It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 21
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am sorry but I do not know what period the average was taken. From about 1960s onwards

I haven't seen any data that shows heat continues to be retained.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

ok but you are going to need to show me the data in temperature - not heat content. I have no concept or perception of heat content.
Tired of Control Freaks

Warmists prefer to measure ocean heat in terms of joules or Hiroshima bombs. The increase in ocean heat content over the last 30 years is generally given at around 17x10^22 to a depth of 2,000 meters. That looks like an awful lot of joules, but joules are units of energy, not heat, and so you would need to convert them into calories. One calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius and there are about 4.2 joules to a calorie, so the total calorie increase over the period is (17/4.2)x10^22 = 4.05x10^22 calories. That is still a very big number, but the mass of water in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans is also a very big number. The total mass of the oceans are 1.4x10^24 grams and the average depth is around 4,000 meters. Thus the mass of the oceans down to 2,000 meters should be around 7x10^23 grams. So the total amount of warming of the top 2,000 metres of ocean over the past 30 years is (4.05x10^22 )/(7x10^23) = 0.06°C. Levitus et al (2012) estimates 0.09°C, so only 0.004°C off. Of course because water has the highest specific heat of any substance on the planet it warms by the smallest amount through absorbing a given amount of energy and so if those joules/calories were put into the atmosphere instead, the temperature increase would be more than 0.06°C.
edit on 13-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Thank you Nathan-D. This is very helpful.

and of course we have to wait until after the summer to calculate the amount of heat lost from the ocean during the last El Nino.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

now I can understand the chart - at least better than I did before Nathan-D's helpful contribution.

Now the heat in the ocean may have started going up in the 1960s but it did not spike above average until about 1985.

You will excuse me if I can't tell if there was a pause or not. I am confident that data concerning ocean heat is even more variable and harder to measure than atmospheric temperature.

In any event, we have no idea or concept or perception as to what the normal range of variation is in ocean heat. Consider also that the ocean loses its heat only every 20 years or so when conditions are right to discharge heat through an El Nino event.

although your graph is interesting and now that I know how to read it, I will be watching it more.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No, you guys are just high fiving(starring) each other's ignorance on the topic.

Our species is no doubt changing this planets climate, burning fossil fuels for energy is a major contributor to this change.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No, you guys are just high fiving(starring) each other's ignorance on the topic.

Well please, clear up our misunderstandings and enlighten us oh-amazing one since you are evidently so knowledgeable on this topic and no doubt understand all of the complex equations and maths involved. Lay it all out for us then.


originally posted by: jrodOur species is no doubt changing this planets climate, burning fossil fuels for energy is a major contributor to this change,

Sure, we are changing the climate and have increased global atmospheric CO2 levels. Skeptics are merely disagreeing with the fundamental assumption that the CO2 increase is the main cause of global warming. That is all.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Sure, we are changing the climate and have increased global atmospheric CO2 levels. Skeptics are merely disagreeing with the fundamental assumption that the CO2 increase is the main cause of global warming. That is all.


that 1st sentence seems to contradict the 2nd



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

I gather that we both agree that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly over-estimated. That "scientist" don't know enough about climate drivers and interactions to predict anything? That data gathering and "adjustments" are highly questionable.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Sure, we are changing the climate and have increased global atmospheric CO2 levels. Skeptics are merely disagreeing with the fundamental assumption that the CO2 increase is the main cause of global warming. That is all.


that 1st sentence seems to contradict the 2nd

Where is the contradiction? How does 'humans have changed the climate by increasing CO2 levels' and 'the increase in CO2 levels is not the main cause of global warming' in any way contradict each other?
edit on 16-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Nathan-D

I gather that we both agree that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly over-estimated. That "scientist" don't know enough about climate drivers and interactions to predict anything? That data gathering and "adjustments" are highly questionable.

Tired of Control Freaks

Yes, we agree on all those points.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Meanwhile here in sunny QLD in Australia where its usually warm to hot, its freezing with rain and gusty winds..........

Climate change? NO

Climate shift? probably yes, the weather patterns are just shifting around our planet due to changing jet streams.

Dont worry, if it hasnt changed in 11 years i'll worry then.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Your are intentionally being obtuse on the subject or possibly just that freaking ignorant.

Pretending like man's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is not significant, and the scientifically proven concept of radiative forcing tells me and the rest of the ATS board that you are a poor student if science.

One does not need science, facts, and proven concepts to influence a crowd. It appears to me that you use the rules of disinformation to make your point, while my self and many others prefer to use science, observations, and proven concepts to make our point.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

Its called seasons mate. Right now the land down under is experiencing a season called winter, where a reasonable person would expect cold temperatures.
edit on 16-7-2016 by jrod because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2016 by jrod because: f



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No need to be a smart-ass Jrod, maybe i should have mentioned (unusually cold ) for the simpletons.

FFS



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

Your are intentionally being obtuse on the subject or possibly just that freaking ignorant.

Pretending like man's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is not significant, and the scientifically proven concept of radiative forcing tells me and the rest of the ATS board that you are a poor student if science.

I think it is you who is being “intentionally obtuse” and it is transparent too. The reality of a human contribution to atmospheric CO2 and the reality of radiative forcing is not what the dispute around AGW is about. Most skeptics agree that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 120ppmv (and I will accept it too for argument’s sake). The central question at issue is that of the size of the warming. My position, which I believe is shared by skeptics generally, is that human CO2 emissions are having a real warming effect but there is no evidence to support the idea that the increase in CO2 has been the main cause of global warming. So as I understand it, being a skeptic (as I and TiredOfControlFreaks are) does not mean that one doesn’t believe in the factual reality of CO2 radiative forcing, as you imply. It just means that one doesn’t believe it is big enough to take world-disrupting measures to counteract or pre-empt.
edit on 16-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

And if I may take the liberty Nathan-D, it also doesn't mean that we have a "fossil fuels" to the bitter end mind-set either or that we don't support issues of environmental protection.

It means most of all - that we refuse to live in fear and be controlled by that fear.

It means we want EFFECTIVE actions taken and not this hodge podge of strategies that end up making the situation worst.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Where have I wrote anything about living in fear?

Coming up with solutions to help this planet's health is not fear mongering, nor is discussing the reality of the damage done.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Sure, we are changing the climate and have increased global atmospheric CO2 levels. Skeptics are merely disagreeing with the fundamental assumption that the CO2 increase is the main cause of global warming. That is all.


that 1st sentence seems to contradict the 2nd

Where is the contradiction? How does 'humans have changed the climate by increasing CO2 levels' and 'the increase in CO2 levels is not the main cause of global warming' in any way contradict each other?


are you joking ? trolling ?



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Sure, we are changing the climate and have increased global atmospheric CO2 levels. Skeptics are merely disagreeing with the fundamental assumption that the CO2 increase is the main cause of global warming. That is all.


that 1st sentence seems to contradict the 2nd

Where is the contradiction? How does 'humans have changed the climate by increasing CO2 levels' and 'the increase in CO2 levels is not the main cause of global warming' in any way contradict each other?


are you joking ? trolling ?

You said there was a contradiction. So, stop wasting my time and point out where you think the contradiction is in what I have said.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

You said there was a contradiction. So, stop wasting my time and point out where you think the contradiction is in what I have said.


"have changed"

"not the main cause"

seems like quibbling on semantics eh ?

and of course it is the main cause. going back 250 years the data for the CO2 and the temps match. until there is a better match it has to be considered the reason.




top topics



 
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join