Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98.

What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.

Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98.

Not just that.  They have been "fudging" with Dr. Roy Spencer's temperature measurements of the stratosphere because  the temperatures were "abnormally low".

They "cherry pick" data that "doesn't fit" their "model".

"All models are wrong.  Some models are useful"  Or like as Steven Wright jokes..."I have a full scale map of the United States . It took me all last year to fold it"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.

 You never quit.  You could be in Ecuador knee deep in snow still screaming it.  

tag.

I'm writing a speech on how full of shit Gore is.

Thanks for the links.

I saw a show on ice core samples and they showed wide fluctuations in earths temp over time. One showed a 20 degree change over a thousand years. That is huge and was done throughout earths history.

Is mankind moving the magnetic poles?  They move too, and since Bush has been in office.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.  You never quit.  You could be in Ecuador knee deep in snow still screaming it.

Im down here in southern New Mexico and it snowed over the weekend.......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.  You never quit.  You could be in Ecuador knee deep in snow still screaming it.   Im down here in southern New Mexico and it snowed over the weekend.......

See, there you go.     Can you ski yet?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.

Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY.

You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying.  You never quit.  You could be in Ecuador knee deep in snow still screaming it.   Im down here in southern New Mexico and it snowed over the weekend....... See, there you go.     Can you ski yet?

No....

Quoted: See, there you go.     Can you ski yet?

No....





South NM,  I just saw that.  One of these days I'm going to make it to Taos.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm

Quoted: Quoted: See, there you go.     Can you ski yet? No.... South NM,  I just saw that.  One of these days I'm going to make it to Taos.

That is north-central NM.  A few thousand feet higher in elevation and lattitude.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm

Pure moronic "research".  

What drives heat transfer?  What process warms the Earth?  What process cools the Earth?  What causes the poles to be cooler?

Don't quote, tell me what you KNOW.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm

That website pegs my hysteria detector.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm That website pegs my hysteria detector.

Yes, here is a quote:

Scientists measure ocean heat storage in Watts per meter squared,

THAT IS NOT STORAGE (Q), that is FLUX!

Like I stated, PURE MORONIC RESEARCH.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm Pure moronic "research".   What drives heat transfer?  What process warms the Earth?  What process cools the Earth?  What causes the poles to be cooler? Don't quote, tell me what you KNOW.

How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm Pure moronic "research".   What drives heat transfer?  What process warms the Earth?  What process cools the Earth?  What causes the poles to be cooler? Don't quote, tell me what you KNOW. How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not?

He just gave you an example right above your post.

Quoted: Don't quote, tell me what you KNOW. How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not?

Hoody,  please, please, please, don't get involved in another scientific disscusion.

Just a friendly warning.

Eh -Im still up in the air about if we are getting warmer or not. Obviously some parts are seeing warmer temps as glaciers are receding etc.


I dont think man has anything to do with it - or at best a very minor percentage. We came out of the little ice age not long ago - we should be getting warmer!

This is another story that pegs my BS meter:  Atmosphere, Not Oceans, Carries Most Heat To Poles

I believe this global warming can be averted through a nuclear winter.If we can kick enough dust from China , Russia , and Iran up into the atmosphere we should be back on track.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm That website pegs my hysteria detector. Yes, here is a quote: Scientists measure ocean heat storage in Watts per meter squared, THAT IS NOT STORAGE (Q), that is FLUX! Like I stated, PURE MORONIC RESEARCH.

They say in the article it is a RATE of watts per meter squared..........



This isnt their units for heat STORAGE..

Quoted: This is another story that pegs my BS meter:  Atmosphere, Not Oceans, Carries Most Heat To Poles

Just when you think they have hit rock bottom, they then break out a pick-axe and start digging a deeper hole.

Quoted: I don't know, dude.  Nearly December here in Anchorage and it's above freezing, green grass is still exposed.  I've never seen it this warm this late in the year. Of course, last November was unbelievably COLD, coldest I can ever remember.

It was 0 degrees here this morning. It looks like gas stations don't even have the diesel mixed right yet. I had to stop and get some anti-gel additive, because when I gave it more than half throttle, it was stumbling all over itself.

