Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures ...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TheRedneck

I love it when you get all sciencey...

So much of this is agenda driven, even where the science is concerned. Grant money. Tenure. Other assorted political intrigues.

Sometime very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

In terms of scientific results, not true.

Who gets the science, yeah, politics (ooh Harvard vs Yale). What the laws of physics and the experimental results say---not politics.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Now you are a little too smart to be showing me a Land AND Ocean graph and pretend its just land. So you are deliberately trying to use trickery here.

Temperature is falling over land. Ocean will take longer because it retains more heat.

Experimental results show conclusively: temperature is rising over land. Temperature is rising in ocean.

There is no inertia with temperature. If there was a cooling flux, then temperature goes down immediately. There is no "continuation" of temperature rise from past heat input. If the oceans were cooling, we would see them cooling now. They are not.

Land is not cooling either.

It looks like CO2 isn't even a factor hear. Its all natural. Its been natural all along (although I don't discount a small effect from CO2), However, increased CO2 has been beneficial having increased earth's greening by 14 % and increased yields for grain crops.

More CO2 increases yield (not necessarily nutrition---more empty carb calories aren't so great), assuming you keep temperature and water the same. That is not the problem. Excess temperatures, in particular at night, can hurt agricultural biological processes. But most importantly, the disruption of the hydrological cycle is critical. What you want, like in California, is lots of snow to be deposited in high mountains, which will then melt and run-off in a nice managable streams during spring and summer growing seasons. Global warming means that there is more deluge of winter rain, less snow, putting at risk of destructive floods, and subsequently less long-term water available to humans in snowpack and reservoirs.

originally posted by: mbkennel
...
There is no inertia with temperature. If there was a cooling flux, then temperature goes down immediately. There is no "continuation" of temperature rise from past heat input.
...

Then explain to me why I have to remove that roast or turkey from the oven a bit before the interior temperature reaches the target temperature, or maybe more easy to understand: removing it from the oven, the exterior ceases to increase in temperature, and in fact begins cooling through radiative means, yet the interior temperature continues to rise.

a reply to: mbkennel

Really?

When two scientists using the same data come up with two very dissimilar results in their research and the one gets the grant money, I find that somewhat political in nature.

In science there's always politics. Always.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So now warm water sinks?

Does ice float?

There's a reason lakes don't tend to freeze from the bottom up.

e: More to the point, though... winds push the ocean's surface towards Asia, which kind of piles up the warmer waters to the East. It makes the Pacific a bit lopsided, if one were to look at the surface and the deep waters. Sea level can be over a foot higher in Southeast Asia than in South America. This allows the colder, deep ocean waters to rise nearer to the surface on the American side, and pushes the warmer, surface ocean waters deeper on the Asian side.

El Niño is a weakening of the trade winds, which result in a more evenly distributed ocean surface temperature. La Niña is the reverse; the trade winds strengthen, making the effect more pronounced.

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: mbkennel
...
There is no inertia with temperature. If there was a cooling flux, then temperature goes down immediately. There is no "continuation" of temperature rise from past heat input.
...

Then explain to me why I have to remove that roast or turkey from the oven a bit before the interior temperature reaches the target temperature, or maybe more easy to understand: removing it from the oven, the exterior ceases to increase in temperature, and in fact begins cooling through radiative means, yet the interior temperature continues to rise.

While the turkey was cooking, there was a heat flux from the outside to the inside. So there is a temperature gradient in the meat---outside is hotter than inside.

Take turkey out from oven. Now there is a thin cooler part on the outside, a hottest part in the middle and a little bit cooler in the center. The heat continues to diffuse according to the laws of physics, so if you measured the temperature in the center, it would continue to rise as the hottest section diffuses.

If you had instruments capable of measuring the total heat content throughout the turkey and take into account composition, heat capacity, phase changes, chemicals, etc, you would find that total energy starts to decrease when you take the turkey out.

Notice, your observation doesn't happen when you cook with a microwave which deposits its heating more uniformly throughout the volume of the dish.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

The arctic is warming faster because the ice is melting faster(less reflection and more absorption) and not by 'global warming from increased greenhouse effect

There is another el-nino with north-south basis called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that has caused the artic to shrink and ice on antartica to grow. Given the vast majprity of historic temperature gauges have existed in northern hemisphere, the PDO has given a false history of global temperature changes over the past few decades.

When the PDO was last heating the Northern oceans in the 1930's the artic shrunk but started recovering in late 1940's

Its cyclic.




Enlarged pic here

An 800ft long cruise ship sailed from Alaska to New York through ice-free areas during August of 2016, yet these are iced over in that image above.

Seems a bit different, no?

a reply to: Greven

The cruise ship was escorted by an ice breaker.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

The cruise ship was escorted by an ice breaker.

As a precaution, sure - but that ice breaker didn't need to break any ice.

a reply to: Greven

please provide proof of your assertion. BTW - there were 7 ice breakers in the area. And an ice breaker Shackleton was leading the way.

Also BTW - this isn't the first cruise ship to visit the artic.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

please provide proof of your assertion. BTW - there were 7 ice breakers in the area. And an ice breaker Shackleton was leading the way.

