Posted on 01/16/2008 9:59:15 AM PST by dangus
Yup, it'll be right below the article praising George Bush's successful Iraq policy..
>> Not really. flowing fresh water can be a few degrees below freezing temperature, it won’t freeze because it’s moving. <<
My point was that the water won’t be cooling the ocean water off. I don’t think flowing’s an issue, but I’d imagine the further exposure to the sun would be much more of an issue.
What impresses me is that they can tell the temperature down to 1/10,000 of a degree!
No they won't. Whale oil floats on water. It will wash up on shore and coat shore birds and rocks giving envirowienies something to do, scrubbing naturally occurring oil off shore rocks with toothbrushes.
It's a good thing their enviro wienie teacher doesn't show them pics of Gaia (mother earth) spewing oil from little fissures on the ocean floor from time to time. It would be interesting to see how they would stop Gaia from doing that though.
I'm amazed they haven't given Gaia a strongly worded letter about all that oil she spewed up, polluting all of northern Alberta (tar sands) with evil oil over that past few thousand years.
They can’t. I could have said .2493 +/- .5, and denied global warming at all. :^D But there is something relevant about comparing same fruits to same fruits, even if you can’t tell if the fruits are apples or oranges.
OK, that does it. I’m moving some latitudes south. I HATE cold weather.
OIC. I thought it was to decimate the global warming freaks claim it warms up the ocean, because they assume assume melted glacier water to be warmer. Either way they are full of caca.
Instead, they are clomplaining that we are actually cleaning up all that oil soaked sand. Go figure...
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
I know. That's my point. ;)
yep. The fools who worship at the alter of AGW cannot be reasoned with. They soak up the B.S. at realclimate and other Soros backed sites. They are totally pessimistic. They are lusting after the destruction of our way of life, all in the effort to make themselves feel important. I wish all these fools how believe in AGW would sterilize themselves, sterilize their children and go live in a cave. Then they can live out their lives believing they are doing the right thing. The end result of the anti-human AGW crazies is the utter destruction of our civilization. They are a sick and twisted bunch. They are at their core, evil.
If La Nina pulls heat energy out of the atmosphere and deposits it in the ocean, shouldn’t the ocean be warming as the atmosphere cools?
Doesn’t the first law of thermodynamics apply to Earth as Earth’s solar radiation intake is factored as a constant?
Where did the excess heat energy come from during those warmer-than-today periods in the 1940s that you reference if the oceans and the atmosphere were both warmer at the same time? Greenhouse effect can’t account for it since we are told there is more greenhouse effect now than back then.
>> This is confusing. In which instances are you referring to atmospheric temperature and in which instances are you referring to oceanic temperatures? <<
Mostly, I’m referring to oceanic surface temperatures.
>> If La Nina pulls heat energy out of the atmosphere and deposits it in the ocean, shouldn’t the ocean be warming as the atmosphere cools? <<
That’s not what La Nina is about.
>> Doesn’t the first law of thermodynamics apply to Earth as Earth’s solar radiation intake is factored as a constant? <<
Not at all. The “spare change” alone in thermodynamics could vaporize the earth in a flash. The following are all variable:
1. The rate the sun produces energy.
2. The efficiency with which the earth absorbs energy.
3. The efficiency with which the earth reflects energy.
4. The rate at which the earth radiates energy.
5. The rate at which the earth stores energy in chemical bonds.
6. The rate at which the earth moves heat internally.
Long before we approach scales which make thermodynamics relevant at a system-wide scale, we even get:
7. The rate at which the earth generates energy through nuclear decay.
Global average and global mean temperatures are ABSOLUTELY meaningless in a non-equilibrum environment such as the Earth.
Also, what does 99 degrees and 1 degree averaged mean to you compared to 45 degrees and 55 degrees averaged mean to you? From the two datasets, what does the average of 50 degrees tell you about each dataset?
Answer: NOTHING!
In which places were you referring to atmospheric temperatures?
If La Nina pulls heat energy out of the atmosphere and deposits it in the ocean, shouldn’t the ocean be warming as the atmosphere cools?
That’s not what La Nina is about.
What does La Nina do with the heat energy that it removes from the atmosphere?
>> In which places were you referring to atmospheric temperatures? <<
Nowhere.
>> What does La Nina do with the heat energy that it removes from the atmosphere? <<
Where did you get the idea that La Nina removes heat from the atmosphere? It’s an oceanic effect, not an atmospheric effect.
See iceage.com
La Nina is supposed to be a cooling forcer. You can look it up and find thousands of references about how La Nina is factored as a cooling forcer in the global climate change calculations. I think we can agree that La Nina can't destroy heat energy so what does La Nina do with it?
Just a couple of weeks ago we were getting predictions that the Earth would cool in 2008 BECAUSE OF La Nina.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.