If your grass is global warming, then my diesel is global cooling.

Quoted: tag. I'm writing a speech on how full of shit Gore is. Thanks for the links.

A good read is "State of Fear" by Michael Crighton.  It's a novel, but it has footnotes for the scientific stuff that is real.

Quoted: How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not?

NASA's improved global climate computer model, which simulates and projects how the Earth's climate may change, indicates that the oceans have been absorbing heat since 1951 and will continue to absorb more heat from the atmosphere over the next 50 years

NASA has NO computer models that are remotly accurate... guessing is what they are doing.

The story also shows James Hansen in this and that alone is enough to make it suspect.

Its just a matter of perspective.
Is it just a pattern that we have not been around long enough to see repeat?
Is it a natural event in the lifespan of the planet?
Is it manmade?
Who knows.

Look back to the begining of OUR time and may appear to be man made. Look at it in a scale of millions and millions of years and it is just single thread in the fabric of time and pretty insignifigant.

Sure, we may contribute, but we are not the sole cause. The earth is alive with or without us on its surface. Like any other living thing that ages, the earth will eventually die. With, or without our help.  

"We are but a pimple on the ass of time"

Yep. I remember learnig in Middle School about the coming "Ice Age."

It scared the shit out of me.

Quoted: Quoted: How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not? NASA's improved global climate computer model, which simulates and projects how the Earth's climate may change, indicates that the oceans have been absorbing heat since 1951 and will continue to absorb more heat from the atmosphere over the next 50 years NASA has NO computer models that are remotly accurate... guessing is what they are doing. The story also shows James Hansen in this and that alone is enough to make it suspect.

Well, thats what trying to predit the future really is.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't there some story a few months ago about the temp monitoring system being mismanaged?  Something along the lines that there were a disturbing amount of sensors improperly placed... like near chimneys, grills, direct sunlight etc? Yes, that is how they kept their data from showing it getting cooler since 98. What about ocean temperatures rising too...................Im just saying. Cherry picked data.  And oceans warm by RADIATION which should be REDUCED with GLOBAL WARMING FROM GREENHOUSE GAS INCREASES.  Oceans also cool by convection and latent heat rejection via evaporation of water...water vapor, a gas, takes 2.27 x 10^6 Joules of heat per kilogram of water evaporated from the oceans.  Increased surface temps increase the evaporation rate, causing oceans to COOL, not heat.  Why?  Because the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the air and water is FUCKING TINY and therefore heat transfer is also FUCKING TINY. You REALLY need a basic course on heat transfer because your arguements are damn easy to refute. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030904074808.htm That website pegs my hysteria detector. Yes, here is a quote: Scientists measure ocean heat storage in Watts per meter squared, THAT IS NOT STORAGE (Q), that is FLUX! Like I stated, PURE MORONIC RESEARCH. They say in the article it is a RATE of watts per meter squared..........

Then they not only confuse dimensions, they also use flux and heat interchangably.  And they have absolutely no discernment between heat and temperature.

They lack any basic thermal science education, substituting some "stamp-collecting" education.

Radiation heat transfer rate is based on temperature differences riased to the 4th power...  W = Area * sigma * T^4 * emmisivity factor and in SI units, W is in Watts, sigma is 5.67 x 10^-8 and T is in Kelvin.  Very little heat transfer happens unless the temperature difference is great, like the Sun compared to seawater.

Now for convective heating of oceans by hot air, this is CONTRARY TO NATURAL CONVECTION as heat rises.  Oceans then become very effective INSULATORS TO NATURAL CONVECTION.  And same with the air as it forms boundary layers of essentially equal temperature, killing all convection.

Quoted: www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.13.StretchingTruth-X.gif

that's what I was thinking

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is this article moronic reasearch, while other articles are not? NASA's improved global climate computer model, which simulates and projects how the Earth's climate may change, indicates that the oceans have been absorbing heat since 1951 and will continue to absorb more heat from the atmosphere over the next 50 years NASA has NO computer models that are remotly accurate... guessing is what they are doing. The story also shows James Hansen in this and that alone is enough to make it suspect. Well, thats what trying to predit the future really is.