Also BTW - this isn't the first cruise ship to visit the artic.

And? It's not the largest ship ever through there, but it is one of the ships least equipped to make the transit. Yet, it did so successfully.

Also, you claimed the ice breaker was there, and your insinuation was that they had to clear ice for the ship to pass, so how about you prove that they were needed, instead.

Here's a thought, from 8 years ago, about how well you're likely to support such an idea:

Rayes, who was on the vessel during its trip through the Northwest Passage, said the company informed the coast guard, which put an icebreaker on standby.

"They were ready to be there for us if we called them, but I didn't see one cube of ice," he said.

"They were informed about our presence [and] they were ready to give us the support needed. However, since there was no ice whatsoever, the service was not needed, we didn't call for it."

Ice extent was much lower this year and this rather large ship made the transit 8 years ago without the need for an ice breaker to do any ice breaking. Still, it was only a bit over half the length of the Crystal Serenity.

I suppose the ship you're talking about was the ice-strengthened cruise ship Lindblad Explorer, which did make the transit way back in 1984. This does not compare at all with the unstrengthened Crystal Serenity. That ship (now lost after hitting an iceberg in the Antarctic back in 2007) was less than a third the length of the Crystal Serenity; substantially smaller in every regard - it carried less than 1/10th the passengers and crew.

Talk about trying to mislead people...

a reply to: Greven

yeah - well that is a lot of blather. But where is the proof that the Crystal Springs did not use an ice breaker. How do you know that the Shackleton, an icebreaker leading the way, did not break ice.

Its a simple question. The proof must be close at hand

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

yeah - well that is a lot of blather. But where is the proof that the Crystal Springs did not use an ice breaker. How do you know that the Shackleton, an icebreaker leading the way, did not break ice.

Its a simple question. The proof must be close at hand

Again, you insinuated that it was needed. My remark was that it was not.

Prove that the ice breaker was needed.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

The cruise ship was escorted by an ice breaker.

As a precaution, sure - but that ice breaker didn't need to break any ice.

why in heavens name do I need to prove anything. YOU made the assertion. Now prove it.

Actually, don't bother, I can tell from all the dancing around that you are doing that you cannot prove it.

Tired of Control Freaks

People seem to forget how many times, over and over, repeated throughout history, scientists get it wrong

Oh really, our entire modern existence is based on science. Almost everything everyone does every day depends on science whether it's cooking your food, transportation, entertainment or work. They may make mistakes, but they're a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than most people.

I will trust scientists over retarded, fundamentalist, selfish politicians, business people or internet trolls any day.

a reply to: CB328

So would I! however, climate change is not a science. Its officially merged with the catholic church as one religion.

www.catholic.org...

In the United States, global climate change is a hot topic. Particularly among Catholics who tend to be politically conservative. American political conservatives don't usually accept the science on global warming. The problem? The Catholic Church does accept the science, and now there's a request that priests learn about it as part of their formation.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

The cruise ship was escorted by an ice breaker.

As a precaution, sure - but that ice breaker didn't need to break any ice.

why in heavens name do I need to prove anything. YOU made the assertion. Now prove it.

Actually, don't bother, I can tell from all the dancing around that you are doing that you cannot prove it.

You're the one dancing around. Your entire purpose in mentioning an ice breaker was to cast doubt on how the unstrengthened cruise liner got through the area. Again, that was your insinuation. That's why you brought it up. That's why you're here now - to cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change and the resultant effect on Arctic sea ice.

How the Crystal Serenity made it through the Northwest Passage is pretty clear, though - there wasn't really ice to go through. They saw it in the distance a few times during the trip, but they didn't have to sail through it. Couple that route with this:


So yeah, I can prove it. You're wrong about the icebreaker being needed, and you're obviously wrong about me not being able to prove otherwise. Pretty pathetic, eh.

originally posted by: CB328

People seem to forget how many times, over and over, repeated throughout history, scientists get it wrong

I will trust scientists over retarded, fundamentalist, selfish politicians, business people or internet trolls any day.

Yes but the problem is those scientists are funded by retarded, fundamentalist, selfish politicians, business people.

And the scientists that working independent are seen as uneducated, egocentric conspiracy quacks.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: CB328

So would I! however, climate change is not a science. Its officially merged with the catholic church as one religion.

www.catholic.org...

In the United States, global climate change is a hot topic. Particularly among Catholics who tend to be politically conservative. American political conservatives don't usually accept the science on global warming. The problem? The Catholic Church does accept the science, and now there's a request that priests learn about it as part of their formation.

Gee wiz, they want priests to learn about climate change.

I imagine they probably learned about telephones, computers, and cell phones at some point. Climate change is an important thing to teach in particular, since missionaries often help impoverished people - those most impacted by climate change.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Yes but the problem is those scientists are funded by retarded, fundamentalist, selfish politicians, business people.

And the scientists that working independent are seen as uneducated, egocentric conspiracy quacks.

Who are these independent scientists, exactly?

Are they just some nebulous secret majority?