- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As first reported here by WUWT.Good. Then we agree this is a enormous amount of heat in the ocean due to climate change
See.....that was not so hard
Welcome aboard. I knew if I led you there you would agree that climate change has caused an enormous heat level in the oceanAs first reported here by WUWT.
Sorry, but you've gone beyond the evidence.Welcome aboard. I knew if I led you there you would agree that climate change has caused an enormous heat level in the ocean
Yeah but it is enormous....as you agree....and it is consistent with AGW....as you agree.Sorry, but you've gone beyond the evidence.
". . . According to the study authors, this increase is consistent with warming trends in the shallow ocean associated with anthropogenic climate change, but more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean. . . . "
https://news.agu.org/press-release/the-deep-sea-is-slowly-warming/
". . . more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean. . . . "Yeah but it is enormous....as you agree....and it is consistent with AGW....as you agree.
As I said. Welcome aboard
this increase is consistent with warming trends in the shallow ocean associated with anthropogenic climate change,". . . more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean. . . . "
Because the unadjusted temps are less accurate than the adjusted temps. It is just that the adjusted temps show just a little bit more warming than the unadjusted temps.Why are they adjusting the temperature record in a way that produces more observed warming than has happened then?
LOL...Because the unadjusted temps are less accurate than the adjusted temps. It is just that the adjusted temps show just a little bit more warming than the unadjusted temps.
Tony Heller's schtick is just cherry-picking the adjustments that show the most warming while ignoring all the adjustments that show cooling. And all the adjustments are published, peer-reviewed, and available for anyone to see.
Wrong. I believe in what the peer-reviewed and published science says. You are the one in a cult.LOL...
You believe anything the priests of AGW tell you.
LOL...
A devotee of the relgion, without fail.
LOL...
Inducted into the cult of AGW...
I see you have nothing to add to the thread....as usualLOL...
You believe anything the priests of AGW tell you.
LOL...
A devotee of the relgion, without fail.
LOL...
Inducted into the cult of AGW...
No you don't. Please stop lying to yourself.Wrong. I believe in what the peer-reviewed and published science says. You are the one in a cult.
I have added consideralby at times. Not my fault you dismiss my words without thought. I assume you simply cannot comprehend that level of science.I see you have nothing to add to the thread....as usual
Blah blah blah...cult ....blah blah blah ....religion. lolI have added consideralby at times. Not my fault you dismiss my words without thought. I assume you simply cannot comprehend that level of science.
Prove itNo you don't. Please stop lying to yourself.
You believe what the charlatans tell you the climate papers say. I doubt you have the ability to actually read and comprehend actual climate papers.
Most climate papers are one or more of several things. Generally very ambiguous in wording is used to allow people to read with their preconceptions. An exercise of possibilities in a models is also common. Actual reproducible experiments are very uncommon.
LOL...Prove it
Just call me a cultist and move on.LOL...
Really now.
LOL...
No matter what I say, you deny the facts.
How can I prove anything to a person like you?
No, I have the facts on my side. I call you a cultist, because you act like a religious zealot when it comes to AGW. You remind me of the Jehovah Witnesses. No facts supporting your beliefs, so they are faith-based.Just call me a cultist and move on.
It's all you have. Lol
Blah blah blah...religious zealot...blag blah blah...this is so stupid. LolNo, I have the facts on my side. I call you a cultist, because you act like a religious zealot when it comes to AGW. You remind me of the Jehovah Witnesses. No facts supporting your beliefs, so they are faith-based.
Yes, it is. And the way you believe, without skepticism, of the climate, is equally stupid.Blah blah blah...religious zealot...blag blah blah...this is so stupid. Lol
In return I offer you scienceYes, it is. And the way you believe, without skepticism, of the climate, is equally stupid.
That's a blog site in NASA. Why don't you produce actual papers?In return I offer you science
Now.....call me a poopyhead. Lol
You cant see the links to actual.papers?????That's a blog site in NASA. Why don't you produce actual papers?
Damn, Lord... now you are just plain lying about me. Again.No you don't. Please stop lying to yourself.
You believe what the charlatans tell you the climate papers say. I doubt you have the ability to actually read and comprehend actual climate papers.
Most climate papers are one or more of several things. Generally very ambiguous in wording is used to allow people to read with their preconceptions. An exercise of possibilities in a models is also common. Actual reproducible experiments are very uncommon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?