The key to guessing about the future is understanding the system components very well.  Any system can be predicted into the future assuming it is well understood.

Unfortunately we are nowhere near that point.

When I go through this guys blog: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/


it kind of makes me question the ground temperature data. Are we measuring the prevalence of A/C units and urban sprawl?

Like this gem of a temperature monitoring station:

wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-7/

Quoted: Then they not only confuse dimensions, they also use flux and heat interchangably.  And they have absolutely no discernment between heat and temperature. They lack any basic thermal science education, substituting some "stamp-collecting" education. Radiation heat transfer rate is based on temperature differences riased to the 4th power...  W = Area * sigma * T^4 * emmisivity factor and in SI units, W is in Watts, sigma is 5.67 x 10^-8 and T is in Kelvin.  Very little heat transfer happens unless the temperature difference is great, like the Sun compared to seawater. Now for convective heating of oceans by hot air, this is CONTRARY TO NATURAL CONVECTION as heat rises.  Oceans then become very effective INSULATORS TO NATURAL CONVECTION.  And same with the air as it forms boundary layers of essentially equal temperature, killing all convection.

They use energy in watts. It just so happens that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant you posted ALSO uses the units of W/m^2 like they do in the paper.


Whiile you are correct, the difference in temp is important, so is the area involved. The oceans obviously have a tremendous area.


The same applies to convection.

There is indeed global warming.  There will  one day also be global cooling.  This is one of the best graphics showing the cycles we have gone through for thousands of years.  400 years ago people would have been praying for Global Warming.  These things happen - denial only empowers the left.  You should be debating the cause not the temperature change.

So all the polution we produce has no effect on the planet.

Quoted: As I've said many times before.  THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL.  man made or not.  1998 was the warmest year lately and it wasn't as warm as the 30's.   www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded. This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

Heat transfer (flux) would be measured in W/m^2

Heat stored should be W/m^3, but they are only discussing the rate that heat is being pumped into the ocean.  That is correctly a flux.

The heat stored would then produce a flux based on the temperature differance between the source and sink

"This increase in ocean heat storage shows that the planet is out of energy balance," Hansen said. "This energy imbalance implies that the atmosphere and ocean will continue to warm over time, so we will see continuing climate change."

No, it indicates that the air is warmer than the ocean.
It provides no data as to WHY the air may have gotten warmer.

Quoted: Quoted: Then they not only confuse dimensions, they also use flux and heat interchangably.  And they have absolutely no discernment between heat and temperature. They lack any basic thermal science education, substituting some "stamp-collecting" education. Radiation heat transfer rate is based on temperature differences riased to the 4th power...  W = Area * sigma * T^4 * emmisivity factor and in SI units, W is in Watts, sigma is 5.67 x 10^-8 and T is in Kelvin.  Very little heat transfer happens unless the temperature difference is great, like the Sun compared to seawater. Now for convective heating of oceans by hot air, this is CONTRARY TO NATURAL CONVECTION as heat rises.  Oceans then become very effective INSULATORS TO NATURAL CONVECTION.  And same with the air as it forms boundary layers of essentially equal temperature, killing all convection. They use energy in watts. It just so happens that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant you posted ALSO uses the units of W/m^2 like they do in the paper. Whiile you are correct difference in temp is important, so is the area involved. The oceans obviously have a tremendous area. The same applies to convesction.

No, they used the word "STORAGE"!

The enhanced GCM showed the world's oceans were storing heat at a rate of about 0.2 Watts per square meter in 1951, and in the past 50 years, as atmospheric temperatures warmed, the rate of heat storage increased to about .75 Watts per square meter, capturing more heat from the atmosphere

They have no fundamental idea of the interaction of oceans on climate.  Not the slightest clue.

I saw snow for the first time in my life in 2003. I've seen it several times since then. All this in central Texas. Global warming, my ass. Heck, we came out of a 500 year ice age in 1860.

Global temperature change is a natural process that takes place over millennia. It's caused by changes in the sun's radiation output, the earth's orbit (changing from circular to ovoid and back), the earth's axial tilt and wobble, etc. Mankind has diddly-squat to do with global warming.

