Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 46,993
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38691 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you?
Classic creationist Gish gallop.

Too tiresome.

Looks good on your CV, not on mine, as Dawkins said.

Krusty spends all day looking for denialist arguments from denier blogs, cutting and pasting them here, considers this a debate, and a weariness to refute any of her second-hand denier arguments some sort of victory.

Cheered on by her usual companions in this little denial circle jerk.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38692 Aug 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Heat.
Really? No answer.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38693 Aug 31, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.
A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.
I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.
You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.
When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.
I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.
So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.
I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.
So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:
Deniers are idiots.
So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38694 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? No answer.
You need to study the difference between atmospheric temperatures differentials and their realtionship to ocean temperature differentials. For example, the heat required to warm the entire atmosphere 1 degree would only heat the ocean approximately 0.0008 degree since the mass of the ocean is about 300 times the mass of the atmosphere. Liquid water has a specific heat of about 4 J/g K while oxygen and nitrogen are about 1 J/g K. So I hope you understand the difficulty in projecting atmospheric temperatures. However, it should be understood that the ocean is able to absorb much more heat than the atmosphere with a much smaller temperature change. Also it should be understood that the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere will indeed cause much variation in atmospheric temperatures. It should also be understood that this energy gain by the ocean will manifest itself in warmer temperatures in the atmospere over the long term.

The Earth is gaining heat. That has been established.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38695 Aug 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to study the difference between atmospheric temperatures differentials and their realtionship to ocean temperature differentials. For example, the heat required to warm the entire atmosphere 1 degree would only heat the ocean approximately 0.0008 degree since the mass of the ocean is about 300 times the mass of the atmosphere. Liquid water has a specific heat of about 4 J/g K while oxygen and nitrogen are about 1 J/g K. So I hope you understand the difficulty in projecting atmospheric temperatures. However, it should be understood that the ocean is able to absorb much more heat than the atmosphere with a much smaller temperature change. Also it should be understood that the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere will indeed cause much variation in atmospheric temperatures. It should also be understood that this energy gain by the ocean will manifest itself in warmer temperatures in the atmoshpere over the long term.
True. It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system. That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures. We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.

If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38696 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
Yes. He was true in everything he pointed out but you are not responding to those accurate points.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system.
Unsupported gibberish. The oceans absorb the heat in shallow or deeper layers (depending on how clear the water is) but the dominant effect is in vertical transport of heat which means that heat absorbed today may be move out of the atmosphere/water interface for very long times.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures.
We are seing a flattening of AIR temperatures mostly because of a strong La-Nina moving a lot of deeper COOL water to the surface. His point is that this is a small change in ocean that can have a large effect on air temperature.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.
If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.
There is no 'decadal cycle' in air temperature or coorelation of the solar cycle with the temperature. The oceans and land have too much thermal mass to be affected by short term cycles such as the sunspot cycle except in the 200 year changes to amplitude which has enough effect to be seen. However, even that cycle is only a SMALL factor (< 0.2C) overall and on a downward trend. The cycle 24 and 25 are just data points in that cycle.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38697 Aug 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Earth is gaining heat. That has been established.
...and THAT is your point after all your prior b as in b s as in s? It "has been established" that the Earth is gaining heat?

I am happy to inform you that your experts have been saying for many years now that the Earth is NOT gaining heat!

Check it out...'They' are trying to find the missing energy but (so far) can't.

Keep the 'Faith Baby'!
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38698 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system. That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures. We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.
If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.
That would mean we are all going to suffer global cooling! "Oh, the Humanity"!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38699 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?
LOL, of course not, you silly goose! You're such a kidder!

Can you not read, or is it that you cannot understand? As I stated, I have refuted your side's arguments a thousand times. Do you have any new ones? No.

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. The first post for which I have a record is November of 2009. There were fence-sitters then, now there are nothing but deniers. And I've never "converted" a denier.

I said the other day that you guys wore me out. Southern expression, mostly. But it also meant that you are tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights. You're just no fun.

