change is only a slight increase, say 10%, which is 0.1 w/m-2 which is probably accounted for in the ‘other changes’ category.

Of course, I could be wrong and you two untrained amateurs might just have proved all the climate scientists in the world wrong.

But I doubt it.

Still if the IPCC calculations did not account for it then all the predictions are off!
What we do know is that the energy imbalance since about year 2000 has not been in the longwave spectrum,
but in the shortwave spectrum, likely a 10 W m-2 increase since 1985 or more.
A greening earth would cause less reflection in the blue high energy spectrum.

 

[longview]

I need to jump in and clarify something.

That 1 W/m^2 is the photosynthesis energy sequestration. Not the net amount after decay of plants. I haven't seen the net amounts, but it is still a significant amount. Probably around half that number.

What I think is significant about this, is if we assume the amount is 0.7 W/m^2 as a net result, then with a 0.7 W/m^2 energy imbalance at the TOA, we might be at the right equilibrium for no warming in the future from now.

If the net sequestration of energy os 0.5 W/m^2, and the TOA imbalance at 0.7, then we would be warming at a far slower rate than assumed.

These sciences are till in their infantile state. We most certainly need more studies that are not being funded by the AGW activists.

No worries, I was just pointing out that if he thought the discussion was about carbon sequestration, he was not following the
discussion.

 

[Threegoofs]

I need to jump in and clarify something.

That 1 W/m^2 is the photosynthesis energy sequestration. Not the net amount after decay of plants. I haven't seen the net amounts, but it is still a significant amount. Probably around half that number.

What I think is significant about this, is if we assume the amount is 0.7 W/m^2 as a net result, then with a 0.7 W/m^2 energy imbalance at the TOA, we might be at the right equilibrium for no warming in the future from now.

If the net sequestration of energy os 0.5 W/m^2, and the TOA imbalance at 0.7, then we would be warming at a far slower rate than assumed.

These sciences are till in their infantile state. We most certainly need more studies that are not being funded by the AGW activists.

I agree your understanding is in its infantile state.

Learn from the people who do this professionally, then get back to us.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I agree your understanding is in its infantile state.

Learn from the people who do this professionally, then get back to us.

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.