If a full-on nuclear war wouldn't cause nuclear winter like we thought it would in the Cold War, how the heck would American industry cause the entire planet to get warm and doom the earth? Charcoal and wood cooking fires in China put out more CO2 pollution than all of American industry combined, and I'm pretty sure the Chinese (and everybody else) have been cooking that way for a lot longer than the so-called 'global warming' has been going on.

In any case, if the earth really DID warm to the point that the polar ice caps melted significantly, it would cause ANOTHER ICE AGE. The Atlantic undersea current brings warm water from the south and deposits it between Europe and North America, then sinks with the cold water and brings it down south between South America and Africa. Thus, the Atlantic is circulated and keeps roughly the same temperature. If the ice caps melt, however, enough fresh water will eventually be introduced to the ocean that it cannot achieve the same density when cold. The conveyor belt will break down. Cold northern water will sit in place, cold southern water will sit in place, and warm equatorial water will sit in place. Eventually, the earth would get colder thanks to the break-down in temperature exchange and we'll have another short-term ice age like the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1860. It's even more likely if volcanic activity increases.

Volcanoes can cause global cooling by introducing sulphuric dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the albedo and reflecting more sunlight, reducing the solar radiation absorbed by the earth. This is believed to have caused the Little Ice Age (and later the infamous Year Without A Summer) in conjunction with a temporary break down in the Atlantic currents from the medieval warm period.

Ironically, coal plants produce sulphuric dioxide (of course, even if we converted 100% to coal power, we still can't produce as much as a single volcano, much less a super volcano) and could lead to marginal global warming, but the cult of global warming is 100% against burning coal.

Quoted: I saw snow for the first time in my life in 2003. I've seen it several times since then. All this in central Texas. Global warming, my ass. Heck, we came out of a 500 year ice age in 1860. Global temperature change is a natural process that takes place over millennia. It's caused by changes in the sun's radiation output, the earth's orbit (changing from circular to ovoid and back), the earth's axial tilt and wobble, etc. Mankind has diddly-squat to do with global warming. If a full-on nuclear war wouldn't cause nuclear winter like we thought it would in the Cold War, how the heck would American industry cause the entire planet to get warm and doom the earth? Charcoal and wood cooking fires in China put out more CO2 pollution than all of American industry combined, and I'm pretty sure the Chinese (and everybody else) have been cooking that way for a lot longer than the so-called 'global warming' has been going on. In any case, if the earth really DID warm to the point that the polar ice caps melted significantly, it would cause ANOTHER ICE AGE. The Atlantic undersea current brings warm water from the south and deposits it between Europe and North America, then sinks with the cold water and brings it down south between South America and Africa. Thus, the Atlantic is circulated and keeps roughly the same temperature. If the ice caps melt, however, enough fresh water will eventually be introduced to the ocean that it cannot achieve the same density when cold. The conveyor belt will break down. Cold northern water will sit in place, cold southern water will sit in place, and warm equatorial water will sit in place. Eventually, the earth would get colder thanks to the break-down in temperature exchange and we'll have another short-term ice age like the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1860. It's even more likely if volcanic activity increases. Volcanoes can cause global cooling by introducing sulphuric dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the albedo and reflecting more sunlight, reducing the solar radiation absorbed by the earth. This is believed to have caused the Little Ice Age (and later the infamous Year Without A Summer) in conjunction with a temporary break down in the Atlantic currents from the medieval warm period. Ironically, coal plants produce sulphuric dioxide (of course, even if we converted 100% to coal power, we still can't produce as much as a single volcano, much less a super volcano) and could lead to marginal global warming, but the cult of global warming is 100% against burning coal.