Calling names? You don't like your label? Change it, then! Deniers are not serious skeptics; they, you, are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie. The shoe fits you entirely too well, Cinderella.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38700 Aug 31, 2013
Michael Mann is winning in court:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/o...

The lies will be proven to be lies. The defamation of this man's reputation and character is going to result in a big, fat check for Dr. Mann.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38701 Aug 31, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Dr. Alan Robock,a distinguished professor of climate science at Rutgers University, is a lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Those reports are considered the “definitive assessment of the risks of climate change.”
He explained that the burning of fossil fuels by humans causes the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and these gases retain heat from the sun like a backyard greenhouse. Higher temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, and hotter air holds more water. These changes are causing rising average world temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, volatile weather including more severe storms and droughts, more wild fires, and ecosystem changes.
He emphasized the severe impacts of increased global warming on human society and our metropolitan area, including future flooding of low lying areas in New Jersey and Manhattan.
http://newprovidence.patch.com/groups/around-...
"OFA is working to organize and energize the public to pressure Congress to lead the world on Climate Change and preserve our economy."

Organizing for Action is a spinoff of Obama's re-election campaign.

Nothing like raw politics when the science is lacking, huh?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38702 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.
So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?
The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.
CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.
And of those 400 blue jelly beans the warmists are predicting destruction on 50 of them.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38703 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?
No, because the "skeptics" are not real sceptics, and they don't post in good faith. They post the same old canards over and over no matter how many times they are debunked.

They get the contempt because they deserve it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38704 Aug 31, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
That would mean we are all going to suffer global cooling!
Yes, fun farts is predicting 30 years of global cooling.

Science of course is predicting 30 more years of warming.

fun farts is an old man of course, so he is free to make predictions that fly in the face of science because he won't be around to see what happens or deal with it.

Free to make believe reality will conform to his ideology.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#38705 Aug 31, 2013
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38706 Aug 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because the "skeptics" are not real sceptics, and they don't post in good faith. They post the same old canards over and over no matter how many times they are debunked.
They get the contempt because they deserve it.
Speak of the devil...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#38707 Sep 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Speak of the devil...
"the green troll"
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38708 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Whitewash.

Rinse.

Repeat.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38709 Sep 1, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

Unsupported gibberish. The oceans absorb the heat in shallow or deeper layers (depending on how clear the water is) but the dominant effect is in vertical transport of heat which means that heat absorbed today may be move out of the atmosphere/water interface for very long times.

We are seing a flattening of AIR temperatures mostly because of a strong La-Nina moving a lot of deeper COOL water to the surface. His point is that this is a small change in ocean that can have a large effect on air temperature.
.
Not sure what you were trying to say. Heat is absorbed by the oceans at the surface. Depending on where at the surface the ocean itself will be more or less saline. Some areas of the ocean, like the earth, do not receive much rainfall other areas receive a lot of rainfall. Less rainfall and the surface is more saline, more rainfall and the fresh water tends to 'ride the surface' of the saline water because fresh water is less dense.

Once heat is absorbed at the surface you might think of it as getting a seat on a roller coaster. The heat received is transported throughout the system in horizontal and vertical patterns. As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process.

Warm water is less dense than cold water. Low saline water is less dense than warm saline water. All the heated water will follow the same course but it makes a difference where the water got on the ride in how it impacts climate.

As the water cools and as evaporation makes the once fresh water more saline, the water becomes more dense and drops to lower levels of the ocean circulation.

La Nina is part of this process. When the pacific is in the negative phase of it's oscillation we experience more frequent and more impactful La Ninas.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38710 Sep 1, 2013
" As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process."

should read

As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and [the ocean water] becomes more dense in the process.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min RoxLo 1,115,065
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 min welcome home 50,028
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 44 min Frijoles 69,490
Grocery Coupon and saving your pennies 1 hr Susan 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 178,583
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr PEllen 98,344
A short math question. I will reply with answer... 5 hr Whats the Bulb An... 8

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]