You mean ash dont you. If you didnt mean ash, then you should have. Ash "blocks" out the electromagnetic radiation and causes cooling. Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then they not only confuse dimensions, they also use flux and heat interchangably.  And they have absolutely no discernment between heat and temperature. They lack any basic thermal science education, substituting some "stamp-collecting" education. Radiation heat transfer rate is based on temperature differences riased to the 4th power...  W = Area * sigma * T^4 * emmisivity factor and in SI units, W is in Watts, sigma is 5.67 x 10^-8 and T is in Kelvin.  Very little heat transfer happens unless the temperature difference is great, like the Sun compared to seawater. Now for convective heating of oceans by hot air, this is CONTRARY TO NATURAL CONVECTION as heat rises.  Oceans then become very effective INSULATORS TO NATURAL CONVECTION.  And same with the air as it forms boundary layers of essentially equal temperature, killing all convection. They use energy in watts. It just so happens that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant you posted ALSO uses the units of W/m^2 like they do in the paper. Whiile you are correct difference in temp is important, so is the area involved. The oceans obviously have a tremendous area. The same applies to convesction. No, they used the word "STORAGE"! The enhanced GCM showed the world's oceans were storing heat at a rate of about 0.2 Watts per square meter in 1951, and in the past 50 years, as atmospheric temperatures warmed, the rate of heat storage increased to about .75 Watts per square meter, capturing more heat from the atmosphere They have no fundamental idea of the interaction of oceans on climate.  Not the slightest clue.

No, they are dealing with the heat exchange off the ocean and atmospher and that only occurs at the surface.,
The heat input, a flux, is Watts/m^2.

Quoted: Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes.

Source?

How much "greenhouse gas" does the ocean contribute?

Quoted: Quoted: I saw snow for the first time in my life in 2003. I've seen it several times since then. All this in central Texas. Global warming, my ass. Heck, we came out of a 500 year ice age in 1860. Global temperature change is a natural process that takes place over millennia. It's caused by changes in the sun's radiation output, the earth's orbit (changing from circular to ovoid and back), the earth's axial tilt and wobble, etc. Mankind has diddly-squat to do with global warming. If a full-on nuclear war wouldn't cause nuclear winter like we thought it would in the Cold War, how the heck would American industry cause the entire planet to get warm and doom the earth? Charcoal and wood cooking fires in China put out more CO2 pollution than all of American industry combined, and I'm pretty sure the Chinese (and everybody else) have been cooking that way for a lot longer than the so-called 'global warming' has been going on. In any case, if the earth really DID warm to the point that the polar ice caps melted significantly, it would cause ANOTHER ICE AGE. The Atlantic undersea current brings warm water from the south and deposits it between Europe and North America, then sinks with the cold water and brings it down south between South America and Africa. Thus, the Atlantic is circulated and keeps roughly the same temperature. If the ice caps melt, however, enough fresh water will eventually be introduced to the ocean that it cannot achieve the same density when cold. The conveyor belt will break down. Cold northern water will sit in place, cold southern water will sit in place, and warm equatorial water will sit in place. Eventually, the earth would get colder thanks to the break-down in temperature exchange and we'll have another short-term ice age like the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1860. It's even more likely if volcanic activity increases. Volcanoes can cause global cooling by introducing sulphuric dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the albedo and reflecting more sunlight, reducing the solar radiation absorbed by the earth. This is believed to have caused the Little Ice Age (and later the infamous Year Without A Summer) in conjunction with a temporary break down in the Atlantic currents from the medieval warm period. Ironically, coal plants produce sulphuric dioxide (of course, even if we converted 100% to coal power, we still can't produce as much as a single volcano, much less a super volcano) and could lead to marginal global warming, but the cult of global warming is 100% against burning coal. You mean ash dont you. If you didnt mean ash, then you should have. Ash "blocks" out the electromagnetic radiation and causes cooling. Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes.

No, I mean fucking sulphuric dioxide. Ash is ash.

Which shows you know about as much about volcanoes, greenhouse gasses, and pollution as the average third-grader.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes. Source? How much "greenhouse gas" does the ocean contribute?

Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)


volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html



Oceans contribute a lot, but, they also absorb a lot too.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I saw snow for the first time in my life in 2003. I've seen it several times since then. All this in central Texas. Global warming, my ass. Heck, we came out of a 500 year ice age in 1860. Global temperature change is a natural process that takes place over millennia. It's caused by changes in the sun's radiation output, the earth's orbit (changing from circular to ovoid and back), the earth's axial tilt and wobble, etc. Mankind has diddly-squat to do with global warming. If a full-on nuclear war wouldn't cause nuclear winter like we thought it would in the Cold War, how the heck would American industry cause the entire planet to get warm and doom the earth? Charcoal and wood cooking fires in China put out more CO2 pollution than all of American industry combined, and I'm pretty sure the Chinese (and everybody else) have been cooking that way for a lot longer than the so-called 'global warming' has been going on. In any case, if the earth really DID warm to the point that the polar ice caps melted significantly, it would cause ANOTHER ICE AGE. The Atlantic undersea current brings warm water from the south and deposits it between Europe and North America, then sinks with the cold water and brings it down south between South America and Africa. Thus, the Atlantic is circulated and keeps roughly the same temperature. If the ice caps melt, however, enough fresh water will eventually be introduced to the ocean that it cannot achieve the same density when cold. The conveyor belt will break down. Cold northern water will sit in place, cold southern water will sit in place, and warm equatorial water will sit in place. Eventually, the earth would get colder thanks to the break-down in temperature exchange and we'll have another short-term ice age like the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1860. It's even more likely if volcanic activity increases. Volcanoes can cause global cooling by introducing sulphuric dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the albedo and reflecting more sunlight, reducing the solar radiation absorbed by the earth. This is believed to have caused the Little Ice Age (and later the infamous Year Without A Summer) in conjunction with a temporary break down in the Atlantic currents from the medieval warm period. Ironically, coal plants produce sulphuric dioxide (of course, even if we converted 100% to coal power, we still can't produce as much as a single volcano, much less a super volcano) and could lead to marginal global warming, but the cult of global warming is 100% against burning coal. You mean ash dont you. If you didnt mean ash, then you should have. Ash "blocks" out the electromagnetic radiation and causes cooling. Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes. No, I mean fucking sulphuric dioxide. Ash is ash. Which shows you know about as much about volcanoes, greenhouse gasses, and pollution as the average third-grader.

See my link above. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Ill be waiting............

Looks like we'll have to stop all human activities.I think we should start with the global warming kooks.

Quoted: Looks like we'll have to stop all human activities.I think we should start with the global warming kooks.

These are my favorite posts in GW threads.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh, and humans put WAYYYY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then volcanoes. Source? How much "greenhouse gas" does the ocean contribute?

Hmmmm - Just how does one measure the methane produced when a whale farts?

Sorry for the distraction - you can get back to your argument now....

Well globing warming or cooling it looks like we're gonna die either way.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then they not only confuse dimensions, they also use flux and heat interchangably.  And they have absolutely no discernment between heat and temperature. They lack any basic thermal science education, substituting some "stamp-collecting" education. Radiation heat transfer rate is based on temperature differences riased to the 4th power...  W = Area * sigma * T^4 * emmisivity factor and in SI units, W is in Watts, sigma is 5.67 x 10^-8 and T is in Kelvin.  Very little heat transfer happens unless the temperature difference is great, like the Sun compared to seawater. Now for convective heating of oceans by hot air, this is CONTRARY TO NATURAL CONVECTION as heat rises.  Oceans then become very effective INSULATORS TO NATURAL CONVECTION.  And same with the air as it forms boundary layers of essentially equal temperature, killing all convection. They use energy in watts. It just so happens that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant you posted ALSO uses the units of W/m^2 like they do in the paper. Whiile you are correct difference in temp is important, so is the area involved. The oceans obviously have a tremendous area. The same applies to convesction. No, they used the word "STORAGE"! The enhanced GCM showed the world's oceans were storing heat at a rate of about 0.2 Watts per square meter in 1951, and in the past 50 years, as atmospheric temperatures warmed, the rate of heat storage increased to about .75 Watts per square meter, capturing more heat from the atmosphere They have no fundamental idea of the interaction of oceans on climate.  Not the slightest clue. No, they are dealing with the heat exchange off the ocean and atmospher and that only occurs at the surface., The heat input, a flux, is Watts/m^2.

Why did they EXPRESSEDLY use the term "STORAGE"?  They are dimensional RETARDS.